I was considering nocster for dedicated server(s) but i keep seeing all these people have terrible connectivity issues. Could someone suggest another alternative or are these connectivity issues not affecting everyone at nocster??

www.staminus.net

Maybe not as cheap prices as nocster, but the level of support has been excellent!

PM for a link to test the download speeds.

thats quite expensive...i dont wanna spend more then 200/month (with cpanel)

but you get what you pay for.

Thats correct, also its not cogent bandwidth - its UUnet & Savvis - quality bandwidth..

Cogent = cheap garbage.

I have been with Nocster since day one. Recently I had been having some connection problems. They didn't mess around and took care of it. I am very happy with the service.

Me too, but question is that we need stable service! :) I am also in NOCSTER.

Originally posted by Andyc
I have been with Nocster since day one. Recently I had been having some connection problems. They didn't mess around and took care of it. I am very happy with the service.

I think Nocster handled it pretty well. They initially turned on Cogent, it must have been problematic (lost packets, really slow connections, etc) so they turned it off until it was stable. Cogent is back on, no lost packets and fast speeds still. That, at least, is my experience so far.

What is the cogent line? No good?

Originally posted by edude
Thats correct, also its not cogent bandwidth - its UUnet & Savvis - quality bandwidth..

Cogent = cheap garbage.

go http://webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=60364

try to ping your ip with -t parameter/ Keep it run for 5 mins. You can see you will get Response Timed Out almost every 40 response back depending on your connection speed. Keep you going, you will find more! :)

ping ip -t

Originally posted by amusive.com
I think Nocster handled it pretty well. They initially turned on Cogent, it must have been problematic (lost packets, really slow connections, etc) so they turned it off until it was stable. Cogent is back on, no lost packets and fast speeds still. That, at least, is my experience so far.

Originally posted by feng
go http://webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=60364

try to ping your ip with -t parameter/ Keep it run for 5 mins. You can see you will get Response Timed Out almost every 40 response back depending on your connection speed. Keep you going, you will find more! :)

ping ip -t



I saw your other post. Doing this to my server gives a timeout of around 1%, which isn't very bad (although I do agree typically you don't see much packet loss). If I up the amount of time it waits for a ping to return, though, I get almost no loss.

Cogent is very cheap bandwidth, they also have alot of problems with their routing..

Look at this post:
http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=58706&highlight=cogent+problems



Originally posted by feng
What is the cogent line? No good?

Man I wish some of my clients could be here to defend Cogent ;). 2 years and have had no downtime or routing problems whatsoever...

Cogent won't last for long, mark my words ;)

Originally posted by edude
Cogent won't last for long, mark my words ;)

:rolleyes:

if it's not Cogent it will be under another name! When is the last time you have seen a major provider go under and close doors? Hell my local DSL provider went under, but some other company bought all there clients and service was never touched or interrupted. Plus we have nice contract with Cogent ;-)

I think it's unfair to blame it on cogent. There just seems to be some problems adding the line. I have full confidence that Nocster will get it sorted out. And soon.

No worries here.

I agree, there are a lot of bad providers out there that give Cogent and hosting a bad name! I usually don't care how other providers network run, but last night I was approached by a new customer showing me his old server on a "10MBit Unlimited Connection"

The other provider was downloading at a measly 16K per sec and took over 7 minutes to download a 8meg file.

While hoping on our server he grabbed the file in 8 seconds at 1MEG a sec.

We both have Cogent, am I to believe that Cogent is screwing them and providing bad bandiwdth, I doubt it. There are a lot of hard working and good providers out there!

heh..

Cogent informants spill all
June 1, 2002
By: Dan Sweeney
America's Network

During the past several months we have written several articles dealing with the travails and failures of competitive high-speed access providers.

NEW DIRT
Now disturbing reports are emanating from individuals associated with Cogent Communications. Insiders have spoken to us on background, alleging severe problems at the Washington, D.C.-based service provider which, with Yipes, appeared to pose the most serious challenge.

According to our first informant, a marketing manager with the firm who recently tendered his resignation, Cogent has experienced little success in signing customers in the buildings it has targeted for service. "Four per building was pretty typical," Informant One said. "And some areas were much worse. In Texas we were averaging under one per building."

