Everything at lightone is UP.

The outage was only 5 minutes, and they are working with us now to see that the problems we've been having do not rear their heads again.

Thanks lightone.net!

Drew

yup,
strike up one more victory to my wait and see if it is too good to be true theory.

http://66.28.178.181/

A IP/site from a customer of mine that rents a LightOne Box from me.

Also would my ICQ be flooded if it was so and there is not ONE single message.

So before you jump to fast/false conclusions and lower LightOne's reputations with posts like that (LightOne.net gone again!) please be 100% sure.

What you do id NOT nice m8! :angry:

Sharefile: I cannot reach http://66.28.178.181/ via a web browser.

I can't ping that IP either.

Pinging 66.28.178.181 with 32 bytes of data:

Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.

Ping statistics for 66.28.178.181:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 0, Lost = 4 (100% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 0ms, Maximum = 0ms, Average = 0ms

7 2109 ms 1406 ms 735 ms gigabitethernet4-2.core1.sanjose1.level3.net [64
159.2.133]
8 1453 ms 1500 ms 1453 ms so-2-1-3.pr1.sanfrancisco1.ca.us.netrail.net [20
.215.1.229]
9 1500 ms 796 ms 766 ms gige2-1.tr1.sanfrancisco1.ca.us.netrail.net [205
215.12.1]
10 734 ms 766 ms 1094 ms p13-0.core02.sfo01.atlas.cogentco.com [66.28.28.
7]
11 750 ms 766 ms 859 ms p15-0.core01.den01.atlas.cogentco.com [66.28.4.1
9]
12 750 ms 1484 ms 1922 ms g50.ba01.b006467-1.den01.atlas.cogentco.com [66.
8.5.22]
13 750 ms 781 ms 1438 ms 66.28.178.1
14 * * * Request timed out.
15 * * * Request timed out.
16 * * * Request timed out.
17 * * 7 2109 ms 1406 ms 735 ms gigabitethernet4-2.core1.sanjose1.level3.net [64
159.2.133]
8 1453 ms 1500 ms 1453 ms so-2-1-3.pr1.sanfrancisco1.ca.us.netrail.net [20
.215.1.229]
9 1500 ms 796 ms 766 ms gige2-1.tr1.sanfrancisco1.ca.us.netrail.net [205
215.12.1]
10 734 ms 766 ms 1094 ms p13-0.core02.sfo01.atlas.cogentco.com [66.28.28.
7]
11 750 ms 766 ms 859 ms p15-0.core01.den01.atlas.cogentco.com [66.28.4.1
9]
12 750 ms 1484 ms 1922 ms g50.ba01.b006467-1.den01.atlas.cogentco.com [66.
8.5.22]
13 750 ms 781 ms 1438 ms 66.28.178.1
14 * * * Request timed out.
15 * * * Request timed out.
16 * * * Request timed out.

What kind of uptime do you want from a cheap host? If you pay 50% less shouldnt you expect 50% less uptime?

Um no...

I think that to be in business at all a host has to provide uptime.

To charge more a host can provide support, faster servers, faster bandwidth, etc.

If you buy a Ford instead of a BMW, both cars will get you where you're going. The Ford won't run 50% less of the time than the BMW - the BMW just has more features :)

I don't think your car example suits well... If we are comparing servers, your example suits but I think we are talking about the network.

Originally posted by panopticon
Um no...

I think that to be in business at all a host has to provide uptime.

To charge more a host can provide support, faster servers, faster bandwidth, etc.

If you buy a Ford instead of a BMW, both cars will get you where you're going. The Ford won't run 50% less of the time than the BMW - the BMW just has more features :)

If you buy a Ford instead of a BMW, both cars will get you where you're going. The Ford won't run 50% less of the time than the BMW - the BMW just has more features very bad analogy :) They don't translate.

I don't quite follow, but I'm sure it's not a perfect analogy.

I just don't like "What kind of uptime do you want from a cheap host? If you pay 50% less shouldnt you expect 50% less uptime?"

