Subject: Dedicated Server - Affordable High Quality

Staminus Communications (www.staminus.net) is now offering a specially priced dedicated server package specifically aimed at high quality hosting:

Processor: 1000 MHz Intel
Memory: 256 MB PC133 SDRAM
Hard Drive 1: 40 GB IBM 120gxp 7200
Bandwidth: 50 GB Transfer Per Month
IP Addresses: 1 IP Address (More free with justification)
Operating System: RedHat Linux 7.2 (Other options available)

Setup: $99
Monthly: $199

*Note: Server can be fully configured on our site.

-Uptime: 99.9% guarantee
-Support: 24/7 free support (reboots/emergencies/upgrades/repairs)
-Network: UUnet - trace/ping 65.215.220.10
-We are NOT a cogent reseller. This is high quality bandwidth.
-Contract: Month by Month
-Bandwidth Overcharge: $2.00/gig

If you have questions or comments, contact me by posting here, sending a private message, or sending me an email to toro@staminus.net.

Thanks,
Matt
Staminus Communications

Uptime: 99% guarantee
This is very low! That means a server with you could be down 7.44 hours or 446 minutes per month! Ouch!

Originally posted by panopticon

This is very low! That means a server with you could be down 7.44 hours or 446 minutes per month! Ouch!

huh?can you explain this numbers?
tia :)

31 days in a month times 24 hours in a day, times 60 minutes in an hour makes 44640 minutes in a month.

99% of 44640 is 44192. Subtract the two, and you have 446 minutes (divide by 60 minutes in an hour, you have 7.4 hours). That's how much downtime you can have, and still be up 99% of the time.

Hey,
Yeah, that is pretty low. That's our current guarantee. However, our network is actually sitting at 100% uptime right now since we opened up. We have not gone down since we opened our doors. I'll talk with some partners and see if we can get that to 99.9%.

Sincerely,
Matt
Staminus Communications

Hey,
I talked to my partners and we all agreed to offer a 99.9% uptime guarantee. That should account for about 45 minutes of downtime per month (enough for upgrades). I also edited my original post to reflect the modified service level agreement.

Thanks
Matt
Staminus Communications

This looks likes a nice offer :)

You'll probably have to wait for Cogent to fold before you can get truly competitive. We're in the same boat. I only write this because I can see your feelings about Cogent in your original post.

Drew

Hey drewnick,
You're very much correct. Unfortunately, Cogent has opened a new market where cheap bandwidth is heavily rampant. I really don't want them to "fold" for our company to prosper. I would much rather people realize that although Cogent is good right now, in the near future, their current infrastructure will be heavily saturated (Essentially the @Home effect). Their bandwidth might be underutilized right now, but shortly after everyone jumps on the bandwagon, it'll be under serious pressure.

Sincerely,
Matt
Staminus Communications

I don't want them to fold (well I don't care, but that would cause chaos and is unlikely)

I think the peering is going to be so off balance that they'll eventually have to do something.

The other providers do not charge their prices arbitrarily -- there are real costs associated with this business.

Drew

You would expect the real costs to decrease per GB though over time as the physical lines and technology gets faster and faster for the same $ value.

I'd say it will drop but only slightly. Remember that marketing, real estate, and power are going up. People are also an expensive thing to have. And I don't care what you say, a nationwide fiber network requires people from time to time.

Drew

That's true - I didn't stop to consider real estate, which is going way up, or power which is probably going up in other states more than here, or people... good points. I sometimes think of bandwidth like computer technology in general, but forget the other little things involved.

It's difficult right now because although almost everyone is enthusiastic about the Internet, somehow everyone things it should be free. So from a webmasters point of view it is difficult to agree with the hosts here who say 'down with cogent - down with cheap prices'. Well, I guess webmasters could join together to get rid of all the free sites and free information, but that would kind of defeat the purpose of the internet. It's interesting because today I talked with someone who wanted an always on connection, and they liked everything but when I told them the price $70/month a red flag went up (no cable/dsl here, etc.). The interesting part is that they are currently paying over $100/month for TV but think that the net should only cost them $20, but at the same time are very interested in the internet, use it a lot, etc. etc. So I guess the only problem is how to convince individual people to invest more so that more money is there for websites so that more money is there for hosts... I don't have anything against shopping sites or billboard sites for existing meat and potatoes businesses, but at the same time what I really like about the Internet are the personal project sites and general information sites which provide information freely, and it appears that costs are slowly squeezing in on this type of site.