Cogent CEO Dave Schaeffer did not provide an average for subscribers per building but acknowledged that in some areas the number is quite low.

Schaeffer maintained that buildings were carefully pre-selected on the basis of the type of businesses occupying them as well as the distance of the building from a fiber ring. He claimed that more than 100,000 office buildings were studied before an initial list of roughly 3,000 prospects was compiled.

When we repeated that, Informant One snorted in disbelief. "Dave is very persuasive, but if we'd done all that market research, why were we so unsuccessful?"

Schaeffer disputed this.

Our second informant, a laid-off sales agent, was also contemptuous regarding Schaeffer's due diligence claim. "They sent me out to scout buildings in New York; that was the due diligence. I must have done 30 of them, walking the floors and checking out businesses in my territory. I had a couple of days to do it - visit 30 so-called 'Class A' buildings and try to make determinations. Then I was supposed to start selling to accounts."

According to all four informants, lack of success was largely attributable to lack of demand. Noted Informant Three, a manager involved in right-of-access transactions with the building owners, "A hundred megabits is simply more than medium-sized businesses, the kind we had targeted, either want or need. The fact that we didn't offer transparent LAN or voice or conferencing or Web hosting or storage networking hurt us also. Cogent didn't want to bother with provisioning value-added services, but that's what a lot of potential customers wanted."

Schaeffer disagreed. "If you look at how quickly we've acquired customers, you'd have to conclude the service is in high demand. And we do offer service level agreements; the terms are right on our Web site. It is true that we don't offer some of the services provided by other data networks, particularly transparent LANs, but our market research showed that demand is higher for what we offer: basic high speed Internet access. And people are signing up for it. Don't pay attention to disgruntled ex-employees; read our corporate report."

Absent access to company financial records and projections, drawing firm conclusions is difficult.

A fourth Cogent informant, the head of another competitive carrier that entered into negotiations with Cogent, commented, "Cogent's real competition was with business DSL providers in New York. Business-class DSL has been very popular in Manhattan, and it's much easier to provision than Cogent's fiber based service. It's perfectly adequate for the needs of most of Cogent's designated customer base, and it's cheaper."

Don't bank on it

Informant Two's account of the sales procedure, which is confirmed by our other three informants, is not such as to inspire confidence. "We signed up customers in buildings where we didn't even have fiber in place, and we weren't sure we could get it in," Informant Two said.

Informant Two continued, "It usually took months to activate service, and I'd get constant phone calls from customers wondering when they'd be connected."

Schaeffer commented, "It is absolutely correct that we did sign up customers where we didn't have fiber in place, but we were very upfront about it and indicated clearly what we were doing. After we got the signatures, we then went to the building owners to negotiate access into the building. The signatures indicated that the service was in demand and that a building that offered it would be more attractive to its tenants. The building owners were offered $1000 or 10% of the gross, whichever was more. In some cases we didn't reach agreements, but the customers were informed that that was a possibility."

Informant One provided a more sinister explanation. "Schaeffer was taking these numbers to the investors, all these people signed up who weren't actually paying anything yet. It looked good on paper. I don't think he wanted to do it, but he felt he couldn't get further funding otherwise."

Schaeffer denied such deception. "Our board knew exactly what we were doing and wholeheartedly endorsed it. It was the plan from the beginning."

Informant One also indicated that sales commissions were paid on customer signatures before service was initiated or subscriptions paid.

"We paid millions in sales commissions." Informant Two said. "I was very well compensated, and only a couple of the people I signed ever paid for service."

Again Schaeffer didn't deny but asserted that the sales strategy was well-founded.

Informant Three questioned another aspect of the service program, the lack of uniform long-term contracts. "Even when a customer was turned on, there was no assurance you could keep them because the company had a policy of charging from month to month, which I think makes no sense. "

Schaeffer argued otherwise. "First of all, we did offer year-long contracts at guaranteed rates for those who wanted them. We didn't insist on such contracts, though. We thought that we had to prove ourselves to our customers, and we were confident that we could retain them.."

Informant Three also alleged that Cogent suffered network performance limitations. "We never had really first-rate peering arrangements, and the network was stressed by large numbers of customers who were using the full 100 megabit capacity."

