I always figured jaguarpc.net for a good and reliable company and was seriously considering moving my larger account over there.

However, it seems that even they have fallen down following a disasterous server failure - corrupt backups - old backups etc etc.

The forum thread that was dealing it the problem ran into well over 25 pages and has now been deleted by an ever so convenient slip of the finger.

Nah !! The concept of A Good Host Forever is nothing but a pipe dream. I really thought these guys could cut it but am disappointed to see it being a false perception.

Originally posted by Antgear
The forum thread that was dealing it the problem ran into well over 25 pages and has now been deleted by an ever so convenient slip of the finger.

I don't recall any 25 page threads disappearing. But have generally heard good things about Jag.

Gary

Yup. The News and Updates section of their support forum - the post dealing with Ns17.

Sorry, I thought you mean here on WHT. I'll keep my comments to myself then. :-)

Regards

Gary

Originally posted by Editor
Sorry, I thought you mean here on WHT.


I doubt that any of the mods would ever delete something like that unless there is a major problem with it.


Jim

Knowing nothing of the incident in question.

1-Know of no host who is going to keep a 25 page thread of criticism open....amazed they left it that long.

2-If the theory was that they or any host was perfect, yes it will bite the dust. There is no perfect host.

3-For the ten thousandth time, I re-emphasize DO YOUR OWN BACKUPS. Even Jaguar warns <Back-ups : JaguarPC performs daily backups on all of our servers to ensure critical files are never lost. Our server software does create daily backups for users sites that you may download on your own, we do not restore a file any user has accidentally deleted or modified. The back-up restoration is for emergency procedures only. Your are advised to backup all of your own files to your local drive. JaguarPC is not responsible for lost data, time, income or any other resource due to faulty backups or non-existant back-ups.>

I am sorry for your problems, but please...everyone...learn the lesson. Backups can get corrupted...most common problem is backup done after the problem on the server occurs but before it is detected-therefore, the backup copy is corrupted as well.

About those backups - I have downloaded the CPanel backup a number of times and have NEVER had one that was NOT corrupted.

Is this a CPanel deficiency? Has anybody actually tested and verified that large backups (say >50 megs) are able to be restored? I'm just asking. I'm unaffected by the jaguarpc server meltdown but it has made me more aware of the importance of making backups. However, if the CPanel backup is problematic then what?

Don't you also think that it is possibly just a little TOO convenient for hosts to abrogate their responsibilities by saying "Backup? It's your problem buddy !"

Can hosts actually specify the maximum file size allowable for a backup? Considering that it obviously uses up disk space and some hosts load servers to the extent that even normal space is no longer available - is it logical to conclude that in these instances the hosts forego the backups and then if something does go wrong, the blame it on the CUSTOMER for being too slack to actually do their own backups?

I'm just asking :)

However, among reputable hosts, I don't believe any actually forego backups. It is just an imperfect system...more imperfect with some than others.

We have chosen to maintain separate servers and backup the server complete to them. With server prices dropping so, it just seemed to us the way to go. Previously, we used a combination of extra drives and tapes.

[QUOTE]1-Know of no host who is going to keep a 25 page thread of criticism open....amazed they left it that long.
QUOTE]

Got to thinking about this one. Is it fair to label a natural concern for ones sites as criticism? Are most hosts open to simply deleting the problem so that when future visitors arrive, everything looks squeaky clean?

I have seen this criticism levelled at rockethost (i believe) but is it more widespread than that?

Hi all,
Actually that 25 page thread, was at 28 pages at one point. We dont make attempts to hide anything, although that thread was very ugly. I personally made a mistake and before it was too late the thread was gone. I merged a few threads that all dealt with that server then that put a few client posts ahead of my first one so I went to remove those posts. They didnt have anything worthwhile and were reposted as well. Well I dont know exactly how I did it (or else the thread would still be there) , but when the screen refreshed the thread was gone. I assume I hit the delete thread instead of delete post. After working literally for days non stop to correct that horrible incident I guess my blurred vision got the best of me. Anyways, I reposted immediately to tell everyone what a dumbass I was and to feel free to repost anything that was there prior to my smooth move.

Originally posted by Incognito
Knowing nothing of the incident in question.

