Ok,
What do you guys think of calpop "NOW" not 6 months ago!
Is there any one here who uses them now?
I wanted some opinions on them (only if you using them at this verry moment or after they got level3)

Thanks

Hoping to get a box there real soon...will tell how it is if it happens :D

Their design made me close the window in a fraction of a second!

^ That was a pointless post. i could give 2 shi** what the website looks like...

arcadie.... do you have anything to do with sg1 archive?

whats that?
no i run a game server buisness and im looking for an affordable west coast location.
www.SyckoServers.net
anything over $150 for a single p4 will make me lose money..

A friend of mine works for calpop and they are doing alot better now. They have 3gigabits of bandwidth from 3 different providers and are considering adding a 4th gigabit line from aleron. They have began getting more and more stable. As for their website I dog him about that everytime I talk to him and it actually does look better now then it did before which is the sad part but they are actually in the works of a brand new website. The pings to calpop are very good and the new prices they do I like alot. They used to have a $300 setup fee on all servers but got rid of it and the prices are looking very nice.

They have great service and actually have 24 hour phone support which is a major plus

Sorry I forgot to address support at all as we mostly setup servers and as long as they running never use support and with my friend working there I've never had an issue with contacting him on support I usually worry more about network and reliability.

Arcadie if you think 150 is too much....managed is your best bet...good luck with that

^^ you use calpop... calpop
$125
p4 3.0
1 gb ram
1500 gb/month

i didn't say i don't use calpop, ... but i haven't checked out calpop's new pricing scheme and for your price range seemed like managed would have been your best bet

yea calpop has new pricing, and the network is better than managed.
dual xeon 2.4
1 gb ram
for only 185 isnt bad at all -)

better network? looks pretty scary to me... (this might ofcourse be icmp rate limiting or sth. like that)


12 anhmca1wcx3-pos12-0-oc192.wcg.net (64.200.240.249) 181.208 ms 180.962 ms 190.995 ms
13 lsanca1wcx1-pos6-0.wcg.net (64.200.210.250) 181.908 ms 181.269 ms 181.657 ms
14 lsanca9lca1-3-4.wcg.net (64.200.139.78) 557.151 ms * 565.444 ms
15 * 216.240.152.9 (216.240.152.9) 569.76 ms 558.146 ms

So anyone satisfied with CalPop? I am needing a West location bad and calpop pricing fits my needs... just are they reliable? I need a current customer to reply to this one... I need to know from the perspective of an experienced calpop customer.... anyone?


Thanks
Jesse

Traceroutes from three geographic locations;




Tracing route to calpop.com [216.240.152.9]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 19 ms 20 ms 19 ms d207-216-48-254.bchsia.telus.net [207.216.48.254]
2 20 ms 20 ms 20 ms 208.181.240.2
3 51 ms 51 ms 49 ms nwmrbc01br01.bb.telus.com [154.11.10.105]
4 49 ms 51 ms 51 ms sttlwa01gr02.bb.telus.com [209.53.75.178]
5 49 ms 49 ms 49 ms plalca01gr00.bb.telus.com [154.11.10.2]
6 47 ms 46 ms 46 ms XO.plalca01gr00.bb.telus.com [154.11.3.146]
7 49 ms 50 ms 50 ms p5-2-0.RAR2.SanJose-CA.us.xo.net [65.106.5.177]
8 55 ms 55 ms 56 ms p6-0-0.RAR1.LA-CA.us.xo.net [65.106.0.17]
9 57 ms 58 ms 56 ms p0-0-0.MAR1.LA-CA.us.xo.net [65.106.5.6]
10 56 ms 56 ms 55 ms p1-0.CHR1.LA-CA.us.xo.net [207.88.81.166]
11 55 ms 56 ms 56 ms 66.238.50.78.ptr.us.xo.net [66.238.50.78]
12 58 ms 57 ms 58 ms 64.0.144.6.ptr.us.xo.net [64.0.144.6]
13 57 ms 57 ms 57 ms 216.240.152.9

Trace complete.




