I think I may go with pair.com for a dedicated server. Does anyone have any comments about it? Or Qwk.net?

From the looks of it, people seem to think they are reliable. Is that still true? I thought it was a little odd that pair.com makes you send a check in as your first payment and then you can pay by credit card.

Kirk

Just noticed they don't give you root access to the dedicated server. This is strange, most managed hosting providers do provide you with root access, if you'd ever require it, why qwk.net don't is beyond me. A simple clause like if you screw it up yourself then it's your fault and you'll have to pay.

Pair.com is a good, competent company. They have been around the hosting business for a long time. Matt is correct, they do not give you root access to the dedicated server because they worry about you either attacking their network or others with the server. I can understand this now after seeing the mess at Catalog.com a few month ago.

That said, I would not recommend them since their response time to support questions is days, not hours.

Scott

Originally posted by scottlaw
Matt is correct, they do not give you root access to the dedicated server...

In reading your post, do you mean 'they' as in neither do? Or was everything just lumped together a bit so it reads that way?

I mean "they" as in neither company gives you root access to the sever...

From QWK.Net

Administrative ("root") access is not available for QWKServers. We cannot guarantee quality or reliability of service when individuals other than QWK.Net Staff members have administrative access, so we have chosen to err on the side of system reliability in this case. However, we are happy to make reasonable modifications to your server's configuration upon request. Significant assistance with the setup of additional software on your server may be billed at hourly rates, with your approval and at our discretion.

From Pair

Can I have root access on my server?

Administrative privileges on QuickServe servers are not available to customers at this time; an unmanaged solution will be offered in the future in conjunction with special network configuration and secure access tools. This level of access is easy to abuse, either accidentally or purposefully, and can potentially be used to attack or compromise other hosts.


Scott

Pair is a very established host with a good reputation. From a technical standpoint, they seem to really know what they're doing. My only complaint is that they took a little long to set up a test account I had with them a while back (like on the order of three days.)

In regard to managed hosting services:

We do have managed hosting customers with root access - it's just not "officially" offered.

Generally speaking, someone that wants a managed server isn't interested in root access. More to the point, they're probably not experienced systems administrators. The point of managed servers is that we can guarantee a certain quality of service, and that's hard to to when someone else can alter the system configuration.

That said, if you know what you're doing with a UNIX system, we can talk about root access, as we have with others.

Please note that co-location is a completely different story... what I'm saying here only applies to managed servers.

Ohh and Travis, I just re-read my post and I didn't mean it to sound like a bad thing. When I see 'managed servers' that to me means the host takes care of it almost like a virtual hosting account. This can be a very nice feature for some people who need more than a shared account, yet they have no admin experience or time to deal with a server.

Chicken, I didn't take it that way. I just want to make sure people understand why a host might restrict root access to a managed server. Just making sure everybody is looking for what's right for them. :)

Thanks for the replies.

Has anybody had the feeling that finding a web home is about 10 times worse that shopping for a real home when you can't see it or walk inside?

I ran a ping from CNET's site to 3 providers. And from my own computer to the same 3. I am on one coast the the three are spread across the country.

Yes I am on on a modem and I do know that my own lines can skew the results but...

The strange thing is that CNET's results and mine are exactly opposite? Are CNET's ping results more sales BS so they can sell the services of providers who are directly on the same backbone?

Kirk

Hi Kirk. I'm in the process of setting up a very demanding website (http://www.mimf.com) on a managed dedicated server at qwk.net. We just transferred the mimf.com domain to the new server last night, so you might not go there yet.

Just noticed they don't give you root access to the dedicated server.
Most of us looking for a managed server don't WANT root access. We don't want to get anywhere NEAR the opportunity to screw up our server! Generally, people looking for a managed server don't know enough *nix to run their servers themselves, which is true in my case. And I didn't really want a RaQ. Travis' prices for managed servers are quite reasonable.

Has anybody had the feeling that finding a web home is about 10 times worse that shopping for a real home when you can't see it or walk inside?
God, yes!! See the last link in my signature for all of my horror stories.

Here's what I have to say about qwk.net and Travis, keeping in mind that I haven't been there very long (setting up for the past two weeks or so) so there's no track record established at this time.

I'm happy with the service. The server is way faster than what we were on before in a shared environment. The one time I called tech support and didn't get a live person immediately, I got a call back in less than 10 minutes. Email is answered in hours, not days; and if I have an urgent issue, I call.

My only dissatisfaction is the lack of a control panel. I had to ask Travis to do too much of the setup for mimf.com and the other domains I'm putting on the server. It took the better part of a week of back-and-forth e-mails to do what I should have been able to accomplish myself with a control panel in an afternoon: set up domains and mail services for them, etc.

I have been a customer at Pair Networks since 1998. It's a good company which takes security/performance seriously.

I recently switched to a dedicated server (PIII 733, 384Mb, 2Gb daily bandwidth) for $ 400 p.m. Not the cheapest deal but the server doesn't have any problems with the 3 million monthly impressions (PHP3/Mysql).

There is only one disadvantage which is that response-times from the support department have been really slow lately. I hope that this is a temporary problem.