Afterall his own company is called affordablecolo.com meaning that he's probably cheaper than someone else. I'm sure I can find a host who is 30% more expensive than affordablecolo.com - does this mean he also offers 30% less uptime than his more expensive competitor?

More expensive is not always better, and people who cannot afford more expensive don't deserver nothing. Now some downtime is reasonable if you're paying very little - there is a big difference beteen 99.5% uptime and 99.9% uptime and 99.99% uptime - the later of which is very very difficult to achieve and thus very expensive. But to not even be able to reach your host doesn't sound good. I don't think it's fine to provide crappy service, even if you are "affordable" or "cheaper" than your competitor.

My company is affordablecolo.com and yes we do have affordable prices, but we also maintain 99.99% uptime and always have people answering the phones 24.7 live.

Im trying to make a point through sarcasm, if you look through previous threads youll see they have lots of downtime yet still have people sticking up for them, now say if those same people were with a expensive host, i would say they would be pissed off.

So doesnt cheap hosting mean that customers should expect less of that host, i myself dont think so. But thats what the trend points to.

Originally posted by cbaker17
What kind of uptime do you want from a cheap host? If you pay 50% less shouldnt you expect 50% less uptime?

While I agree with charles, what do you expect froma cheap host. I don't necessarily agree with 50% less uptime, but a signifcantly lesser quality network should be expected.

And remember folks you get what you pay for.

OK, sorry if I read too much into your comment, or more likely, it fell too close to home.

I suppose it's a fine point, but since I don't have loads of cash I myself won't be able to dive right into a top-of-the-line server. Obviously it will be more risky trying to find quality service for less than $200/month, but I hope that some people can provide at least what they advertise. And I'm pretty sure it falls within any host's budget to at least have someone answer the phone or reply to email as to what is going on. I think I have a right to expect what is advertised, nothing more and nothing less, from a host. And with a new host, there's no way to tell unless someone gives them a try. I just read your comment as "well, it's your fault you got hosed because you're not rich enough to go with the most expensive option" and that's what I was saying with the car analogy - you don't expect a Ford to have everything a BMW has, but you do expect it to work as advertised... maybe it will have a few more problems you have to work through, but still running 99.5% of the time, not 50% of the time.

While I agree with charles, what do you expect froma cheap host. I don't necessarily agree with 50% less uptime, but a signifcantly lesser quality network should be expected.

I guess my take is that 99.5% is significantly less than 99.9% which is signifcantly less than 99.99% uptime. I'm not a hosting guru, but in terms of even keeping a computer running on my desk these numbers are true. Almost anyone can keep a $500 computer running smoothly 99.5% of the time. But 99.99% of the time requires a lot more effort.

If a hosting account drops to say 98% uptime, you could do better with a cable modem...

And remember folks you get what you pay for.
Well, this isn't always true. You certainly can overpay for things. But you do probably decrease your risk by paying more so there is more $ for the host to spend on extra redundancy, people, etc. But I'm sure there are bad expensive hosts too and that every host over $500/month doesn't gaurantee perfect service. And I'm sure there are less expensive hosts who provide better service than mor expensive hosts in some cases. The question is where is the balance point where you can get adequate service for your needs.

I know I got a quote from you at around $200. And Lightone is at $100. Does this mean you are right at the edge where if you provided service for $10 less it would be crap? What if a different host were in a different building so less rent with everything else the same? Where do you see the cut off point for an entry level server where adequate service (e.g. answering the phone, not being down for more than 6 hours, etc.) can be still provided? If absolutely not at $100/month, can it be done for $125? $150? $175? $195?

pinging to 66.28.178.1 shows :


D:\>ping 66.28.178.1

Pinging 66.28.178.1 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 66.28.178.1: bytes=32 time=420ms TTL=238
Reply from 66.28.178.1: bytes=32 time=421ms TTL=238
Reply from 66.28.178.1: bytes=32 time=461ms TTL=238
Reply from 66.28.178.1: bytes=32 time=421ms TTL=238

Ping statistics for 66.28.178.1:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 420ms, Maximum = 461ms, Average = 430ms


No comment :eek:

Originally posted by panopticon


I guess my take is that 99.5% is significantly less than 99.9% which is signifcantly less than 99.99% uptime. I'm not a hosting guru, but in terms of even keeping a computer running on my desk these numbers are true. Almost anyone can keep a $500 computer running smoothly 99.5% of the time. But 99.99% of the time requires a lot more effort.