# traceroute calpop.com
traceroute to calpop.com (216.240.152.9), 64 hops max, 44 byte packets
1 67.19.121.113 (67.19.121.113) 1.159 ms 1.058 ms 1.211 ms
2 dsr2-1-vl3.dllstx4.theplanet.com (67.18.116.1) 1.132 ms 1.046 ms 0.215 ms
3 ibr2-ae1-v2.dllstx2.theplanet.com (12.96.160.34) 1.102 ms 1.100 ms 0.341 ms
4 ge-8-0-124.ipcolo2.Dallas1.Level3.net (63.209.48.109) 1.366 ms 1.414 ms 0.564 ms
5 so-1-2-0.bbr2.Dallas1.Level3.net (209.244.15.165) 1.679 ms 1.743 ms 1.018 ms
6 so-0-2-0.bbr2.LosAngeles1.Level3.net (64.159.0.246) 33.698 ms 33.051 ms 33.072 ms
7 so-10-0.ipcolo2.LosAngeles1.Level3.net (4.68.113.162) 33.229 ms 33.399 ms 33.045 ms
8 unknown.Level3.net (63.209.82.190) 32.408 ms 32.741 ms 32.595 ms
9 216.240.152.9 (216.240.152.9) 41.632 ms 41.900 ms 40.929 ms




n# traceroute calpop.com
traceroute to calpop.com (216.240.152.9), 64 hops max, 44 byte packets
1 66.90.64.1 (66.90.64.1) 0.635 ms 0.410 ms 0.397 ms
2 209.120.155.13 (209.120.155.13) 2.219 ms 2.282 ms 2.249 ms
3 chcgil1wcx1-gige1-0.wcg.net (64.200.228.173) 2.670 ms 3.420 ms 3.863 ms
4 brvwil1wcx3-pos3-0.wcg.net (64.200.210.113) 4.250 ms 5.742 ms 5.086 ms
5 brvwil1wcx3-pos2-0-oc192.wcg.net (64.200.240.121) 26.680 ms 26.367 ms 26.214 ms
6 dnvrco1wcx2-pos9-0.wcg.net (64.200.108.193) 27.080 ms 26.240 ms 25.648 ms
7 anhmca1wcx3-pos12-0-oc192.wcg.net (64.200.240.249) 49.266 ms 46.701 ms 102.958 ms
8 lsanca1wcx1-pos1-0-oc48.wcg.net (64.200.140.146) 50.793 ms 48.203 ms 49.586 ms
9 lsanca9lca1-3-4.wcg.net (64.200.139.78) 50.463 ms 50.414 ms 50.540 ms
10 216.240.152.9 (216.240.152.9) 49.409 ms 50.090 ms 48.799 ms

I personally would suggest calpop as I have been impressed with their network currently and how well they are making improvments.

Originally posted by Arcadie

anything over $150 for a single p4 will make me lose money..

i am not looking to offend you, consider this to be constructive criticism:

you have a problem with your business model. you need a new business plan, not a new provider.

paul

Originally posted by rusko
i am not looking to offend you, consider this to be constructive criticism:

you have a problem with your business model. you need a new business plan, not a new provider.

paul
Whats wrong with that? If he can get a nice p4 for 125/m and make money doing budget hosting then wheres the harm in his "business plan" ? True he cant use a high priced service like yours, he could still go with a good provider thats a heck of a lot cheaper w/ the same service IMO.

I hate seeing you comment about every budget hosting service just since you would offer the same thing for 3x the cost.
Move on

I consider hardware downtime equally important to network quality. Suppose my server is rebooting itself about once a day because the power supply is failing. There is no way I could figure that out remotely. How soon can the dedicated provider diagnose and fix the problem for me? Suppose it's the motherboard that goes bad. The server won't boot. How long does it take to replace the motherboard? 2 hours? 4 houors? 10 hours? Preferably, the dedicated provider would monitor for hardware failures and correct them without my intervention. But that's too much to ask at rock bottom prices.