Sorry, I fear I have veered way off topic...

This thread sure did digress...

I'll just have faith in the populace and hope for potential customers to soon realize the difference between a Cogent host and a UUnet host.

Aside from the griping, if anyone has any questions or comments about Staminus Communications, please feel free to contact me directly at toro@staminus.net, or contact sales@staminus.net.

Thanks,
Matt
Staminus Communications

Toro: Aside from elite packet filtering on the uunet side, what is the difference right now (not 1 year down the road if they fold heh)

Every time someone features "high quality bandwidth not cheap cogent bandwidth" I've asked, and so far no one has been able to give a good summary with numbers to back up the quality difference which supposedly makes the difference in price a good investment. Obviously cogent-only is no good, but UUNet-only probably isn't good either. Before I get a server, I would love it if someone could post some good data showing how a high quality uunet connection is better than a host who uses cogent + aleron, in the real world.

Hey,
UUnet does not provide filtering. The difference is as follows:
traceroute to 66.28.20.146 (66.28.20.146), 30 hops max, 38 byte packets

1 core01.irv.staminus.net (65.215.220.9) 0.342 ms 0.220 ms 0.134 ms
2 edge01.irv.staminus.net (65.215.220.1) 0.982 ms 0.966 ms 0.983 ms
3 Loopback0.GW1.LAX9.ALTER.NET (137.39.4.198) 4.218 ms 4.162 ms 4.181 ms
4 151.at-5-0-0.XR2.LAX9.ALTER.NET (152.63.113.38) 4.326 ms 4.842 ms 4.476 ms
5 0.so-3-0-0.XL2.LAX9.ALTER.NET (152.63.115.170) 4.824 ms 4.843 ms 5.397 ms
6 0.so-0-0-0.TL2.LAX9.ALTER.NET (152.63.115.146) 5.383 ms 5.275 ms 4.967 ms
7 02.CircuitTesting.ALTER.NET (152.63.15.250) 15.825 ms 15.794 ms 15.460 ms
8 0.so-4-0-0.XL2.PAO1.ALTER.NET (152.63.54.82) 18.312 ms 18.183 ms 18.574 ms
9 POS1-0.XR2.PAO1.ALTER.NET (152.63.54.78) 18.818 ms 18.920 ms 18.050 ms
10 188.ATM9-0-0.BR1.PAO1.ALTER.NET (146.188.148.109) 18.882 ms 18.509 ms 19.382 ms
11 204.255.168.210 (204.255.168.210) 81.379 ms 94.181 ms 88.720 ms
12 GigE2-1.tr1.SanFrancisco1.CA.us.netrail.net (205.215.12.1) 97.401 ms 82.758 ms 81.386 ms
13 p13-0.core02.sfo01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.28.57) 20.319 ms 26.604 ms 31.384 ms
14 p15-0.core01.sfo01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.69) 29.545 ms 25.692 ms 25.357 ms
15 p4-0.core01.sjc01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.94) 23.420 ms 21.447 ms 28.881 ms
16 p13-0.core01.lax01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.73) 37.425 ms 34.060 ms 32.526 ms
17 p5-0.core01.san01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.78) 36.307 ms 34.834 ms 38.017 ms
18 p6-0.core01.iah01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.5) 132.127 ms 203.649 ms 216.404 ms
19 p15-0.core01.tpa01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.46) 106.875 ms 101.197 ms 101.156 ms
20 p5-0.core01.mia01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.57) 106.554 ms 107.797 ms 100.529 ms
21 g49.ba01.b002802-1.mia01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.6.42) 102.170 ms 101.318 ms 105.893 ms
22 davies.demarc.cogentco.com (66.28.20.146) 102.429 ms 106.781 ms 101.909 ms


The packet travels out of Southern California (lax), all the way up to San Francisco/San Jose, then back to Southern California (lax), then to "iah" (Clarify?), then Tampa, then Miami.