Schaeffer denied any problems of this nature. "The network was architected to permit everyone to operate at the full data rate all of the time."

A GOOD GUY
None of Schaeffer's critics professed any animosity toward the man. All praised his intelligence and capacity for work.

"Cogent was a pleasant place to work," said the former sales agent. "Everyone was always up; it was like a constant party."

Schaeffer insisted that success will come. "We expect to achieve a true positive cash flow some time in 2004."

Cogent's current stock valuation is less than $3 per share, but in the context of telecom today, that's not remarkable.

"These are very hard times in telecom," Schaeffer said. "It's possible to benefit from that in that you can acquire distressed assets cheaply, but money is tight. Fortunately we've still got $100 million in the bank."

By Schaeffer's admission the company still faces heavy expenses, many for the construction of fiber laterals to target buildings.

Whatever Cogent's ultimate chances for success, the company is going against the industry grain in regard to the way it is crafting its business offerings.

Value-added services are the watchword today, not pure access, and the latest generation of metro optical equipment is designed for provisioning such services. Cogent is sticking to an older model that has been rejected by almost everyone else.

Moreover, one has to wonder about the future profitability of a business that charges so little for a service that is necessarily expensive to provision.

It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the market in which Cogent has chosen to be active is extraordinarily difficult.

Whether Cogent's resolutely old-fashioned basic service offering and differentiated business plan based upon that offering will enable it to succeed where so many others have failed, remains to be seen.

Exactly, We really don't care if that is cogent, or dogent or whatever, as long as we have no more downtime! I am tired of choosing DS company.


Originally posted by Goose
if it's not Cogent it will be under another name! When is the last time you have seen a major provider go under and close doors? Hell my local DSL provider went under, but some other company bought all there clients and service was never touched or interrupted. Plus we have nice contract with Cogent ;-)

Ohh about 6 months ago weren't people saying they wouldn't last 6 months??? :D

Not to mention; RackShacks pricing means there's no way they can remain viable. :rolleyes:

Prohacker, i didnt say it 6 months ago, just wait and see ;)

Feng yeah I am just trying to say that it's not Cogent, call your provider and have them fix there stupid problems!

Originally posted by edude
Prohacker, i didnt say it 6 months ago, just wait and see ;)


I didn't say it was you... But alot of people did...

Cogent is actually good for customers, with really cheap pipes, data centers can renegotiate their contracts with providers and get lower prices over all...

And just say, if cogent goes out of business (no technical terms)..

Alot of people will be left stranded

Originally posted by edude
And just say, if cogent goes out of business (no technical terms)..

Alot of people will be left stranded


I really don't see them going outa business.... But they are upping prices soon....

Well if someone is building their entire business off of one provider, any provider they deserve to be left stranded...

Originally posted by edude
heh..
During the past several months we have written several articles dealing with the travails and failures of competitive high-speed access providers.



Aside from your ability to copy and paste copywritten articles, I don't really know what the article is supposed to say. A telecom in distress? Look at every other one, and stories are typically worse. Should everyone drop UUnet? Nothing in that article is more damning than what's going on there. As far as I know, and correct me if I'm wrong, but there is no provider out there smiling -- even those charging double, triple, or much more than Cogent's pricing. That seems a sign of a far worse business model than Cogent... especially since many of those tier-1 providers live only on their LD business, their bandwidth sales being in the red.

So, again: :rolleyes:

Savvis is fine :)

BTW: thanks for pointing that out, i just learn't how to copy and paste..

Everyone who uses cogent bandwidth should stand up for them ;)

Cogent won't last for long, mark my words

Do you know how long people have been saying that?

"SAVVIS' growing sales and strong operating performance are what have attracted investor interest," said Rob McCormick, chairman and chief executive officer of Savvis. "Bucking the trend in our industry, we will have a robust balance sheet when this transaction is completed, with only a modest amount of remaining debt and funds to ramp up sales of our IP VPN, managed hosting and Internet services. Unlike many of our competitors, Savvis is in strong financial health, and, from this position of strength, we are redoubling our commitment to drive revenue growth and continued margin improvement in 2002."

