Hi,

Our server hosted @ burst.net was down for the past 6 or 7 hours.

We called a million times. We sent a fax. We tried ICQ, AIM. We left a message on the answering machine. We've sent a tonn of e-mails. Emergency pager was put into use too. There was no responce so far.

Our support line is just about to crash. It seems like every single client called at least ten times since the server went down.

I personally broke like 20 pens and pencils since it went down.

Usually, when this kind of stuff happens, we lose about 30-40 clients on the next day. And YES it did happen before.

The reason I am writing is to find out if anyone knows of any other way to contact them.

Try their 24/7 NOC line, not sure what the number is though, they should be able to re-boot your server.

Hi, you can't login at all to your server using IP and SSH?

Thanx guys, problem solved. There was only 9 hours of downtime yesterday and a couple of hours today.

Was that the first time your server @ burst.net down? If that's so, no problem. But if that happened quite often, I think you should start looking for a better host, especially if your doing a serious business on your web site.

<<Flame removed>>


<<MOD NOTE:>>
If you've never used their services then you shouldn't be posting opinions on their services. We do not permit trolling, and ask that you only comment on things you have personal, direct experience with.
<</MOD NOTE>>

Ya should move to Pwebtech.com, email ed@pwebtech.com for a custom quote. They do have 24/7 phone support and Jay is like a hero to me when my server went down and it when fails to boot.

<< <<Removed>> >>

Not a very nice thing for a competitor to say...especially considering you have never been a BurstNET client. Seems you like to host-bash...as I have looked at your other posts...


Sean R.
BurstNET

We have business relations with both BurstNET and PWebtech and i must honestly say that when needed, we got better support from BurstNET. There was a WHM/CPanel issue a few days ago, we called both companies at midnight. BurstNET had someone logged into the machine within 3 minutes while the guy from PWebtech (i don't know who it was, sorry) didn't even bother to at least login.

It just seems to me that there is a little excessive BurstNET flaming going on around here. This is all i'm going to comment on this subject.

It seem there are a lot of people are just trying to put a successful company down for no reason. Burst.net support is excellent when you compare them to other provider. I have a dedicated server with another provider and their support is a lot worse than what I have been reading about burst.net.

I did phone burst.net support for a friend and I must say that the support I got was a lot better than my current provider at least they solved the problem while on the phone.

Originally posted by BurstNET
<< <<Removed>> >>

Not a very nice thing for a competitor to say...especially considering you have never been a BurstNET client. Seems you like to host-bash...as I have looked at your other posts...
Sean R.
BurstNET


Me if I have been client of you ...

and I believe that you are not professional .

I've said this before, but here it goes again - BurstNET provides good value for money. That is the reason why we (the company) do business with them.

Personally, I am not happy with the recent router problem (didnt ask for a service credit). I am also not happy with this particular incident. I am totally not happy with the fact that they either ignored me or simply were not there on Sunday.

Luckily, this time our clients didn't complain much and nobody asked for a refund. But we got really bad reviews in the country where we do business. I guess its no biggie, could be worse.

This downtime was caused by a system upgrade which did not go all correct. Although we managed to rebuild most of the stuff on the spot, some of the things were left out and eventually the system went down. I have to say that Darren and his teammates at BurstNET seem very knowledgable and willing to help. But nothing goes right when it comes to CPanel/WHM. I personally love CPanel (client-side functionality is what I care about), but our admins totally hate it and I dont blame them.

So, to sum things up:

1. if router problems do not become a usual thing,

2. if CPanel/WHM suddenly becomes stable like some of its competitors,

3. if BurstNET support will be there on sundays :)

... then I will be 100% happy with the service that I am getting.


******

I am not going to babble about what I like about BurstNET, and its not just the good value for money. But, there are some things that need to be looked at within the company.

******

Offtopic:

The good news is that there will soon be a control panel with the functionality of CPanel/WHM, cheap, not installed by developer/distributor, will have a CPanel converter and hopefully bug free (if such a thing can ever exist). Will post more on this when tested it.

Personally, I'm very satisfied with the service we receive from Burst.net. We've only had to call for an emergency server check once because a system didn't come back after a reboot. It was late, probably around 10pm, someone was there, answered the phone, and checked it out right away. Fortunately the server was just fsck'ing it self since a drive didn't unmount cleanly.