Cogent's routing here is just silly. Why do they go back and forth like that? Cogent also lacks peering points (Peering point count compared to UUnet/Qwest/ATT) to send the packet the shortest geographic distance. In this test, I'm getting 101~106 ms for a traceroute that should take about 60~70 ms.

Also, look at the deviation on each hop. Every UUnet (Alter.net) hop has a deviation of less than 1 ms. However, look at the Cogent hops:
132.127 ms 203.649 ms 216.404 ms
As much as 84 ms deviation with the norm around 5 ms.

So, just to prevent anyone from commenting on a single trace hickup, I went ahead and did another trace:

traceroute to 66.28.20.146 (66.28.20.146), 30 hops max, 38 byte packets
1 core01.irv.staminus.net (65.215.220.9) 0.373 ms 0.266 ms 0.136 ms
2 edge01.irv.staminus.net (65.215.220.1) 1.040 ms 0.970 ms 0.918 ms
3 Loopback0.GW1.LAX9.ALTER.NET (137.39.4.198) 4.214 ms 4.156 ms 4.233 ms
4 151.at-5-0-0.XR2.LAX9.ALTER.NET (152.63.113.38) 4.519 ms 4.844 ms 4.789 ms
5 0.so-3-0-0.XL2.LAX9.ALTER.NET (152.63.115.170) 4.767 ms 5.037 ms 4.596 ms
6 0.so-0-0-0.TL2.LAX9.ALTER.NET (152.63.115.146) 4.645 ms 5.140 ms 5.647 ms
7 02.CircuitTesting.ALTER.NET (152.63.15.250) 15.331 ms 15.836 ms 15.901 ms
8 0.so-4-0-0.XL2.PAO1.ALTER.NET (152.63.54.82) 18.816 ms 18.342 ms 18.440 ms
9 POS1-0.XR2.PAO1.ALTER.NET (152.63.54.78) 18.306 ms 18.399 ms 18.415 ms
10 188.ATM9-0-0.BR1.PAO1.ALTER.NET (146.188.148.109) 19.400 ms 18.733 ms 18.975 ms
11 204.255.168.210 (204.255.168.210) 82.840 ms 81.366 ms 81.495 ms
12 GigE2-1.tr1.SanFrancisco1.CA.us.netrail.net (205.215.12.1) 81.202 ms 81.626 ms 99.047 ms
13 p13-0.core02.sfo01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.28.57) 20.501 ms 20.896 ms 19.877 ms
14 p15-0.core01.sfo01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.69) 20.353 ms 20.209 ms 21.515 ms
15 p4-0.core01.sjc01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.94) 21.834 ms 21.244 ms 21.061 ms
16 p13-0.core01.lax01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.73) 32.972 ms 32.364 ms 32.284 ms
17 p5-0.core01.san01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.78) 34.722 ms 35.330 ms 37.481 ms
18 p6-0.core01.iah01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.5) 58.279 ms 56.557 ms 56.366 ms
19 p15-0.core01.tpa01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.46) 100.731 ms 100.933 ms 100.853 ms
20 p5-0.core01.mia01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.57) 100.757 ms 101.286 ms 100.520 ms
21 g49.ba01.b002802-1.mia01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.6.42) 101.374 ms 112.322 ms 101.042 ms
22 davies.demarc.cogentco.com (66.28.20.146) 101.512 ms 100.454 ms 101.953 ms

In this trace (a bit better for Cogent), you can see UUnet at its worst: 19.400 ms 18.733 ms 18.975 ms and 4.645 ms 5.140 ms 5.647 ms. You can see about 1 ms of deviation. However, looking onward, you see: 101.374 ms 112.322 ms 101.042 ms for our friendly Cogent carrier whereby an 11 ms deviation is established.

Once again, I'm not saying I want Cogent to fold, nor am I saying Cogent is bad. In my opinion, Cogent is just not suitable for a hosting enviornment in need of a stable and highly demanding network.

Sincerely,
Matt
Staminus Communications

Yeh, thats valid for a gameserver maybe, but not really a webserver. A 50-200ms difference in ping won't make any noticable difference for some guy viewing your webpage. Also, uunet does provide (or make a way to provide you with) packet filtering, last i checked.