Savvis also announced that it has reached agreement with GE Capital Vendor Financial Services to amend approximately $57 million of capital lease obligations. The amended lease provides for repayment at the end of the fifth year and 12 percent interest payable in cash or in kind, at Savvis' option, for the first three years.

Yep. Ya mention cogent around here and it's about like saying UNLIMITED.


*Ducks


:eek: Whew! That was close!

Yes its similar to unlimited, the pricing structure is unbelieveable..

Look at it this way, if a hosting company provides:

100MB diskspace
10000000000000000000 GB bandwidth (isn't that the same as unlimited? well similar anyway)

Originally posted by edude
Savvis is fine :)

BTW: thanks for pointing that out, i just learn't how to copy and paste..

Don't everyone who uses cogent bandwidth should stand up for them ;)

So besides quoting, nothing original to add to the conversation besides poor grammar?

Err your pathetic, i don't post on forums so people can question my grammar, i dont care about my grammar, its only a forum...

bah

Originally posted by edude
Err your pathetic, i don't post on forums so people can question my grammar, i dont care about my grammar, its only a forum...

bah

So you just attack me personally... clever.

Originally posted by edude
And just say, if cogent goes out of business (no technical terms)..

Alot of people will be left stranded

Yeesh, sounds like someone who doesen't have access to Cogent to me.

I remember a lot of people talking crap about cogent, then praising other providers, specifically worldcom/uunet and comparing cogent to uunet going "cogent wont be around in a year, uunet will", etc. etc.

Now look at the situation, cogents stocks are what? more then double UUNet's? UUNet is just waiting for someone to dunk the plunger to get flushed down the toilet, doubtless someone will pick up their customers, but thats aside the point.

The point is, you can pick almost any provider out there, and guess what, you have absolutly no assurance they'll be around next month, for all we know, savvis could be pulling what uunet was with their financials. 6 months ago people thought UUNet was invincible with their popularity, extremely expensive services, etc. but now, their stocks are being removed from NasDaq if they dont improove within a month.

haha, so commenting about my grammar is not attacking me personally?

So, english is not my first language, i doubt you could write in my language any better than i write in English. :angry:

Originally posted by jayjay


Do you know how long people have been saying that?

In all fairness, Cogent hasn't been around that "long" !

Originally posted by edude
haha, so commenting about my grammar is not attacking me personally?

:rolleyes: Heh, well, if you do something, don't criticize someone else for doing it as well.

hmm, when did i criticize your grammar?

Originally posted by edude
hmm, when did i criticize your grammar?

Re-read. Personal attacks, remember? You attacked me personally for attacking you personally -- ringing a bell? Perhaps we should return to the topic -- which wasn't even cogent or poorly written news articles about them -- and discuss nocster?

Poorly written news articles? hahaha....

The article was from: http://www.americasnetwork.com/americasnetwork/

Contact them with your opinions about their article..

Also you criticized me first ;)

In all fairness, Cogent hasn't been around that "long" !

In all fairness, look up on the boards. People have been saying it for 1YR+. It gets old.

I didnt really start this thread so everyone could start a pissing contest with whose bandwidth is better. I just wanted to know if all of nocster's customers here on WHT were effected or if someone knew the exact specifics of the problem and if it will be fixed soon.

Also Burst and Nocster are in the same DC, so if sprint craps out...they can use some of burst's bw?

Just kinda bugged out about ordering a server from nocster right now, since they only have one working provider (sprint)
.They seemed great until I hear about pings being dropped and people not being able to access sites.

Nocster use some of Burst's bw?

hmm doesn't make sense to me :(

Do you mean if the bandwidth used for nocster is unuseable they will use some of the bandwidth used for normal burstnet clients?

Originally posted by jayjay


In all fairness, look up on the boards. People have been saying it for 1YR+. It gets old.

Probably, but I dont consider a year to be long at all. 90% of businesses fail within the first 4 yrs. Make it 75% of the way and then I personally would start to think of that as long.

Originally posted by edude
Nocster use some of Burst's bw?

hmm doesn't make sense to me :(

Do you mean if the bandwidth used for nocster is unuseable they will use some of the bandwidth used for normal burstnet clients?