I've had my share of hardware failures to know that it *WILL* happen again. So I am more interested in hearing about hardware downtime than comments of "I've been with them for X months, everything is great". That is why VPS appeals to me. They will handle hardware failure and security patches. If someone could provide the same service for dedicated server at a reasonable price in California, that person will be rich.

If you read the fine print, CalPop uses the 95% rule in their bandwidth monitoring.

Originally posted by mnu
Whats wrong with that? If he can get a nice p4 for 125/m and make money doing budget hosting then wheres the harm in his "business plan" ? True he cant use a high priced service like yours, he could still go with a good provider thats a heck of a lot cheaper w/ the same service IMO.


It's called sustainability.

I was thinking exactly the same thing even before I read Paul's post.

Originally posted by voxtreme-matt
It's called sustainability.

I was thinking exactly the same thing even before I read Paul's post.
*sigh*
Servermatrix does it and I don't see them losing $$ doing it.
And I see that you offer very similar services as rusko, 100gb/m starting at 350/m... My point is not to put the high-priced managed services down, its just that if he can run his own server (unmanaged) and the isp is still making a profit (I know they're since I have a friend there) then whats the harm?

Originally posted by mnu
*sigh*

Indeed.


Servermatrix does it and I don't see them losing $$ doing it.
And I see that you offer very similar services as rusko, 100gb/m starting at 350/m... My point is not to put the high-priced managed services down, its just that if he can run his own server (unmanaged) and the isp is still making a profit (I know they're since I have a friend there) then whats the harm?

ServerMatrix , EV1, DedicatedNow all developed from parent companies that had the financial stability to run with such small profit margins from the beginning (that is, assuming they made a profit from the off which is debatable).

The harm is it unduly affects the hosting industry and tarnishes the name. Too many hosts go under because of lack of foresight or because people view it as a get rich quick scheme and tarnishes the industry's name for all the stakeholders involved.

Originally posted by voxtreme-matt
ServerMatrix , EV1, DedicatedNow all developed from parent companies that had the financial stability to run with such small profit margins from the beginning (that is, assuming they made a profit from the off which is debatable).

So take a company such as sagonet which offers nice servers starting at $65/m. All I know is that they manage to sell lots of servers at rock bottom prices and stay in business. Is this a bad thing? no...

Originally posted by voxtreme-matt
The harm is it unduly affects the hosting industry and tarnishes the name.

So you're saying competition is bad for you, of course thats obvious as hosts keep going cheaper and cheaper to compete for business that could be yours.
Originally posted by voxtreme-matt
Too many hosts go under because of lack of foresight or because people view it as a get rich quick scheme and tarnishes the industry's name for all the stakeholders involved.

*nod*

Originally posted by mnu
So take a company such as sagonet which offers nice servers starting at $65/m. All I know is that they manage to sell lots of servers at rock bottom prices and stay in business. Is this a bad thing? no...


So you're saying competition is bad for you, of course thats obvious as hosts keep going cheaper and cheaper to compete for business that could be yours.

*nod*

You missed my point. My point was agreeing with Rusko that if a box is over $150 and you make a loss then your business plan and logic is flawed. I have no interest in discrediting Sagonet and that was not what my post did.

We don't compete in that market so the competition does not bother me. Unfortunately, for less internet savvy organisations or organisations that choose not to differentiate, like banks, then yes, it is bad for us all.

Originally posted by voxtreme-matt
You missed my point. My point was agreeing with Rusko that if a box is over $150 and you make a loss then your business plan and logic is flawed. I have no interest in discrediting Sagonet and that was not what my post did.

We don't compete in that market so the competition does not bother me. Unfortunately, for less internet savvy organisations or organisations that choose not to differentiate, like banks, then yes, it is bad for us all.
Ahh sorry, I must've missed that :P

I guess he could be making $20 on calpop's $125/m server - still probably not worth the time he'd be putting into it.

Calpop could have the worlds best network (very far stretch), but you would still have to deal with the arrogant owner and the clueless techs.


Do yourself a favor and go ANYWHERE else.