If a hosting account drops to say 98% uptime, you could do better with a cable modem...

Quality isn't rated just by uptime, but overall network performace which cogent is not and putting your company and clients in a position where 1 router or 1 provider goes down, your whole network is down.

True you can overpay. So paying the right amount is important and going with a reputable company that you know your paying the right amount at is important as well.

We must remember that providing a server that is less expensive is all relative - some may be making more money than others at the lower prices due to their cost basis and how they run their company. Others may be struggling at these levels and therefore showing it in their service to their customers. If you are not making a fair return on where you price a service and you are simply trying to buy business (or worse - you are just pricing things under everyone else and you have no clue what your margins are because you are inexperienced at accounting and or too small to properly track thesee things) you ***and you customers** are destined for the scrap heap. I know some companies are offering serivce that is less expensive than others - but they are still making good money - this is where you want to be - because they are not going to go away or begrudgingly support you "because they are not making money".

It is probably easy to figure out where service is "underfunded". But don;t assume it is just because it is less expensive than someone else. Let the user comments state that.

Originally posted by panopticon

I know I got a quote from you at around $200. And Lightone is at $100. Does this mean you are right at the edge where if you provided service for $10 less it would be crap? What if a different host were in a different building so less rent with everything else the same? Where do you see the cut off point for an entry level server where adequate service (e.g. answering the phone, not being down for more than 6 hours, etc.) can be still provided? If absolutely not at $100/month, can it be done for $125? $150? $175? $195?


Pegaus will not quote servers under $200 in most cases. Maybe it can be done at $190 or even $175. But there are alot of costs in keeping a network up 99+% of the time. It costs money to provide 24/7 Phone support when you will always get a real person to speak to.

But we are not in business to be the cheapest we are in business to be profitable and provide quailty service and to be the best we can be.

OK- I think I have jsut run across what too low is - this is getting crazy and I think a few of us will be around to pick up the bodies soon at this rate - I just heard from someone who said they would look around becauset they were not happy with their service - but that I would have to meet 200 er month for a high end box with 660 gig of actual transfer. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Holy smokes that is maybe 50 per meg on transfer - I am sorry but even on cogent - can not be done and make money - this is just rediculous and I agree with Jayglate on this one - there is an intrinsic fixed cost that goes into maintaining a network properly - it is not a percentage of cost - it is a hard number irregarldess of how much traffic you are runing and it is more than 5-10 per meg. I think it is more on the 40 per meg for those mid size companies running about 50-100 meg of total traffic. There fore - your total cost on cogent only is somewhere aroun 100 minimum. Then you need to make a return (otherwise open a junior savers CD at the bank for a better return - you get a free lolipop too!) Well - that puts cogent only at about 100-120 cost if youare running 70 meg on the connection - which most are not. so - how does someone make money at 200 for a server in a data center with 600gb transfer??? I am seriously scratching my noggin on that one.. :)

Methinks someone will be in financial trouble soon.

Originally posted by sailor
so - how does someone make money at 200 for a server in a data center with 600gb transfer??? I am seriously scratching my noggin on that one.. :)



Ok ... what can you tell it really works for the customer and the company it self...

The problem is that some companies are limiting thier thinking with the staderds .... by thi way ... you can never go in the creation of busness ... in fact busness is not only accounting ... It's realy creation... if you can creat the money .. you will be happy.

other wise you will be :bawling: and giving the standerds ...


Good Luck