Hey,
My actual point in showing the deviation was that even right now, with Cogent just coming around with an underutilized network, large levels of deviation can be seen ranging up to ~80 ms. So in a month when another 50 Cogent providers spring up, what happens to those spikes (Rhetorical Question). In two months when another 50 Cogent providers spring up, what happens again?

So in reality, we don't have to wait a year for to see Cogent's shortcomings. We can see the onslaught just over the horizon with mild yet noticable foreshadowing now.

In addition, as much as I love discussing how Cogent is the almighty liberator of internet traffic, I, as well as my associates would appreciate it if you would cease your underlying attempts to thwart Staminus' business practices by continually digressing from the original intent of this thread.

So, retreating to my original point, once again, if anyone is interested in dedicated hosting or colocation services, please contact Staminus Communications at sales@staminus.net or by visiting our website at www.staminus.net.

Sincerely,
Matt
Staminus Communications

Heh,

The only reason i replied is because i have yet to find a provider who can actually determine that their bandwidth is "any better" then another providers bandwidth. I have no doubt cogent will handle their part of the bargain with traffic, as they are using 80%+ cisco equipment + cisco terrabit (if i'm not mistaken) routers. BTW, noones trying to "thwart" your business practises, and it's barely been "continual disgressing" it was a simple question, maybe you forgot your medicine, but you sound a little paranoid to me ^_^.

So in a month when another 50 Cogent providers spring up, what happens to those spikes (Rhetorical Question). In two months when another 50 Cogent providers spring up, what happens again?Is Cogent finished building its infrastructure? Maybe when even more people start using Cogent they will improve because they will add capacity? Maybe they are working to add peering points right now. Or maybe since they are new, with time they will improve the tuning of their Network and will be better in a few months then they are now.

In addition, as much as I love discussing how Cogent is the almighty liberator of internet traffic, I, as well as my associates would appreciate it if you would cease your underlying attempts to thwart Staminus' business practices by continually digressing from the original intent of this thread.
I suppose I should apologize for going off topic. On the other hand, you started off by saying We are NOT a cogent reseller. This is high quality bandwidth. and as I'm trying to make up my mind on which dedicated server to get, I thought it was important to see if there was any truth to that statement you made or if it was just advertising banter. If you couldn't back up that statement, then you simply got a bad deal on bandwidth and your prices are high for what you are offering. But if that statement does turn out to be true (or more accurately, a factor for real web sites in the real world), then your deal could be a good one afterall.

Hey,
I just showed several posts ago how Cogent is already showing signs of overselling. Their routers aren't able to handle the load very well. Here's another:

14 p15-0.core01.sfo01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.69) 20.966 ms 21.073 ms 20.908 ms
15 p14-0.core01.ord01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.41) 65.065 ms 249.919 ms 80.966 ms
16 g49.ba01.b000484-0.ord01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.66.154) 65.359 ms 65.617 ms 65.506 ms

Staminus CommunicationsI'm trying to make up my mind on which dedicated server to get You're a provider. You're interested in thwarting your competition by whatever means possible: overlooking mentioned factors. Your comments are not welcome since they are biased.

Is Cogent finished building its infrastructure? It takes money to maintain a network. To upgrade that network, it takes a large deal of money, and then more money to maintain it. At their pricing, they would need to sell massive amounts of bandwidth, more than likely overextending their network capacity (overselling).

I suppose I should apologize for going off topic. It's a known fact that UUnet bandwidth is more expensive and as shown, more stable than Cogent bandwidth. I mentioned that to inform readers of such.

Please stop wasting both my time, and readers' times. Plain and simple, UUnet's network is far superior to Cogent's network. You do not need to reply to this post. If you feel the urge, refer to two sentences ago.


Sincerely,
Matt
Staminus Communications

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm trying to make up my mind on which dedicated server to get
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You're a provider. You're interested in thwarting your competition by whatever means possible: overlooking mentioned factors. Your comments are not welcome since they are biased.


^^ Uhhh, one of your potential customers said that, not another provider. Cogent guarantee's 99.99% uptime, what does uunet guarantee? Even if it is 100%, thats what? 4.3 mintues/month difference? The fact that one ping out of 3 spiked on one hop doesen't in any way indicate that cogent is oversaturated, thats mere speculation.

You're a provider. You're interested in thwarting your competition by whatever means possible: overlooking mentioned factors. Your comments are not welcome since they are biased.