Rob

Yes, I would have given serious consideration to Pair.com but...
I emailed them a few questions on Tuesday and only got back an autoreply so far. I think they are just too busy for any new business. Plus they told me before that I couldn't run a banner exchange on my dedicated server. (mind you I did tell them it was for a highly targeted audience serving only 10,000 banners a day.) So anyway they got crossed off the list. I don't think they have a right to tell me what I can do on my server as long as it does not compromise security, exceed bandwidth, or is pornographic. Looks to me like the ol' "we give you 60gb...but you can't use it trick"

The new list is now:
qwk.net - Travis answers replies quickly and is willing to work with you. I am concerned about the redundancy from the server to different backbones. And bandwidth allocation is only 30GB. Also no control panel or scsi. Travis, I'd rather have a 9 gig scsi than a 20 gig IDE. And spend the extra $100 bucks (or whatever) for another 128megs of ram and you'll have something nice.

BTW: I really can't see how host providers can get away with charging you for the extra RAM up front, and then tacking on another $50 per month just because it's in the machine. Can one of you hosts please explain this to me? Or is a stick of memory really worth $50 a month? ;-)

Dialtoneinternet - They seem to have a solid network and 65GB of average bandwidth. The salesperson I talked to on the phone couldn't tell me how they calculate average bandwidth though. (I know how a 7th grader calculates an average but...suffice it to say if you know DI you know my concerns) And they still say they calculate by the 95% rule in their online policy. Maybe a call to another salesperson this morning will help. They also force long term contracts with NO guarantee. My email to the salesperson asking "what happens if i'm there a month and don't like it?" has gone unanswered. It looks like they have an acceptable interface for the admin and users which is nice. And scsi drives too.

Dedicatedhosting.com - owned by Hostpro who also owns vservers. I've been with vservers for years, they were a real good company until hostpro bought them. Then they played the "bait and switch too many hits game" and now I'm looking for a new home. Their top of the line router seems to be having oversaturation problems and their redundancy seem to be just a fantasy because if 1 router went down there's no reason that the entire network should be inaccessable...right? They do have scsi hard drives on their low end systems and 100gb bandwidth, but I have yet to find out if that bandwidth is throttled thus making the 100gb yet another fantasy.


I'm looking for a *NIX server, 40-60GB bandwidth, 9 GB scsi, 600mhz P3, no throttling except in unusual circumstances, no screwy bandwidth calculations, a control panel would be nice but a freebie panel will do. I'd be willing to pay for a year in advance if I get a 30 day guarantee and I can cancel with a months notice and get a pro-rated refund. Bad service would be the ONLY reason I would leave because it's just too big of a PITA to find another host and make the move. I'm in the $250 neighborhood.

I'd appreciate any comments? I need to move on something soon.

BTW, I thank Chicken, the moderators, and all the folks who come here for the info they have shared.

Kirk

Hi Kirk,

Ironic that you mention receiving good service from Vservers - I had a horrible experience with them a few years back on a very overloaded server. Maybe I just got unlucky.

HostPro seems like a pretty good operation, but who knows what has happened in the Vservers division.

You're absolutely right on the RAM issue - it's just another way of generating additional profit, or making up for loss-leader items like low server or bandwidth prices. If you want additional RAM in a QWK.Net dedicated server, that's no problem - it can be installed at cost if you're willing to pay for it.

One of the things I really liked about vservers was when I first signed up I think I had 100 megs...After a few months they upped it to 150...Months later they went to 250mb. Never a price increase. I thought it was very cool that they were passing the savings of cheaper drive space onto their customers rather than sticking the customer and making them upgrade. That was long ago though when what's his name from windows95.com/winfiles.com owned the company. Things have changed since then.

Kirk



[Edited by Kirk22 on 02-08-2001 at 10:19 PM]

Travis,

You imply that you won't charge an extra monthly service for more hardware.

How does that work when you look at the different monthly fees for higher end dedicated servers?

For example, the price difference for your KILO server and the TERA server is $100 per month.

If I bought a KILO server and paid for the extra processor and the additional drive (300) to make my KILO server a TERA server, what would your stance be?

Nothing against you or your company. It looks like you guys really have your act together, I dont mean to sound overly questioning, I'm just curious :)

Best of luck,
Raj

Hello,

No problem at all - it's a perfectly legitimate question.

A web server is a fixed asset similar to any other in a business. A certain amount of useful life can reasonably be expected of it - say two to three years. To arrive at the monthly cost of a dedicated server, the total cost of the server must be amortized out over its useful life.

To come up with the total monthly cost of a server, we then add in things like the cost for the bandwidth allocation, rack space, average staff time needed to administer the server, etc. And, of course, a modest profit is built in there.

If a customer wants to pay for a piece of hardware outright, there is no need to amortize the cost of that hardware out over the life of the server. Thus, no increase in monthly price.

In regard to the specific example you mentioned, though - there's more than just the difference in hardware cost to account for the difference in server costs. A customer renting a higher-end server typically has a busier site. A busier server typically needs a little more attention to keep running smoothly than one that doesn't see much traffic. So, this difference in administration overhead is also built in.