As far as CPanel/WHM - I agree with the previous comments. Its buggy as hell. I've submitted a few tickets to Burst on the bugs/problems I've discovered - but I haven't got any response. Frankly I don't know if they are really the ones to talk to - or if it is there responsibility. I've tried getting on the board at CPanel.net but the board signup procedure doesn't work - and no one has ever answered my emails there.

So my frustrations aren't with Burst, its with the CPanel/WHM software they offer. Here are just a smattering of the problems I'm running into now:

WHM:
-New accounts never have subdomains enabled - even though I setup all accounts with at least 10 subdomains. So after creating a new account, I have to then enable subdomains.
-Creating new accounts wipes out every customization I've done to httpd.conf. Thus, I need to reput them into the file again.
-The DNS entries are never correct for new accounts. Ever. I always have to go in and delete them, and recreate them a few times before it works.

CPanel:
-The aliases /cpanel and /webmail just stopped working a couple of weeks ago after a nightly automated upgrade. I send several messages to Burst about it - with no response. So, now I've had to reeducate all my customers to use the :2082 and :2095 port numbers to get to their control panel and webmail. Not insurmountable, but annoying.

I must say that for our next server(s) we will probably look at Plesk or another control panel software vendor. I'd be happy to host that server at Burst.net's facilities since they do a top notch job. But, I don't think we will continue to purchase servers with CPanel/WHM again.

Take care,

Brian

Hi,

Do you have next issue?


DNS. All subdomain that exists on the server (subdomain of all
accounts) cannot get any email.
New subdomain get this issue to. Try to create any subdoman with CP and
mail to it:
Example:
I have created sudomain new.domain.com
So I sent email to it and email cannot be received.

I receieved next mail from MAILER-DEAMON:

"Failed to deliver to 'max@new.domain.com'
SMTP module(domain @217.106.234.113:max.domain.com) reports:
host max.domain.com says:
550 relaying to <max@new.domain.com> prohibited by administrator"

Also I have look into the exim log and it report next:
"2002-01-16 09:41:41 16QrG1-0000R9-00 remote host address is the local
host: max.domain.com
2002-01-16 09:41:41 16QrG1-0000R9-00 == max@new.domain.com
R=lookuphost defer (-1): remote host address is the local host
2002-01-16 09:41:41 16QrG1-0000R9-00 Frozen
2002-01-16 09:41:41 16QrG1-0000RB-00 <= root@host.domain.net U=root
P=local S=436"

Enough is enough. I was a customer of Burstnet at one time. And, I left because I wasn't satisfied with the service, particularly with one server. However, they are not deserving, in my opinion, of the level of bashing that takes place here. You would think from this board that they were the worst and they are very far from that. Their service and support level is mixed. They have many happy customers and some unhappy. People must judge for themselves if the service they receive is acceptable.

In the case of a server or multiple servers down, they realize it and are working on it. And, in those times they are extremely difficult to reach because of the call volume and because they are busy elsewhere. Yes, it would be helpful if they would post the status somewhere. But, please let them fix the problem. Then afterwards if you feel appropriate, complain.

As to CPanel, yes it is buggy...but still very popular. And Burstnet may be the most experienced with it. Again, I had uptime problems, but no CPanel problems when I hosted with them.

Overall, I would say their quality of service is somewhere in the middle and their pricing is much better than average. And, that's not so bad.

Normally, I do not post anything negative about competitors. However, I just felt here a balanced discussion was warranted.

Also, one last thing...its ok to post objective information and even opinions. But please do it professionally. And, Sean, I know it is difficult, but please don't reply in kind to those posts. Sometimes, it truly is better to bite your tongue. Because, the Sean who signed me up long ago, and who I spoke to on many occasions was always professional...But the one here reacting to bashing, sometimes is less so.

I have been with Burst.NET for 1.75 years, having been transferred to the company from TrueHosting. Currently, Burst.NET is unable to configure FrontPage 2000 to work properly on my website at myshortpencil.com. The Hit Counters are broken. I cannot access my subwebs because of a "Security Violation." In short, I cannot update my website via FP.

This problem has been pending for NINE WEEKS. This is AFTER several months of failing to meet the "99.5% Network Uptime Guarantee" on the Kremlin server! The first Burst.NET server my site was on was even more unreliable than Kremlin.

