So if Rackshack is the McDonald's of dedicated servers, who's the Burger King? and who's the Carl's Jr. and who's the Taco Bell?

Seriously, I am very drawn to Rackshack and will most likely get a server or servers with them, but I'd like to know who their competition is at the bottom of the food chain. I don't need to pay $99 for a server, I'd be willing to pay up to $299 for one with similar specs i.e 400GB of bandwidth etc. So who else can I check out? Besides Rackshack is now sold out of their Redhat 7.2 servers :(

See the special offers forum for some similar deals.

Originally posted by rbro
So if Rackshack is the McDonald's of dedicated servers, who's the Burger King? and who's the Carl's Jr. and who's the Taco Bell?

Seriously, I am very drawn to Rackshack and will most likely get a server or servers with them, but I'd like to know who their competition is at the bottom of the food chain. I don't need to pay $99 for a server, I'd be willing to pay up to $299 for one with similar specs i.e 400GB of bandwidth etc. So who else can I check out? Besides Rackshack is now sold out of their Redhat 7.2 servers :(

I'd say DV2/TranXact Global is the Burger King, and WebReseller.net is Wendy's. :D Do you really need 400 GB of bandwidth? If you're willing to pay $299, then you can afford a quality server with 100 GB of high quality bandwidth at quite a few places.

Originally posted by ToastyX
Do you really need 400 GB of bandwidth? If you're willing to pay $299, then you can afford a quality server with 100 GB of high quality bandwidth at quite a few places.

Hmmm.... I think the question is why wouldn't you WANT 400GB of acceptable bandwidth (honestly, my clients don't notice my "high quality" bandwidth servers from cogent) for only $99 per month?

If you know how to manage a server, rackshack is a viable solution.

--this board feels like politics :eek: --

I wonder when one of these cheap providers becomes the Enron of dedicated servers... hehe

Originally posted by brandonk


Hmmm.... I think the question is why wouldn't you WANT 400GB of acceptable bandwidth (honestly, my clients don't notice my "high quality" bandwidth servers from cogent) for only $99 per month?

If you know how to manage a server, rackshack is a viable solution.

--this board feels like politics :eek: --

So do you suggest everyone should use RackShack? I know how to manage a server, but RackShack is definitely not a viable solution for me. I'm just saying, if he can afford $299 per month, then he can afford better.

Originally posted by universal2001
I wonder when one of these cheap providers becomes the Enron of dedicated servers... hehe

You only have to wait to the CogenCo Bankrupt (anytime soon).

Originally posted by ToastyX
So do you suggest everyone should use RackShack? I know how to manage a server, but RackShack is definitely not a viable solution for me. I'm just saying, if he can afford $299 per month, then he can afford better.

I did not suggest that everyone use rackshack, I said that it was a viable solution for someone who knows how to manage a server and wants acceptable bandwidth.

Why isn't RS a viable solution for you!?!

I guess things all boil down to what defines "better" and if their really is a "better." If you think you can manage a server but you screw up here and there then yes their could be a better, if you know what your doing and you've never sent out a support email and the banwidth is just fine, what is better?

Originally posted by brandonk


I did not suggest that everyone use rackshack, I said that it was a viable solution for someone who knows how to manage a server and wants acceptable bandwidth.

Why isn't RS a viable solution for you!?!

I guess things all boil down to what defines "better" and if their really is a "better." If you think you can manage a server but you screw up here and there then yes their could be a better, if you know what your doing and you've never sent out a support email and the banwidth is just fine, what is better?

- RackShack tells you what you can and can't have, and if they're sold out, that's too bad because they're not going to build a server specially for you. Many other dedicated server providers allow custom configurations to suit your needs, building a server specially for you.
- With RackShack, you're stuck with Red Hat, and with some configurations, you're also stuck with Ensim, which is really hard to uninstall. Many other dedicated server providers will install the operating system of your choice such as Slackware Linux or FreeBSD.
- RackShack makes data travel the cheapest route, not the fastest route. They also use mostly Cogent, which doesn't have very good peering, so it can be slow to some places sometimes.
- At RackShack, IP addresses are expensive, so if you need many, RackShack is definitely not a viable solution.
- At RackShack, RAM and hard drive upgrades are a monthly fee. Many other dedicated server providers will allow you to pay a one-time fee, saving you money in the long run.
- RackShack does not do reverse DNS delegation. You must send in a trouble ticket each time you want to change a PTR record.
- RackShack does not have an uptime guarantee, so if uptime is critical, they're not a viable solution.
- If you're unlucky enough to get a server that's setup improperly or run into a problem that you didn't cause, you have to waste your time and effort trying to get something done about it.

