Anybody have any experience with Webauthorities?

I'm considering getting a dedicated server with them and just wondering what others experiences have been.

Richard

Hi Richard,

I know the owner Mike Astin and I have also hosted with him as well. My experience is that the servers are fast, the connections are fast, and the support is fast as well.

I do not have any complaints (except I think the extended support prices are a little high).

Patrick

hehe, if you think that's bad, you shoudl see some companies that I have dealed with in the past .. 250.00/h on extended hours :eek2: ..

Originally posted by Precise

I know the owner Mike Astin and I have also hosted with him as well. My experience is that the servers are fast, the connections are fast, and the support is fast as well.


Hi Patrick,

Yeah, I also have a server with Mike and it's been fast until recently when there's a problem in the NOC. The ping times were getting worse yesterday and I hope Mike could really give the NOC a good kick in their asses to fix it quickly! :) Did you notice that too?

Except for some problems I had in the early setup with the H-Sphere installation and the network problem recently, I'm happy with the server.

I did notice the sparatic problems at the noc. He is on high-stress mode... No wonder Mike is balding (haha, just kididng Mike!).

There was a brief 15-30 minute downtime earlier today, but other then that is hasn't really been *too* noticable. I am sure he will do some serious ass-kick'in. And when he is done everything will be fine I'm sure.

Patrick

Yes, I've been kicking a little booty.... :)

It's not the network connection it's the NOC's router. The ping on the network is great at 20 to 40 ms. The router is killing us. But we are working on it and everything should be back to normal soon.

The downtime was because they found out (because of this little problem) that UUNET was force routing data through them, instead of allowing BGP to determine the best route. So the NOC chewed UUNET's butt and that got changed, but that cause the network to drop offline. Now BGP is working...but the router is still hosed.

For those of you paying attention and waiting for this problem to go away. It's been fixed. The NOC rebooted all the devices and it cured the problem. There are still a few issues we need to sort out, but the lag that you may have experienced is now gone.

I don't know Mike my site is still as slow as a Tijuana Hooker getting paid by the hour! It was faster yesterday, but it's back to slow... still a problem on your end or something else up tonight?

my site is http://www.dreamincode.net

Originally posted by skyhawk133
I don't know Mike my site is still as slow as a Tijuana Hooker getting paid by the hour! It was faster yesterday, but it's back to slow... still a problem on your end or something else up tonight?

my site is http://www.dreamincode.net
Looks pretty fast to me.

I guess you don't know how slow a Tijuana Hooker getting paid by the hour really is... cause it's taking a good minute and a half to load pages, and over 50% of the time I get timeouts *shrugs* google loads fast :)

Well, after doing some investigating, it looks like it's not a Tijuana Hooker, but rather a Atlanta Hooker, cause I'm getting over 2000ms ping times around that area... bah... one problem after another!!! I'ma just blame Bin Laden, he's a good target to put blame on :)

On netscape 4.79, it loads in less then a 2 seconds, and it looks like it takes 2 seconds because of the tables (netscape is not so good with tables).


Here is traceroute:
1 v232-200M.ar0-1.piva.net (208.144.90.1) 0.514 ms 0.413 ms 0.382 ms
2 fxp0.aggr1.oct.dcjn.net (209.123.37.26) 0.524 ms 0.365 ms 0.488 ms
3 atm0-0-32.aggr1.nyc.dcjn.net (209.123.7.114) 2.399 ms 2.150 ms 2.338 ms
4 f13.ba01.b001362-1.jfk01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.28.73) 7.992 ms 8.014 ms 10.056 ms
5 g9-1.core01.jfk01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.66.45) 7.517 ms 7.881 ms 7.534 ms
6 p13-0.core02.jfk02.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.121) 7.587 ms 8.074 ms 7.873 ms
7 p14-0.core01.phl01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.2) 7.941 ms 8.162 ms 7.675 ms
8 sl-gw4-pen-6-1.sprintlink.net (160.81.202.17) 4.809 ms 6.018 ms 5.274 ms
9 sl-bb20-pen-5-2.sprintlink.net (144.232.5.17) 5.393 ms 6.562 ms 4.792 ms
10 sl-bb21-pen-14-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.16.34) 9.114 ms 8.778 ms 8.573 ms
11 sl-bb23-rly-0-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.20.32) 117.825 ms 199.527 ms 207.532 ms
12 sl-bb20-rly-9-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.14.117) 10.516 ms 8.908 ms 8.876
ms
13 sl-dr10-res-9-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.19.122) 10.406 ms 10.203 ms 9.675 ms
14 63.173.24.174 (63.173.24.174) 9.803 ms 9.392 ms 9.604 ms
15 208.1.115.201 (208.1.115.201) 10.027 ms 11.049 ms 9.953 ms
16 216.177.53.208 (216.177.53.208) 10.610 ms 9.939 ms 9.954 ms

And this is ping time:
64 bytes from 216.177.53.208: icmp_seq=0 ttl=244 time=9.8 ms
64 bytes from 216.177.53.208: icmp_seq=1 ttl=244 time=10.5 ms
64 bytes from 216.177.53.208: icmp_seq=2 ttl=244 time=14.0 ms
64 bytes from 216.177.53.208: icmp_seq=3 ttl=244 time=9.9 ms
64 bytes from 216.177.53.208: icmp_seq=4 ttl=244 time=10.3 ms
64 bytes from 216.177.53.208: icmp_seq=5 ttl=244 time=9.7 ms
from one of my servers.