And Calpops website still claims to have 5+ carriers when I think its more in the 2 or 3 range.

Originally posted by mnu
Whats wrong with that? If he can get a nice p4 for 125/m and make money doing budget hosting then wheres the harm in his "business plan" ? True he cant use a high priced service like yours, he could still go with a good provider thats a heck of a lot cheaper w/ the same service IMO.

I hate seeing you comment about every budget hosting service just since you would offer the same thing for 3x the cost.
Move on

if you had bothered to pay attention (always a good thing, imo), you would have noticed that:

* he claims to *lose* money if a server is $150 or over, let's generously assume his break even is at $150 on the dot
* he is looking for something around $125

what follows:

* his profit per server is $25
* he will be losing money on the server until he fills it to capacity (ie the last account puts him into the black)
* in short, he's better off working at mickey d's

this has nothing to do with what my business offers, it's just solid business analysis. there is, however, a strong causal link between folks that have a solid business plan and are in the process of successfully executing it and folks that do business with us. i consider that to be a good thing.

you do, of course, have the prerogative to carry on commenting negatively on the price and value of the services we provide having never received a quote or having been a customer. thank you for the on-topic aside.

paul

This post got off subject some how...

I think calpop is a lot better than every one is saying, I got 1 server their since March and great network. About to get a 1/4 rack and put 4 more servers up.

My server I got their is the heart of my company, if I felt having it at Calpop was a risk for downtime I wouldn’t have it their, if it goes down ill lose money as my network as well as lots of other sites rely on uptime.

But since March Calpop has provided me with great uptime.

A few of the servers will be for game servers.

Originally posted by rusko


* he claims to *lose* money if a server is $150 or over, let's generously assume his break even is at $150 on the dot
* he is looking for something around $125

what follows:

* his profit per server is $25
* he will be losing money on the server until he fills it to capacity (ie the last account puts him into the black)
* in short, he's better off working at mickey d's


paul
Obviously you know verry little about running a game server buisness. If you want to start talking about buisness plans.
when this gets full, and it almost is i will be making about $170 - $125
= $40 in profit. if i paid over $150, i wouldnt be making but less than $15

Game servers fill up fast, even though you dont make much per box.
3 or full servers on the west coast is about $120/month. Right now im making about $250 in my dallas location. in a few weeks im sending a colo to chicago. when it gets full thats $150/month from that server. $550/month might not sound much to you, But you probly not 16...

Originally posted by Arcadie
Obviously you know verry little about running a game server buisness.
I'll agree, rusko doesn't know.

I'll agree, rusko doesn't know.

I didnt read his post to close, but I'm sure its very logical and correct. Rusko is very smart.

just my 2 cents.

Originally posted by Arcadie
Obviously you know verry little about running a game server buisness. If you want to start talking about buisness plans.
when this gets full, and it almost is i will be making about $170 - $125
= $40 in profit. if i paid over $150, i wouldnt be making but less than $15

Game servers fill up fast, even though you dont make much per box.
3 or full servers on the west coast is about $120/month. Right now im making about $250 in my dallas location. in a few weeks im sending a colo to chicago. when it gets full thats $150/month from that server. $550/month might not sound much to you, But you probly not 16...

$40 in profit per server, excluding labor (yours). woohoo. thanks for proving my point.

there is a striking difference between teens running X hosting shop (where x=gameserver, shared, whatever) as a hobby in lieu of a lemonade stand and running an actual business. case in point.

paul

Originally posted by mnu
I'll agree, rusko doesn't know.

he listed his margins. they are there for all to see. what specific conclusion of mine do you find erroneous?

we host quite a few gsps and i know for a fact that it is possible to run a sustainable, profitable gsp business providing quality service. gamedemons, ilan and phxx aren't making $40/machine/mo, and neither do our clients.

if someone considers that to be appropriate remuneration for their labor, who am i to argue? it's hard to make less than the minimum wage working for other people, apparently running your own 'business' is a good way to get around those pesky minimum wage laws =]

paul