All I'm trying to say is that for $299 per month, he can afford better quality servers built specially for him with the operating system of his choice that is actually tested before being sold along with a high quality network and better support. Heck, he can even afford a managed server if he needs one.

- With RackShack, you're stuck with Red Hat, and with some configurations, you're also stuck with Ensim, which is really hard to uninstall. Many other dedicated server providers will install the operating system of your choice such as Slackware Linux or FreeBSD.It's actually not that hard to remove Ensim, remove the RPMs, remove a few extra directories, install the software you do need (I know from experience).- RackShack makes data travel the cheapest route, not the fastest route. They also use mostly Cogent, which doesn't have very good peering, so it can be slow to some places sometimes.They don't mostly use Cogent, it's only one of their providers, and on a comparative basis (taking available bandwidth into account), they don't use them any more than any other. Just look at the network usage on their site.

Originally posted by ToastyX

...They also use mostly Cogent....


Use mostly cogent? Have you ever looked at their network page? Here ill even paste it for you to look at http://www.rackshack.net/aboutus/networks.asp doesnt look "mostly" all cogent to me 30% is far from most. Get some of you facts straight. I dont use them, nor plan to, but you are totally wrong on what you stated about their network usage.

Originally posted by Dilhole


Use mostly cogent? Have you ever looked at their network page? Here ill even paste it for you to look at http://www.rackshack.net/aboutus/networks.asp doesnt look "mostly" all cogent to me 30% is far from most. Get some of you facts straight. I dont use them, nor plan to, but you are totally wrong on what you stated about their network usage.

Geez, you didn't have to be so harsh. I've looked at their network page plenty of times, just not recently. My facts weren't totally wrong, just outdated. Seems they've upgraded their network considerably in the last couple of months. They didn't used to have three gigabit links. Most of the traffic used to go through Cogent, at least when I was with them. I'm sorry for the misinformation.

i think it should be harsher....this rackshack BS is getting old......real old!!!

If rackshack ever decide to do custom boxes, higher end specs and anything else all you moaning [people] go on about on a daily basis, then you all may pack up and go back to serving burgers cause its chapter 11 time :D

:angry: Now will you change the record!!!

Toastyx, you now have officially no creditabability. We have NEVER used primarily Cogent. NEVER.

If you want to go bashing around in every RS thread, please get your facts straight.

The lack of an uptime guarantee has no bearing on actual uptime. All you have to do is look at the historicals on our bandwidth graphs to see actual uptime.

I'll say it again here - why don;t you other hosts post your graphs? Scared of what they really show? How about having an open forum on your site for your customers and potential customers?

All our cards are on the table and open for all to see. They are what they are, that's all they are. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Robert Marsh
Head Surfer Rackshack.net

Originally posted by ToastyX

- RackShack makes data travel the cheapest route, not the fastest route. They also use mostly Cogent, which doesn't have very good peering, so it can be slow to some places sometimes.


Umm, I did a little digging and saw only one route to cogent. That, and it had an additional AS hop through netrail (cogent acquisition) making it less desirable. I saw like four routes to Savvis though... so they seem to be mostly Savvis from my end. I don't know where you get these stories from but it doesn't look like you did your due diligence.

Note: I am not a rackshack customer.

Originally posted by rbro
So if Rackshack is the McDonald's of dedicated servers, who's the Burger King? and who's the Carl's Jr. and who's the Taco Bell?
Rackshack is more like KFC ;)

Anyway, if you have Linux/server admin experience, you don't have to look any further.

well something i like about RackShack that I bet any company like McDonalds or KFC never offers is that the CEO activately engages with customers on forums to get customer feedback.. That is something very rare for such a big company..... At the moment I do not see RackSPACE or the VERIO Chairman providing this level of service...... probably why rackshack is doing so well...

Originally posted by universal2001
well something i like about RackShack that I bet any company like McDonalds or KFC never offers is that the CEO activately engages with customers on forums to get customer feedback..

I agree with this. No matter how pissed off you may get with the company, its always good to know that while it may be too late for your problem to be fixed - the CEO can actively gauge such problems and brief management onto proper handling of similar situations which may arise.