Burst.NET claims to have "Toll-Free 24-Hour Phone Support." It's a lie. DO NOT BELIEVE IT. The phone may ring but it is not answered and messages are not returned.

AIM™ Real-Time Online Support is often unavailable. Because the phone, emails, and AIMs go unanswered I seriously doubt that Burst.NET actually has effective "24/7/365 Network Operations Center Monitoring" by on-site staff.

I wrote the Pennsylvaina Better Business Bureau about Burst.NET's false claims and the BBB wrote back the Burst.NET would not respond to its request for information.

My complaint about FP2000 has been to Sean, Eric, EricW, Daren, Matt and John. Eric has told me to use FTP rather than FrontPage, which is completely unworkable given my use of shared borders.

I believe Burst.NET is a company that tries hard and has good intentions, but it has repeatedly failed to live up to its promises. Bottom Line: Burst.NET is unable to deliver reliable hosting services. Too often, it doesn't answer the telphone or reply to email requests for support.

STAY AWAY FROM THIS COMPANY. YOU DON'T HAVE TO TAKE JUST MY WORD FOR IT. DO A SEARCH ON THIS SITE FOR BURST.NET AND YOU'LL GET THE PICTURE.:(

The problem is with Microsoft FrontPage extensions themselves, not our system administrators / support. This is a known buggy product, and we can only install that which Microsoft provides. If Microsoft does not/cannot fix their product, there is not much we can do about it.


Sean R.
BurstNET

1. FP2000 works fine with all my subwebs at http://www.aaahosting.net/.

2. FP2000 worked fine at Burst.NET until Dec. 18, 2001.

3. A Burst.NET tech told me that a security "upgrade" to their system may be responsible.

4. Why not respond to service requests with the same lightening speed as your response to this post?

5. Why keep reassigning the problem to different people in tech support if you can't fix it?

6. Please remove from your hosting pages at http://www.burst.net/hosting/linux.shtml
the false claim that you provide MS FrontPage Support.

You cannot have it both ways. Either you support MS FrontPage or your don't.

Pardon me, I'm not a customer of BurstNET but they are not the first to have problems with FrontPage. Frontpage has been known to cause problems on servers, and especially Linux servers.

If Burst.NET can't make FP work on their servers, they must remove their advertisements/promises that they offer FP support. See,
http://www.burst.net/hosting/linux.shtml

This is not hard. People who sign up for hosting services must not be misled.

Well, you've got a point there, but did you ask if you could try another server? Maybe 3rd one's a charm (eeee-errrr), just trying to be helpful, I realize it really isn't. If it isn't working out, you could obviously try another host for this site.

Glad you asked, Chicken. Actually, I AM on my third server at Burst.NET. I have been on the Hoover server since early January, having been on Kremlin and the first server, the name I which I do not remember.

I absolutely will get another host for myshortpencil.com when my contract with Burst.NET expires next January. (I originally joined Burst.NET in May, but have received so many free months of service because of down time and this FP2000 problem, that my annual renewal is now in January! Yes, BN gives credit, but I don't have a web hosting service to accumulate account credits!)

http://www.aaahosting.net/ is running Linux with Perl 5.006001. It runs FP2000 flawlessly.

Burst.NET is running the same OS and Perl versions, and since Dec. 18, FP2000 won't connect to subwebs. It's pretty likely that Burst.NET has done something to its servers that has broken FP. It's also probable that they know what it was that broke FP, since tech support told me that numerous clients reported the same problem at the same time I did.

IMHO, Burst.NET is making a business decision. It has bigger fish to fry. Fixing this problem is not worth the expense. It may even be to its advantage to drive off FP users, especially if it can do so without compensating them. Break FP. Break the contract. Blame it on Microsoft, the evil empire.

At one point Burst.NET looked like it was turing around, which is why I renewed with them. It is now clear to me that Burst.NET has serious problems.

Just ask yourself, "What would a credible hosting service do for a customer who's website has been offline so much that 7 months credit has been extended in less than two years, and whose access to FP subwebs has been completely shut down for 9 weeks?"

I'll tell you what Sean told me tonight after 8 closed service requests on this issue: "I am directing this matter to our new customer service rep, and he will deal with this when he gets in Monday morning."

