PS I've postet this topic also at http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=11758 Sorry, I did not want to span the forum, but I'm not sure which thread is the right one :stickout Sorry for this!

Hello everybody,

I've got a really good offer from a german reseller of cobaltracks. I'll get quite a lot of space... therefore just a "virtual server" and not the entire box.

I got scared when I found all the negative stuff about cobaltracks... and this is the reason why I'm writing this post.

FIRST of all... yes this stuff scared me but I'm NOT the sort of person who keeps on having a negative opinion coz of "old" problems.

Therefore, is there somebody having a raq at cobaltrack.com NOW, in this moment? Could you please tell me how they are working since about 1 month? Are there still problems NOW? Any downtimes? Any problems?

Support is not important (at least not sooo much) coz I buy only a piece of the server through my german reseller... so I'll get support directly from them.

Thanks a LOT for every advice or comment :-)

Greets,
Tortellini

They are doing pretty well. Their average network speed has doubled. I would recommend them to any one over any other company offering the same solution. Their support has been gr8 too.

thanx for your comment. could you pls tell me the average ping time you get? from italy I keep on getting an average of 200ms (and this is quite normal for US servers here).

any other happy/unhappy customers? :D

thanks again!:stickout

traceroute to 208.155.6*.*** (208.155.6*.***), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets
1 195.30.0.115 0.517 ms 0.371 ms 0.342 ms
2 193.149.44.2 1.038 ms 0.616 ms 0.717 ms
3 195.158.244.133 1.157 ms 0.812 ms 0.693 ms
4 213.174.70.13 0.955 ms 0.940 ms 0.797 ms
5 195.158.236.41 6.809 ms 6.297 ms 6.239 ms
6 213.174.70.141 6.908 ms 6.260 ms 6.635 ms
7 213.174.71.249 19.373 ms 19.210 ms 19.232 ms
8 213.174.72.13 102.161 ms 102.434 ms 102.079 ms
9 204.255.168.121 102.950 ms 102.353 ms 102.199 ms
10 152.63.18.222 103.329 ms 103.487 ms 102.294 ms
11 152.63.23.142 102.344 ms 102.310 ms 102.620 ms
12 152.63.15.182 102.415 ms 102.311 ms 102.366 ms
13 146.188.141.197 108.284 ms 109.647 ms 108.263 ms
14 152.63.35.250 108.518 ms 108.923 ms 109.565 ms
15 146.188.162.181 108.273 ms 109.034 ms 108.298 ms
16 65.195.226.66 110.558 ms 110.801 ms 111.150 ms
17 208.155.6*.**120.562 ms 114.966 ms 113.154 ms


http://www.space.net/cgi-bin/webtrace?host=yourhost.com

Its about 850 ms from Pakistan. The average responce of any server from here is 800 ms.

I dont know about any other customers, but we have 2 raq's acting as our testing and backup servers.

I am glad I could provide some assistance.

thanks again Arsalan... puuh... and I was thinking that italian connectivity was the worst around :D

I'd be very happy if other cobaltracks.com customer could tell me about their experience...

btw... I'm running a website with about 3,000,000 pageviews monthly and about 30 gigs of traffic. therefore you can understand why I'm sitting here, stressing you in this forum. ;) and unfortunately I can not go on spending about $200 monthly for an iserver.net virtual private server :(

Greets,
Tortellini

I would suggest not going for a RAQ then. The backup solution they offer is a real pain in the a$$ and will restoring a RAQ will take you a long long time. It took us a week to restore 50 sites using all the shell tools etc. cobalt had to offer.

Try going for a redhat box, You might be better of with it.

*just my 2 cents*

thanks again.

this does really NOT sound good... puhhh I'm getting white hair now... I was really thinking that a cheap cobalt could be the (cheap!) solution.

are there good and relieble redhat resellers around? I mean.... will I get enough resources (cpu usage and so on) by spending $100 per month somewhere else?

Any suggestion MORE than welcome
tortellini

Try burst.net, or skynetweb.com (good support) or server4you.com (i think its the right url, havent tried em yet)

And one of member's site: http://www.99servers.com

sorry if I go on repeating this: "THANKS" :)

np :D

sorry for bothering you again. dooes somebody of you know hot burst.net reacts in cases of heavy cpu usage?

as you know right now I'm at iserver.net... the last thing I want is to get some troubles coz of my cgis...

cheers,
tortellini

Dear Tortellini,
If you want to change from cobalt to redhat, make sure you use red hat 6.2...do not use red hat 7.0 there are more bugs in there...

The right solutions is, use DI linux 6.2 (a dialtoneinternet.net OS based on red hat 6.2)

An the right machine is IBM x-servers....more information you can get on www.dialtoneinternet.net not a cheap price, but their support is the best.:):)

I think that is an affordable price...:):)

bye
Adhytia WS

Originally posted by tortellini
sorry for bothering you again. dooes somebody of you know hot burst.net reacts in cases of heavy cpu usage?

as you know right now I'm at iserver.net... the last thing I want is to get some troubles coz of my cgis...

cheers,
tortellini

With iserver, you are getting a virtual dedicated server. Don't worry about the term much, as it is actually different than a regular virtual shared hosting account.