Originally posted by headsurfer
Toastyx, you now have officially no creditabability. We have NEVER used primarily Cogent. NEVER.
I never said RackShack used primarily Cogent. I said RackShack used to use mostly Cogent. What I meant by that was Cogent used to be largest and most widely used link. I saw the graphs with my own two eyes, and most traceroutes revealed Cogent. RackShack has since considerably upgraded their network, so this is no longer the case anyway, so let's drop it.

If you want to go bashing around in every RS thread, please get your facts straight.
Please show me where I bashed RackShack. Posting reasons why RackShack would not be a viable solution is not bashing. I'm just tired of people who think if you know how to manage a server, then RackShack is the best and you're wasting money if you go somewhere else. Posting negative experiences of RackShack is not bashing. I think I'm being pretty nice considering I feel like RackShack ripped me off. When being critical, I try to post nothing but facts, but I'm human and make mistakes. People told me to get my "facts" straight. I messed up ONE fact, and I apologize. I'm human and make mistakes. Forget everything I posted about the network. What else is wrong?

The lack of an uptime guarantee has no bearing on actual uptime. All you have to do is look at the historicals on our bandwidth graphs to see actual uptime.
Just for the record, I wasn't trying to imply uptime was bad, and I'm not saying you said I implied uptime was bad either. ;) All I mean is, if you have a mission-critical server and need an uptime guarantee, RackShack's not the place for you.

I'll say it again here - why don;t you other hosts post your graphs? Scared of what they really show? How about having an open forum on your site for your customers and potential customers?
If, by your definition, I'm bashing RackShack, then by your definition, you just bashed every single host that doesn't post graphs.

All our cards are on the table and open for all to see. They are what they are, that's all they are. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Robert Marsh
Head Surfer Rackshack.net

With all the RackShack threads going around lately, I can see how my post can be taken the wrong way. I really am not trying to bash anybody. I never said RackShack "sucks" and nobody should use them. I never said RackShack should do custom configurations, higher-end specifications, or anything else. All I was trying to say was if he can afford $299 per month, he can afford more than what RackShack has to offer, unless maybe he wants that unmetered connection. That's all. It seems everytime someone mentions the name RackShack, it turns into a big argument thread. Please stop trying to blow every RackShack post out of proportion. I want WebHostingTalk to continue being a friendly place to visit.

Originally posted by afriq
Rackshack is more like KFC ;)

Anyway, if you have Linux/server admin experience, you don't have to look any further.

.... Not that i don't get a good laugh out of competetors and users fighting... but that was just mean.... does rackshack put fish in their servers (like KFC has been known to do in it's chicken)? I refuse to eat at KFC after one of my girlfriends friends got really sick and hospitalized from eating at a KFC, and when they took the remainder of the food out to the lab for professional analysis, they found rat content (and i'm not talking hairs, or feces, i'm talking whole rats) in the friend stuff. KFC is an extremely nasty place to eat if you ask me, their grease content might be lower, but they find other things to pack into their food.

Originally posted by porcupine

KFC is an extremely nasty place to eat if you ask me, their grease content might be lower, but they find other things to pack into their food.

Uh-oh. What would Chicken say to that?

;)

Originally posted by ToastyX

I never said RackShack used primarily Cogent. I said RackShack used to use mostly Cogent. What I meant by that was Cogent used to be largest and most widely used link. I saw the graphs with my own two eyes, and most traceroutes revealed Cogent. RackShack has since considerably upgraded their network, so this is no longer the case anyway, so let's drop it.

ToastyX, once again you've demonstrated that you've no great knowledge of Rackshack's network. Not only is Cogent not their primary link but it never was. Before they had Cogent they had many ds3's which soon became oc3's (they never gave up all their ds3's) and finally one day they got Cogent. Once they did get Cogent after a bit they decided to pull the plug on it because of some problems related to it. By the time it got back up some new Gig-e's were on the way.

Also when they did have Cogent as the only gig-e, alot of their traffic was being run by their other links (oc3's, ds3's, from companies like, verio, savvis, time warner).

The only mention I ever found in the last year of Rackshack using Cogent were in these forums. I found that quite annoying to see so many hosts and members claiming that rackshack uses mostly or primarily cogent bw.

does anyone else hear an echo in here?

The other's posted to reply about this statement by Toastx:

- RackShack makes data travel the cheapest route, not the fastest route. They also use mostly Cogent, which doesn't have very good peering, so it can be slow to some places sometimes.

My post is about his new statement of used to use...