STAY AWAY FROM BURST.NET

Wrong:

root@hoover [~]# rpm -q perl
perl-5.6.0-12

Frontpage is installed via RPM module...

root@hoover [~]# rpm -q frontpage
frontpage-5.0-0

It either works or it doesn't work....
In this case the MicroSoft product, does not work properly.

Do you really think that if we could fix a problem, we would not on purpose? Come on...we are known to have a very competant admin staff, (albeit even if they are slow sometimes)...if we cannot fix a problem, then it must be a major bug.


Sean R.
BurstNET


root@hoover [~]# w
10:30pm up 60 days, 18:10, 2 users, load average: 0.08, 0.06, 0.08


root@hoover [~]# cat /etc/redhat-release
Red Hat Linux release 7.1 (Seawolf)


root@kremlin [~]# w
10:32pm up 26 days, 18:08, 6 users, load average: 0.11, 0.17, 0.17

I certainly do believe Burst.NET would fix the FP2000 problem if it were cheap and easy to do so. Apparently, this is either not the case in general, or at least not the case for Burst.NET.

If it is too hard to fix the problem, or too expensive, I certainly do believe companies make business decisions to put their efforts where they can gain the most profit. It doesn't matter who gets hurt, especially if they can get away with it. Does Enron ring a bell?

The fact is that FP2000 is running successfully on thousands of Linux servers around the world. If Burst.NET can't make it work on its servers, it must remove the promise of FP support from it's terms of service.

I note that 26 consecutive days uptime for Kremlin is a record! Why don't you let the rest of the good people on this forum in on the misery Kremlin clients went through during the past year so that you could get to the phenominal achievement of 26 consecutive days without a crash?

STAY AWAY FROM BURST.NET

By the way, I'd be more than happy to look at any documentation that Burst.NET has from Microsoft that says FP2000 "either works or it doesn't work."

Post the documentation, or stop blaming Microsoft.

I think at this point, rather than going up and back and arguing the point, it is better that you just move to host b. It seems like it will just be a lot of wasted energy and if this is the 3rd, well, banking on a 4th is more than I'd personally do, but you are, of course, entitled to ask if this is what you desire. Sometimes you just have to say, "Well they might be good for some people, but it didn't work out for me so I'm going elsewhere."

If it were free to move to host B, I'd do it. Bust.NET owes me $274.50 in hosting services. I do not intend to just eat it.

myshortpenci,

I don't know what version of Apache that other host is running that worked for you, or what version Burst is running on the server you have trouble with. However, it is true that Frontpage is very buggy, unstable and often insecure. I'd almost bet that the other server that Frontpage works on, is running an older version of the web server. It's (Frontpage) simply not a good product and is best left to Windows based servers. A lot of hosts, us included, offer it though, because people desire it and sometimes need it. The problem is usually, that Frontpage is a web server module, and the Frontpage Linux version module/server extensions are not as up-to-date on the web server (Apache, most likely) development as they should be. I.e., I think the last version of mod_frontpage that worked on Apache, was for Apache 1.3.19, which is about a year old now. A web server is a very vital thing to have up-to-date and to hold off for Frontpage extensions to make sure they work properly, every time, can't always be done. People still implement and add it, and sometimes it works okay or even well, but often it will fail. Sure, there's some configuration changes that can be made, but I tell you, out of all the things that need to be done when upgrading a web server, my biggest concern is trying to find a compatible/workable version of mod_frontpage to compile into the web server. I'm not sure about your post about Perl, but it's good to have the newest, stable version of course, but the only thing that has to do with Frontpage, is A: The web server and it's version. B: The version of Frontpage. C: The version of mod_frontpage. D: How it's compiled and configured. E: Permissions nd ownership. F: The common and obvious stuff. Sometimes Frontpage just will not work. Is there any way that you can create the frontpage webs and then just FTP that FP web dir tree to your account? Well, mod_frontpage does catch up every now and then and sometimes solutions can be found. Good luck.

I agree with everything Tim says.

While FP is "buggy," I have very strong suspicions that the current problem is related to an incompatable upgrade, not its innate bugginess. Why else did several FP websites have the same problem at the same time?