You said that to the wrong person, it should have been to me. But anyhow, i'm not trying to thwart you in any way, i'd say it's the other way around. What if i advertised in my post "our bandwidth is provided by a high quality carrier, not some overpriced network like UUNET", would you not respond? I'm betting that would get quite a bit of response, but thats exactly what you're doing here, so why do you feel the need to bash cogent providers?

OH, BTW, i thought you might like this:

Mon Feb 25 01:00:02 EST 2002
PING 66.28.2.120 (66.28.2.120): 56 octets data

--- 66.28.2.120 ping statistics ---
3590 packets transmitted, 3590 packets received, 0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max = 70.2/74.5/233.5 ms

74ms average from my cable in canada, not too shabby IMHO, i've been monitoring cogent for months now, there is nothing wrong with their ping speeds.

Ummm toro, I think you'll find that panopticon is a legitimate customer, with legitimate questions and concerns. Where-as porcupine, may not be a potential customer and can be a little argumentative at times. ;) ... similar nic's .. different people.

Originally posted by toro
H.................Please stop wasting both my time, and readers' times. Plain and simple, UUnet's network is far superior to Cogent's network...............
Sincerely,
Matt
Staminus Communications

i'm beginning to enjoy it now
by all means please continue :D

You're a provider. You're interested in thwarting your competition by whatever means possible: overlooking mentioned factors. Your comments are not welcome since they are biased.I'm afraid I must disappoint you. I wish I was a competitor as then I would have plenty of servers for myself, but alas I am only about to get my first dedicated server. If you look at my posts you'll see that my budget is not huge, and that I'm also just looking at webmin for the first time...hardly an expert or a competitor. I really have no interest in thwarting you. On the other hand, quite honestly, I much prefer the attitudes of people like sailor (who is my #1 choice at the moment) and after your last post I probably will not consider hosting with you. Up until that post I was impressed by your ability to provide some facts to back up your statement.

One of the great things about webhosting talk is that it gives people a chance to interact with hosts. I don't really place any stock in banners... who knows if they're any good or if they're just telling fibs. You notice that ***** is top rated at many other hosting sites - Based on their advertising without good feedback and without talking to them enough before signing up , I got suckered in and had a terrible time with them. The really nice thing about these forums is that it gives customers a chance to ask about the deals, and it also allows people to question statements which might be false. That is a great protection and resource for newbies such as myself who rely on questions and other people to keep the answers honest. That's why I really like this site.
It's a known fact that UUnet bandwidth is more expensive and as shown, more stable than Cogent bandwidth. I mentioned that to inform readers of such.I know it's more expensive, but what I do not know is how much better it is. It's interesting that if it's such as known fact, the numbers you have provided in this thread are the first real data I've been shown showing superiority, and I don't know enough yet to know how much difference that would make in the real world load time of a web site. If it is such a known fact, maybe you could provide some references to other discussions or data or summaries which go into more detail of the bad points or dangers of cogent.

Also since your post I’ve been using tracert to do a variety of traceroutes from different locations, and on 60-70% you come out ahead in the times, and on some way ahead, but on others a provider using what you term “cheap bandwidth” (dv2) is knocking your socks off.

traceroute to tranxactglobal.com (209.51.128.103), 30 hops max, 38 byte packets
4 atl-core-02.inet.qwest.net (205.171.5.67) 15.947 ms 17.465 ms 17.842 ms
5 atl-brdr-03.inet.qwest.net (205.171.21.102) 16.119 ms 15.659 ms 15.939 ms
6 so-2-3-3.pr1.Atlanta1.GA.us.netrail.net (205.215.1.209) 19.046 ms 16.893 ms 16.917 ms
7 205.215.2.6 (205.215.2.6) 16.267 ms 18.043 ms 19.404 ms
8 vulcan.netdepot.com (209.51.128.15) 16.478 ms * 16.776 ms