3-For the ten thousandth time, I re-emphasize DO YOUR OWN BACKUPS. Even Jaguar warns <Back-ups : JaguarPC performs daily backups on all of our servers to ensure critical files are never lost. Our server software does create daily backups for users sites that you may download on your own, we do not restore a file any user has accidentally deleted or modified. The back-up restoration is for emergency procedures only. Your are advised to backup all of your own files to your local drive. JaguarPC is not responsible for lost data, time, income or any other resource due to faulty backups or non-existant back-ups.>


Dear all,

I cannot agree more with the above. I just learnt it the hard way. The hosting company in which hosted two of my sites had a motherboard failure. Then when it was replaced, it was discovered that the backups were corrupted. Sigh!

I spent the past couple of days doing 'data-entry'. Well, it's a lesson well learnt. From now, I'll perform my own backups as often as I can.

Cheers!

Pak Tjun
hostfrontier.com
squash4all.com

I suppose the strength of a company is dependant on its ability to recover and learn from what went wrong - and I suspect that Jag will recover quickly :) I don't mean to disparage you guys at Jag - tote this one up to my being disappointed from afar

As for backups, I have mine fully automated to a remote server and don't rely on the host backup at all. I suppose I could go for triple redundancy and have that backup stored on another remote server :)

Considering that a backup actually uses disk space, do hosts actually make provision for this in their pricing plans?

Would it not be simpler to say:

The NO Backup plan costs $x per month and the Backup plan costs $x+y per month. Considering how stingy we are with our spending, we may actually opt for the "NO Backup" option and that in turn saves the host from having to worry about the backup and also releases additional disk space. It also forces the user to make to take full responsibility for their backups.

Just a thought.

As usual, Jag shows professionalism.

Back to Antgear's question of do web hosts take the space requirements of backups into their pricing consideration. Most reputable hosts do. Some less reputable who have no plans of backups do not. As space is so relatively cheap today, that is not really the problem or the costly part of the equation. The real issues are:

1-What media to backup to
2-What software to use to execute the backups
3-How to test the backups to see they are reliable
4-How to avoid backing up bad or corrupted files over good backups
5-How to maintain control over backups and be in position to quickly and reliably restore

Yes, to test the backup is really a nightmare if you think of a server with 200 accounts and all the data involved including databases and system files. And think of the time this consumes!

I'm thinking on a tangent here because this actually gets more interesting as we go along.

1. What media and config is the most reliable vs what is used by most hosts

2. By software, do you mean the control panel? As I indicated earlier, I have yet to experience a backup from CPanel that was NOT corrupted

3. How exactly do you test the backups? Isn't that supposed to be a config setting in the tar instruction? Or is tar an unreliable method to be using?

4. If you're making sure the backup is good in the first place then writing over existing good backuos should not be cause for concern :)

5. Isn't reliable restoration a function of the NOC's ability to employ people with a sufficient skills base? Or are NOCs notorius for employing staff with inadequate skills

And in response to Walter, do you figure many hosts actually end up testing 200 backups?

But really - why not just offer a No Backup plan for cheaper?

Yes...you do see widely varied skills at different NOC's. However, the task is certainly complicated by the fact that there may literally be hundreds of different scripts loaded as well as other special programs that the NOC could not have possibly tested all. Therefore, a complete server backup or even copy is probably the most likely to work, rather than any control panel backup or site by site backup. The way we last tested was to take about 100 of our own accounts...backup to another server...then reload to a third server...disconnect the first...place the third in its place. Our protection was that if it didn't work, we just had to reconnect server 1. It fortunately did work. But did we cover all possible variables...no. But still, we have confidence. We also wanted to test our time of restore-starting with reload on new server through to new server on line (sort of like a fire drill).

The only sure fire way to test a backup is to restore from it. Unfortunately there is not enough time in the day to test every single backup.

Instead, you have to test your backup method to make sure it works, and hope that your method has not failed.

Depending on the media, you can sometimes verify the data on your backup within a reasonable amount of time, without having to restore from it.

It seems to me that if your host chose not to backup your account because you agreed to this for paying less, that it would still be more convenient for them to backup all the accounts and restore all of them in case of a drive failure.

IMHO, hosts should definitely be including the cost of backing up your web space when they decide on the cost for space and the amount alloted. That's why I have a hard time believing that the ones that offer you over a GB of space or Unlimited space are actually capable of backing up your data as well. But if you don't care...