May I point out that before I perform an upgrade on my computers at home, I fully backup my system, install the upgrade, and then test it to be sure all my programs still work. If the upgrade interferes with the operation of some of my programs, I have to decide whether the upgrade is worth the trade-off. If I don't like what the upgrade does to my system, I remove it, and restore the backup if I have to.

With a company as big as Burst.NET, you would think that it would apply a similar procedure, assuming this is an upgrade incompatibility problem.

I suspect that Bust.NET upgraded some aspect of its system, perhaps related to security software (thus the "security violation" in attempting to access FP subwebs), without testing the upgrade to see what affect it would have on FP. It just pulled the upgrade out of the box, loaded it onto its servers, and let 'er rip.

Now that it has discovered that the upgrade has shutdown access to FP subwebs, it has decided that it likes the upgrade more than it likes FP customers. It simply cannot be that difficult to restore the server to full FP functionality. Burst.NET just doesn't want to do it.

I have given Burst.NET every opportunity to make this situation right. I gave them three weeks advance notice of my intention to post my first message on this issue in this forum. I have recently given them advance notice of my intention to contact the Penna. Attorney General about business practices and statements that appear to be deceptive to me, an attorney, unless they fix the problem or fully compensate me for my losses.

You simply can't claim to be a "A WORLD-WIDE LEADER IN WEB HOSTING AND INTERNET SOLUTIONS" with "SATISFACTION GUARANTEED," and do to FP customers what Burst.NET has done to me.

I know what you're saying. However, what if the only version of Apache that works with FP, i version 1.3.19 and less? That is (I think) over a year old. The current version is 1.3.23. What if 1.3.19 has known issues with memory leaks, performance or security issues? Again, if FP isn't compatible with the newest, stable version of Apache (A very vital element), what can someone do, if they have a good reason to upgrade that vital element? Of course I don't know if that's the issue, but I recall someone having an issue with 1.3.19 (or maybe is ws build 17, I don't remember) and all they could do, was upgrade to the newest, stable release that was out at the time. They upgraded to the next release and it fixed their problems they were having, but it broke FP. Now everyone's web sites were responding well and efficiently, but FP failed and people were angry at about that. I didn't mean to say it's always a conscious trade-off, but that sometimes a decision has to be made. Of course, it's always good to be able to immediately revert back to the last build, even if it's a buggy or older version, for many reasons, but the unfortunate thing, is when dealing with Unix based systems and web servers, you can't count on FP working well much of the time.

Jaq running to the defense of Burst.

Originally posted by Incognito
Jaq running to the defense of Burst.

I'm not defending or offending anyone. I'm also me, not Jag, but I know what you mean. :-) No big deal, I just post the facts, and sometimes it's seen as flaming or defending, but as you can see, I don't discriminate and there are no intentions other than to post the truth to help a user or someome to know or understand a situation that is brought up. I am just honest and sometimes it makes me look like I'm for or against people. I hope people don't make the mistake of thinking that either way, other than knowing I'm simply honest about it. However, let's not drag up anything here. I just hope the viewers understand the issues sometimes involved with the FP issue. Cheers.

Just trying to point out in a humorous way that you are a nice guy and will post supportively when it is appropriate. It was just a pleasant event in light of the past few days.

Sorry, I didn't think your post was ill intended at all. It is rather humorous. I always tend to point things out, so people can know the circumstances. We all know how easy it is to be mislead on web boards without knowing the circumstances -- not that you mislead anyone. I just try to be careful of that because it happens to much is all. :-) Thanks and it's definitely good to not have controversy, indeed. Cheers!

Whatever you do you need to:

1. Fess up;

2. Give the FP client options BEFORE you upgrade (don't just wreck their sites and blame it on Microsoft);

3. Admit you will make the trade-off against the FP client's interest; and

4. Fairly compensate the customers for their trouble (six additional free months of hosting).

The alternative, wrecking websites and encouraging clients to find every discussion board in sight plus create private webpages on multiple websites, warning off potential customers, is a d--- poor business strategy.

BTW, I still maintain you can't advertise a service that doesn't run right on your servers. See, http://www.burst.net/hosting/linux.shtml.

MS FrontPage Support '97,'98,& 2000 '97,'98,& 2000 '97,'98,& 2000 '97,'98,& 2000 '97,'98,& 2000

Errr... ok, well I think the issue is solved as much as it's gonna get solved and we're off the topic of FP help, so...