I hope that answers your questions... if not, please feel free to ask for more detail.

[Edited by Travis on 02-09-2001 at 12:28 AM]

travis,

thanks for the response. i appreciate it.

i completely agree with your perspective on the cost breakdown of a server. however, i still think that the logic could use a bit more work.

for example, if i outgrow a base server and pay the 300$ one time fee to get it upgraded to a medium range server, i will save over 3000$ over the course of 3 years and the host will still have to cough up the extra support that having a busier site entails.

if you allow for this to happen, do you still get a lot of dedicated server clients who upgrade their server by changing plans?

thoughts?

thanks,
raj.

Well, first, I'd like to address your estimate of the cost difference between the two servers.

A PIII 733 goes for about $175 shipped these days, and a 7200RPM 20G Deskstar for about $150. What we also need to throw in, though, is the additional cost of an MP motherboard - in the case of Tyan, which we run, it's usually a little over $100 more.

That gives us a raw extra hardware cost of $425. There's more to it than that, though.

It's really pushing luck to put dual processors and two drives in a 1U case, or more specifically, on the power supply typically included with such a case. So, we have to go to a larger form-factor case. That means the rack-space portion of our cost for the server has just doubled.


Because of the complexity of computing the total cost to provide a server, we actually don't offer major upgrades as a one-time-fee option. We're speaking mostly on a theoretical basis here. But if a customer wants us to throw some extra RAM in, no problem. There's no point in going to a multiprocessor server if you just want more RAM - that would be inflexible on our part.

In the end, you will always save a substantial amount of money buying hardware versus renting it. If you are planning for long-term dedicated service, I doubt you'd be looking to rent one of our servers - instead, you'd buy/lease your own, and co-locate it.

Thanks for your thoughts on the matter.

Originally posted by Travis


Because of the complexity of computing the total cost to provide a server, we actually don't offer major upgrades as a one-time-fee option. We're speaking mostly on a theoretical basis here. But if a customer wants us to throw some extra RAM in, no problem. There's no point in going to a multiprocessor server if you just want more RAM - that would be inflexible on our part.


Travis,

Ah got it.
That really cleared it up, thanks for being so forthcoming

BTW, check out the valinux 1220, it's a really cool 1U dual processor dual drive scsi system. we use them quite a bit and have had great luck with them. the cooling (normally a problem with 1Us) is really well done.

BTW2, do you notice any reliability difference with your 1U and 2U servers (I'm guessing that this would be heat related). We notice that 1Us in general are _slightly_ less reliable (comparing Penguin and VA)

Thanks again!

I like VA systems, but like most everybody else in the market, they're far too expensive. We build our own servers. I would love to find a system provider that only extracts, say, a 30% premium over the cost of parts, versus the 100% or more that VA and Penguin seem to get. I'm happy to do without support, as we don't need it.

As it is, though, we end up buying cases from California PC Cases (very nice American manufacturer of steel cases in all shapes and sizes) and then stuffing them with the appropriate parts. In 1U cases, we haven't built anything bigger than a single-processor system with one or two drives. (Think DNS servers, quasi-routers, low-traffic managed servers, and other light-duty systems.) So, heat hasn't really been an issue.

So far, we have plenty of rack space; if it ever gets to be an issue, we might more aggressively pursue smaller form factors for machines. All our main infrastructure and hosting stuff (customer databases, management applications, virtual hosting servers) is actually still in 4U cases, since the low-profile Mylex cards weren't available when they were built. Obviously, cooling isn't much of an issue in those. (The biggest concern is the drives, of course, but the hot-swap bays have very effective cooling built in.)

I'm thinking we'll need a separate "shop talk" forum if we keep this up. What do you think, Chicken? :)

[Edited by Travis on 02-09-2001 at 01:37 AM]

Travis,

VA dropped their pricing by about 40% a month ago.

A 1U PIII866/256M/20G is only 1300 at VA
a month ago it was over 2k

Maybe they realised exactly what you're saying :-)

I'm pretty familiar with CalPC - they're an AWESOME company. I have their blue/chrome tower case for my workstation :p

Rumour has it that Intel is coming out with a board with a mylex controller, dual ethernet and dual processor AND out of band management within 2-3 months.

I visited VA's site just after posting, and you're right - they have pretty significantly dropped prices. It's a pleasant surprise; I'll definitely have to re-evaluate them as a supplier. Now, if I could only get systems with Slackware on them... that RedHat install would be the first thing to go. :) (No offense to any Redhat fans, but I've been using Slackware since version 2, and I find it much more suited for a server environment.)

As for the Intel board you mentioned.... mmmmmmm. I'll have to watch for that one.

This is an old thread but I thought I'd add my $0.02. I've had a dedicated server with Pair since 1996. Reliability is EXCELLENT, and support times are very good - I usually get a response within hours, and problems usually get resolved the same day (never on the weekends unless it's urgent though). They are staffed 24/7 - an email sent to their urgent contact gets a response in minutes. I've since added a second server for mysql.