traceroute to staminus.net (65.215.220.10), 30 hops max, 38 byte packets
4 atl-core-02.inet.qwest.net (205.171.5.67) 20.259 ms 17.300 ms 16.744 ms
5 dca-core-02.inet.qwest.net (205.171.8.154) 33.213 ms 31.018 ms 31.810 ms
6 wdc-core-01.inet.qwest.net (205.171.8.210) 37.739 ms 33.572 ms 31.551 ms
7 wdc-brdr-03.inet.qwest.net (205.171.24.38) 33.253 ms 32.469 ms 40.678 ms
8 POS1-1.BR4.DCA6.ALTER.NET (204.255.169.97) 32.779 ms 34.959 ms 31.919 ms
9 0.so-1-0-0.XL1.DCA6.ALTER.NET (152.63.41.230) 36.853 ms 32.315 ms 33.018 ms
10 0.so-0-0-0.TL1.DCA6.ALTER.NET (152.63.38.69) 32.868 ms 36.889 ms 35.328 ms
11 0.so-5-1-0.TL1.LAX9.ALTER.NET (152.63.0.141) 81.712 ms 110.818 ms 82.439 ms
12 0.so-0-0-0.XL1.LAX9.ALTER.NET (152.63.115.137) 82.216 ms 83.850 ms 80.746 ms
13 0.so-3-0-0.XR1.LAX9.ALTER.NET (152.63.115.157) 81.540 ms 83.314 ms 83.527 ms
14 191.ATM7-0.GW1.LAX9.ALTER.NET (152.63.113.29) 80.726 ms 83.442 ms 82.634 ms
15 edge01.irv.staminus.net (65.215.220.1) 87.525 ms 85.843 ms 86.280 ms
16 core01.irv.staminus.net (65.215.220.2) 86.508 ms 87.518 ms 85.884 ms
17 web1.staminus.net (65.215.220.10) 88.572 ms 85.134 ms 87.054 ms


traceroute to tranxactglobal.com (209.51.128.103), 30 hops max, 38 byte packets
1 aus-gw.illuminati.net (199.170.88.1) 0.310 ms 0.251 ms 0.348 ms
2 209-99-107-65.texas.net (209.99.107.65) 0.710 ms 0.593 ms 0.589 ms
3 lc1.gw1.aus1.texas.net (216.166.60.1) 0.397 ms 0.502 ms 0.426 ms
4 bb1.gw2.aus1.texas.net (216.166.60.18) 0.561 ms 0.920 ms 0.568 ms
5 64.92.154.33 (64.92.154.33) 1.544 ms 1.415 ms 1.516 ms
6 dcr02-g3-1.aust01.exodus.net (216.34.160.254) 1.554 ms 1.347 ms 2.182 ms
7 bbr02-g6-0.aust01.exodus.net (216.34.160.36) 1.595 ms 1.604 ms 1.901 ms
8 bbr01-p0-0.ftwo01.exodus.net (206.79.9.202) 8.762 ms 8.699 ms 8.650 ms
9 ibr01-g2-0.ftwo01.exodus.net (216.39.64.5) 8.872 ms 9.182 ms 8.798 ms
10 204.157.5.98 (204.157.5.98) 10.828 ms 11.249 ms 11.030 ms
11 ge1-1.atluna.as.unaatlga.aleron.net (205.198.2.40) 44.964 ms 44.777 ms 44.826 ms
12 205.198.2.130 (205.198.2.130) 29.341 ms 31.810 ms 29.158 ms
13 vulcan.netdepot.com (209.51.128.15) 29.753 ms 33.069 ms