Originally posted by web_res
The other's posted to reply about this statement by Toastx:

- RackShack makes data travel the cheapest route, not the fastest route. They also use mostly Cogent, which doesn't have very good peering, so it can be slow to some places sometimes.

My post is about his new statement of used to use...

You don't believe me, do you? I saw the graphs with my very own two eyes. Over half the outgoing traffic went through Cogent, at least when I had a server there. I remember this vividly. Traceroutes to and from my server to and from most locations went through Cogent. I don't just make stuff up.

I also said to forget everything I posted about the network because it no longer applies, but you chose to bring it back up.

Originally posted by headsurfer
Toastyx, you now have officially no creditabability. We have NEVER used primarily Cogent. NEVER.

If you want to go bashing around in every RS thread, please get your facts straight.

The lack of an uptime guarantee has no bearing on actual uptime. All you have to do is look at the historicals on our bandwidth graphs to see actual uptime.

I'll say it again here - why don;t you other hosts post your graphs? Scared of what they really show? How about having an open forum on your site for your customers and potential customers?

All our cards are on the table and open for all to see. They are what they are, that's all they are. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Robert Marsh
Head Surfer Rackshack.net

I have had my complaints about Rackshack, but I gotta say, this made me smile, Robert does have a point here. Rackshack does have the balls to put it out on the table and say "here it is, here's what we got" and I can't recall too many others matching that level of openness and disclosure, he makes one very valid point here I think.

For the record I think my main problem is simply, I want hands-on access to my servers, obviously I can't have that if I'm in Alabama and Rackshack is in Texas. Hardly a failing on Rackshack's part (I hear reboots get handled a lot quicker lately, my main other complaint was a couple reboots that took a few hours).

Originally posted by ToastyX
With all the RackShack threads going around lately, I can see how my post can be taken the wrong way. I really am not trying to bash anybody. I never said RackShack "sucks" and nobody should use them. I never said RackShack should do custom configurations, higher-end specifications, or anything else. All I was trying to say was if he can afford $299 per month, he can afford more than what RackShack has to offer, unless maybe he wants that unmetered connection. That's all. It seems everytime someone mentions the name RackShack, it turns into a big argument thread. Please stop trying to blow every RackShack post out of proportion. I want WebHostingTalk to continue being a friendly place to visit.

Your one mistake is actually quite a big issue when it comes to hosting, connectivity means a lot...now if it was whether or not they had pretty ladies answering the phones--that would be a different story. But it was connectivity, and you obviously won't make that mistake again.

Now that you've restated your posts, why would you even tell him that if he has $299 and he can afford more then RS? Obviously....$299 - $99 = $200 more... Doesn't take a math genius to find that out.

Also, I never suggested that RS was the best, but I certainly did question the definition of something better...It's not a straight across the board definition (it all depends on your situation) so you suggesting that someone could find something better really isn't fair...

Okay, I'm done with this thread. I hope you will think about your posts next time.

Originally posted by porcupine
.... Not that i don't get a good laugh out of competetors and users fighting... but that was just mean.... does rackshack put fish in their servers (like KFC has been known to do in it's chicken)? I refuse to eat at KFC after one of my girlfriends friends got really sick and hospitalized from eating at a KFC, and when they took the remainder of the food out to the lab for professional analysis, they found rat content (and i'm not talking hairs, or feces, i'm talking whole rats) in the friend stuff. KFC is an extremely nasty place to eat if you ask me, their grease content might be lower, but they find other things to pack into their food.
Well, KFC's standards in South Africa must be a lot higher then. McDonalds must be the worst - I prefer KFC over them any day!

Anyway, I was actually complimenting Rackshack, not insulting them ;)

Originally posted by afriq

Well, KFC's standards in South Africa must be a lot higher then. McDonalds must be the worst - I prefer KFC over them any day!

Anyway, I was actually complimenting Rackshack, not insulting them ;)

I thought that Afriq! Then again, we're down to matter of taste again!! I personally cant stand Micky D's, i would have stuck up for KFC if i hadnt heard that rat story.....no more 'chicken' for me then :D

Cheers,

Personally, small sub shops are the place to go if you ask me. I don't eat at any of the greasy chains anymore, just at queens (the sub shop near my house), or harveys at worst (but they're pretty good for food.

I guess things all boil down to what defines "better" and if their really is a "better." If you think you can manage a server but you screw up here and there then yes their could be a better, if you know what your doing and you've never sent out a support email and the banwidth is just fine, what is better?


ACTUALLY, THEY'RE THE WORST... gotta try it to believe it baby...