Ping from my home computer:
64 bytes from 209.123.144.43: icmp_seq=0 ttl=237 time=35.850 msec
64 bytes from 209.123.144.43: icmp_seq=1 ttl=237 time=40.809 msec
64 bytes from 209.123.144.43: icmp_seq=2 ttl=237 time=32.696 msec
64 bytes from 209.123.144.43: icmp_seq=3 ttl=237 time=36.027 msec
64 bytes from 209.123.144.43: icmp_seq=4 ttl=237 time=50.813 msec
64 bytes from 209.123.144.43: icmp_seq=5 ttl=237 time=36.784 msec

same computer but to the yahoo.com
PING yahoo.com (216.115.108.245) from 192.168.0.212 : 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from img5.yahoo.com (216.115.108.245): icmp_seq=0 ttl=234 time=122.695
msec
64 bytes from img5.yahoo.com (216.115.108.245): icmp_seq=1 ttl=234 time=113.870
msec
64 bytes from img5.yahoo.com (216.115.108.245): icmp_seq=2 ttl=234 time=118.690
msec
64 bytes from img5.yahoo.com (216.115.108.245): icmp_seq=3 ttl=234 time=134.932
msec
64 bytes from img5.yahoo.com (216.115.108.245): icmp_seq=4 ttl=234 time=120.325
msec
64 bytes from img5.yahoo.com (216.115.108.245): icmp_seq=5 ttl=234 time=122.138
msec
64 bytes from img5.yahoo.com (216.115.108.245): icmp_seq=6 ttl=234 time=120.694
msec
64 bytes from img5.yahoo.com (216.115.108.245): icmp_seq=7 ttl=234 time=114.725
msec
64 bytes from img5.yahoo.com (216.115.108.245): icmp_seq=8 ttl=234 time=123.678
msec


Looks good to me, it mast be something else.

Originally posted by skyhawk133
Well, after doing some investigating, it looks like it's not a Tijuana Hooker, but rather a Atlanta Hooker, cause I'm getting over 2000ms ping times around that area... bah... one problem after another!!! I'ma just blame Bin Laden, he's a good target to put blame on :)

Two questions

(1) Who are you. You do have one of my IP's but you aren't my client. Are you one of my clients client?

(2) If you getting 2000 ms ping times it's not us. Everyone who was getting bad pings, to include me, have been fixed. Can you post a tracert so that we can see what the problem may be?

Yeh, I'm one of your clients, clients :)
I think I got things cleared up, it's an issue over at SprintLink, they been suckin some serious bad the past few days... 2000ms ping is lying in ATL.sprintlink hostname *chuckles* sorry for being so forward :) just my style!

I just recently switched to Web Authorities and I couldn't be happier with the service and pricing. Even when Mike was having issues with the NOC and fighting with them to get it fixed, he made a few DNS issues I had a priority and got them fixed in no time.

Mark
lancerforums.com

I have been with Mike about 3 years now and I have had a dedicated for about 1 year. I wouldn't think about switching. He has always been responsive and knowledgable. This is the first problem they have had with the NOC since I have had my server there, and it was a relatively small problem. There was no significant downtime.

Well, that is all I have to say.

Patrick

Thanks Mark.

Skyhawk. I agree Sprintlink is not my favorite either. I went to the NOC today and told them to get me off of Sprintlink and put me back as preferential Qwest and UUNET (and a few others).

I just don't like the results I see with Sprintlink. So give me a few days and you should see even faster results.

I personally prefer UUNet/Qwest over Sprintlink.
So go for it, Mike! :D

I wouldn't think about switching. He has always been responsive and knowledgable. This is the first problem they have had with the NOC since I have had my server there, and it was a relatively small problem. There was no significant downtime.
Ditto for me, Patrick!
I have been with Mike about 1 and 1/2 years- Service and support has always been there when we needed him, and he always comes through in a pinch- We have never had any thoughts of leaving at all-

Keep it up Mike!

I've been with Mike for about 2.5 hours now, though I've been talking with him for about two weeks. Very professional and honest. Was workin overtime this evening getting things set up for me as late as 11 PM est (I think)! Can't argue personal service like that.

I am glad to see others that have been with them for over a year praising his services as well! Gives me a warm and fuzzy feeling.

Scott