traceroute to staminus.net (65.215.220.10), 30 hops max, 38 byte packets
1 aus-gw.illuminati.net (199.170.88.1) 0.291 ms 0.292 ms 0.263 ms
2 209-99-107-65.texas.net (209.99.107.65) 0.903 ms 0.669 ms 0.829 ms
3 lc1.gw1.aus1.texas.net (216.166.60.1) 0.819 ms 0.500 ms 0.430 ms
4 bb1.gw2.aus1.texas.net (216.166.60.18) 0.398 ms 0.832 ms 0.424 ms
5 64.92.154.33 (64.92.154.33) 1.382 ms 1.410 ms 1.411 ms
6 dcr01-g3-1.aust01.exodus.net (216.34.160.250) 1.410 ms 1.541 ms 1.413 ms
7 bbr02-g6-0.aust01.exodus.net (216.34.160.36) 1.546 ms 1.555 ms 1.453 ms
8 bbr01-p0-0.ftwo01.exodus.net (206.79.9.202) 8.714 ms 8.584 ms 8.783 ms
9 ibr01-g2-0.ftwo01.exodus.net (216.39.64.5) 8.914 ms 8.706 ms 8.579 ms
10 POS3-1.GW6.DFW7.ALTER.NET (157.130.141.73) 9.743 ms 10.194 ms 9.799 ms
11 146.at-6-0-0.XR1.DFW7.ALTER.NET (146.188.242.90) 9.859 ms 9.617 ms 10.093 ms
12 191.at-1-0-0.XR1.DFW9.ALTER.NET (152.63.96.202) 8.746 ms 8.666 ms 8.302 ms
13 0.so-2-0-0.XL1.DFW9.ALTER.NET (152.63.101.253) 8.749 ms 8.852 ms 8.743 ms
14 0.so-0-0-0.TL1.DFW9.ALTER.NET (152.63.0.193) 8.590 ms 8.693 ms 8.784 ms
15 0.so-6-0-0.TL1.LAX9.ALTER.NET (152.63.10.14) 42.507 ms 42.627 ms 42.653 ms
16 0.so-0-0-0.XL1.LAX9.ALTER.NET (152.63.115.137) 42.775 ms 42.731 ms 42.552 ms
17 0.so-3-0-0.XR1.LAX9.ALTER.NET (152.63.115.157) 46.330 ms 46.189 ms 46.753 ms
18 191.ATM7-0.GW1.LAX9.ALTER.NET (152.63.113.29) 46.421 ms 46.688 ms 47.058 ms
19 edge01.irv.staminus.net (65.215.220.1) 51.455 ms 51.829 ms 51.008 ms
20 core01.irv.staminus.net (65.215.220.2) 50.841 ms 50.625 ms 50.750 ms
21 web1.staminus.net (65.215.220.10) 50.628 ms 51.841 ms 50.864 ms

Actually before your post above I was only looking at the overall time from different locations. I didn't realize the significance of the difference between the three times. So you have taught me something.

Hey,

First, an apology to panopticon. It's 1 AM, porcupine is wasting my time, and I am very tired. I misread the names (p*). The defensive statements are aimed at Porcupine who I have noticed, comments on many dedicated and colocated hosting providers with an underlying negative tone.

Any provider-related comments go to porcupine and his wonderful array of comments.

Your traceroutes are primarily showing geographical disadvantages. (Usually, the closer you are, the faster you are to the particular network). On the qwest to uunet traceroute, you can see issues at qwest's level: wdc-core-01.inet.qwest.net (205.171.8.210) 37.739 ms 33.572 ms 31.551 ms
Already you have deviation issues with Qwest, so high levels of deviation at UUnet is expected. With the exodus to UUnet trace, you can see that deviation at Exodus is very little as well as deviation at UUNet. It's more accurate to measure stability in deviation than speed in "lowest latency is best" because I can trace yahoo.com and get 10 ms while someone from the east coast traces yahoo.com and gets 70 ms. It's simply a matter of geographic relevance.

--- 65.215.220.10 ping statistics ---
4564 packets transmitted, 4564 packets received, 0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max = 31.0/32.6/40.2 ms
^- Cable

UUnet is not overpriced. They are priced above others competatively speaking, however their network is rock solid and we pay for that. If you wanted to make that comment, by all means go ahead. I have the dignity and respect not to flood other providers' threads in a desperate attempt to undermine competition.

Also, note that in earlier posts, I mentioned that I'm not bashing Cogent. They are simply "not suitable for a hosting enviornment in need of a stable and highly demanding network" Read posts thoroughly prior to replying so offensively.

Once again, feel free to *not* post replies since you are simply a time consumer.
^--Also to porcupine (thanks porcupine...)

Sincerely,
Matt
Staminus Communications

Hey,
I'd just like to mention that I'm open to questions and comments by any personnel not associated with porcupine. I will gladly uphold Staminus' choice in selecting UUnet over Cogent. I will answer any questions anyone has regarding any of our services as well.

Recent posts similar to that of panopticon are ideal. Providing support with claims. Thanks to you, panopticon for your thorough description.