Once you switch to a fully dedicated server, you are free to kill the cpu all yopu want (though your visitors might not want to go to a slow site on a bogged down server). Let the cgi's run wild and free and frolic in the bandwidth!

It comes down to needs, and what you *need* to run the scripts you want to run. Like anything else, if you outgrow the cheap server, you upgrade. No matter how big, there is a solution (though that solution may cost ya' a bit more than $100/mo :D ).

hi chicken,

thanx for your suggestion :D

but please allow me one more short question, generally spaking about cpu/memory usage... can I say that:

"if the scripts are working/tollerated on a vps of iserver, they will also be working/tollerated at a "vps" at burstnet... and this with a similar performance"

Please do not laugh at me, but if you want you can ;) I'm a bit scared about ordering MY OWN dedicated server...

I'm so used to have smaller, fully managed accounts .... and I get nightmares if I think that... shall I do a mistake (ME and nobody else) on my dedicated server... I could cause a great chaos/downtimes/ecc..... well, I just prefer "less power" and therefore "less risk to destroy everything by myself" :D.

I prefer to be a happy little customer for as long as possible :stickout

Thanks,
tortellini:D

Unless I'm mistaken, your server at iserver isn't a dedicated server, it is a server that is split up into ohhh I dunno, 16 pieces-ish (someone correct me if I'm wrong in that guess), and thus you were really only able to use a percentage of the CPU and ram. Each of these pieces is very much like a dedicated server besides this (guessing you had root access, yadda yadda).

With a real dedicated server, you should see better performance, and as I mentioned before, there won't be anything that won't be tollerated (well read the TOS for content/irc bots, etc.). As opposed to the iservers 'server' you'll have 100% to kill (the whole box).

If you dont know much of unix then its best to go for a cobalt or a shared hosting account. Cobalts are easy to manage no doubt about that but they have their disadvantages. How about you post your requirements here so that we can suggest the best solution for you?

chicken thanks again,

no i did not missunderstand you... and i know the difference between a virtual thing and a dedicated thing :)

you say: "..., and thus you were really only able to use a percentage of the CPU and ram. Each of these pieces is very much like a dedicated server besides this (guessing you had root access, yadda yadda). "

yep i know this about percentage ... cpu time limits and so on... the fact is that I'm NOT able to find concrete infos about the limits iserver/burst has....

therefore (sorry for the again) again my question:

"if the scripts are working/tollerated on a vps of iserver, they will also be working/tollerated at a "vps" at burstnet... and this with a similar performance?"


I'd be VERY happy if you could compare, as far as possible the two hosts in terms of cpu usage

btw
iserver.net -> vps with 800mb
burst.net -> linux max


thanks again.. I hope you are not going to kill me for stressing you so much ;)

tortellini
----------------

4 ARSALAN... can you remember in the other thread where you told me about "potential long term time to rebuild a damaged cobalt box"?

Well... this is way I decided to FORGET cobalt, and to follow your suggestion about going on with a linux box.

my site makes 30gigs of traffic per month, and works "only" with cgis. therefore NO sql, php or stuff like this.

I'm using gossamer threads LINKS (flat db) as a database... and the db is about 2megs big. i know i know... i should move to sql... but .. *sigh* I can't do it coz of different reasons (no knowledge, no help etc).

right now I've 800 megs and its getting quite full ;)))

thanks :)

--------------------------

p.s. I did already contact burst.net asking them about cpu usage... all I got was a generic answer, telling me that LINUX MAX is the right one for "heavy cgi usage"... but no details :confused:

I suggest you go for a dedicated Linux box, burstnet offers managed servers so you should be fine, but get the tape backup solution. this should cost you less then your current iserver solution.

tortellini in regards to your question:

"if the scripts are working/tollerated on a vps of iserver, they will also be working/tollerated at a "vps" at burstnet... and this with a similar performance?"

I thought you are currently using the iserver.net -> vps with 800mb - yes?

Hi Chicken,

yes right now I'm on a vps with 800mb at iserver.net

I want to move coz it's getting so expensive compared to others. Therefore I was first thinking about a cobalt.. which I decided not to do.... now I'm thinking about a virtual account (max linus) at burst...

cheers for ur help :)
tortellini

I'm sorry, now I get you... unfortunately I thought this was a fully dedicated linux box compared to a iserver virt. server, and if burst said they thought it would work then you can only go by what they say. I don't know how they run those accounts. Sorry for the delay in figuring out what you were talking about.... my bad.

Thanks a lot and pls do not worry about the missunderstanding. I've gone through the forum searching by the burstnet posts... and at least nobody complained about "not supporting of heavy scripts". Perhaps this should already be sort of confirmation for me. Anyway... I'm thinking about signing up with them... and then we will see ;)

Thanks again Chicken!

Glad to have not helped one bit :D

:D