Thanks,
Matt
Staminus Communications

If you don't want such stuff in your thread, then dont post stuff like "quality bandwidth, not like cogent", etc. If i went and started a thread about how the carrier i used was better then uunet because "uunet is a overpriced and underserviced network" i'd expect to get some flack in my thread, why don't you try a little less hostility overall, and to just stop bashing cogent, because when you do, the providers who use cogent are obviously going to attempt to defend themselves. It's just not fair to start picking on other peoples resources and to not expect any form of response, and you should know that, maybe you will see it from both sides after you've gotten some sleep. I think that in every case here you've been responded to politely and accuratly, so hopefully you'll get some ZZZ and stop posting such rubbish.

http://www.cogentco.com/Difference/quality_service.html :D

Lol, nuno, ignore anything that you see on that page, i stumbled across it awhile ago, and it's just bad uh.. whats the word im looking for? "spindoctoring"? I don't know any "traditional" isp that has 200ms latency and 10-30% packet loss, at least any that are still in business. But then again, i guess a lot of providers post figures like that to make themselves look more favorable =\

Porcupine, I will not dignify your comments with a proper response. You are in violation of the "be polite" rule on WHT with "stop posting such rubbish".

Nuno, I went ahead and looked at that SLA. Notice that they don't mention what the 75 ms spans. The SLA is very vague. For example, UUnet claims about 65 ms round trip for US/Europe as well as a 99% or greater packet delivery rate: http://www1.worldcom.com/global/about/network/latency/. As you can see from the statistics on that page, they are well below their guaranteed service level agreement, thereby falling away from the "Traditional ISP" as mentioned in the Cogent SLA. The key problem with the Cogent SLA is that it doesn't specify on what grounds they guarantee such rates. For the sake of comparisson, we can assume a 75 ms round trip USA rate comparbale to a 65 ms round trip USA route guaranteed by UUnet. Packet delivery for Cogent is ~99% (~0% packet drop) which is similar to what UUnet claims. Availability, I assume implies network availability as a whole. As noticable by the statistics mentioned on the page dating back to May of 2000, the network has been rock solid.

As a final note, Cogent is not bad. In my opinion, they are simply not geared for high end reliable hosting.

Sincerely,
Matt
Staminus Communications

Matt
i'm not saying that Cogent is gr8 and Uunet sucks or the other way around, each one got its pro's and con's, but i disagree with this kinda stuff:

Originally posted by toro

We are NOT a cogent reseller. This is high quality bandwidth.............

Originally posted by toro

In my opinion, they are simply not geared for high end reliable hosting.


this is bashing IMO :rolleyes:

It's not bashing to have an opinion or preference of one carrier over another. He likes his, you like yours, this is his offer. If you post an ad, I'd expect that the thread starter not post comments on your provider and decision, so let's leave it at that already. If you are interested in the offer, feel free to ask questions, otherwise I think there's been enough discussion about this already.

Originally posted by toro
then to "iah" (Clarify?), then Tampa, then Miami.

That's in the DC area, I believe.

IAH is Houston.

Originally posted by kwimberl
IAH is Houston.

Hah, okay, I stand corrected!

:)

:stickout

Originally posted by jkehe

That's in the DC area, I believe.

You are thinking of IAD, which is the DC area (Dulles, to be specific), didn't they give you the "Airport Code Quiz" when you started your hosting company :D. Sheesh.

Hey,
Thanks for clarifying that. "International Airport, Houston" I believe.

Originally posted by toro
Hey,
Thanks for clarifying that. "International Airport, Houston" I believe.

Nah...you know Texans have to be different:

Intercontinental Airport, Houston

Among the midst of all these discussions, I hope the original intent of my post was not misconstrued.

i would just like to say somethings about staminus,

I have had a server with staminus for 1 month..

0 downtime!

Excellent support, instant replies over AIM...

Service has been A+, pm me for a ip to test and for a file to download to test the speeds..

you cant go wrong with staminus, getting my second server soon..

:agree: :agree: staminus

Porcupine, i dont agree with bashing competitors sorry...

Digging 'em up from the dead edude? and "Porcupine, i dont agree with bashing competitors sorry...", well thats kind of ironic, as the original thread has been modified, but thats one very good reason not to side with anyone on a modified thread thats half a year old, as the original read something along the lines of "not like the other that use cogent crap", which if you want to discuss bashing, bashes any company using cogent.