I dont think thats what he meant, besides that would make a lot of burst clients pissed that are paying 3x nocster prices.

I agree, they are still burning some remaining capital off, once its completely burnt .................................................. :bawling:

Oh wait, i'm not sure if they even have any capital left :eek:

Good point, i was thinking of that ;)

Originally posted by Jag


I dont think thats what he meant, besides that would make a lot of burst clietns pissed that are paying 3x nocster prices.

People saying it's going to die soon, blah blah blah.. for awhile.. it gets long and old.

I don't see why you're justifying my term of long. It's kind of like if you listened to a Ozzy song and killed yourself, and I didn't. Because I didn't think that's what it meant. Get off it.

Originally posted by edude
I agree, they are still burning some remaining capital off, once its completely burnt .................................................. :bawling:

Oh wait, i'm not sure if they even have any capital left :eek:

I think you've already made it quite clear that you feel that way. However, that's not what this thread is about.

I was simply saying that since nocster and burst are in the same building.

IF say the cogent and sprint feeds are totally unusable for whatever reason, would they use some of bursts bw? or is everyone at nocster just screwed?

Only reason I ask is becuase I believe someone posted that they moved all nocster users to the sprint line now. What essentially happens if the sprint line fails or becomes congested.

Yes, i believe Jag discussed this one..

They would not/shouldn't use the bandwidth used for Burstnet's clients, as they pay more than nocster clients..

They deserve better uptime etc.. for the amount they pay ;)

So yes, your screwed..

In my humble opinion.

Yeh, i'll drop it ;)

Originally posted by JG


I think you've already made it quite clear that you feel that way. However, that's not what this thread is about.

Originally posted by jayjay
People saying it's going to die soon, blah blah blah.. for awhile.. it gets long and old.

I don't see why you're justifying my term of long. It's kind of like if you listened to a Ozzy song and killed yourself, and I didn't. Because I didn't think that's what it meant. Get off it.

I wasnt defining your definition of long I was defining mine. Besides its a moot point, I dont care if it dies or goes on!

It's kind of like if you listened to a Ozzy song and killed yourself, and I didn't.

What ?!? :eek:

Originally posted by neonlexx
I didnt really start this thread so everyone could start a pissing contest with whose bandwidth is better. I just wanted to know if all of nocster's customers here on WHT were effected or if someone knew the exact specifics of the problem and if it will be fixed soon.

Also Burst and Nocster are in the same DC, so if sprint craps out...they can use some of burst's bw?

Just kinda bugged out about ordering a server from nocster right now, since they only have one working provider (sprint)
.They seemed great until I hear about pings being dropped and people not being able to access sites.

According to some traceroutes posted in this thread

http://webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?threadid=60364

they are not just using Sprint for Nocster clients... at least for the IP used for that trace which was from a client of Nocster.

something's up with the clock :eek:

.

Originally posted by Jag


I dont think thats what he meant, besides that would make a lot of burst clients pissed that are paying 3x nocster prices.

Nope it doesn't actually, because we know burst have some quality bandwidth and they are not going to do that always. Also burst have free ips where nocster have price for it. So if i use 200 ips from burst for free it will cost me $100 at nocster. so price will be approx. same, except huge bandwidth difference with nocster but then it is cogent. (hella good) ;)

Also no problems reported by any customer on nocster server. :)

Originally posted by edude
Poorly written news articles? hahaha....

The article was from: http://www.americasnetwork.com/americasnetwork/

Contact them with your opinions about their article..

Also you criticized me first ;)

:rolleyes: I can't decide if you are just trying to raise your post count or just won't let an off-topic thread die; maybe both...

Anyway, I came to post on my server with Nocster I'm no longer receiving any packet loss (0% after 1000 pings).

As for "you're screwed if cogent goes down" I seriously doubt that is the case. As I posted before, when they initally had Cogent problems they turned off the cogent pipe and put Nocster clients onto the Burst bandwidth. I don't think Burst would screw clients on outages.

If Cogent goes out of business they obviously will have to shift their business structure, just like RackShack, et al.

Off topic thread die? I didn't reply to it last..

Why would i want to raise my post count? :confused:

Originally posted by edude
Off topic thread die? I didn't reply to it last..

Why would i want to raise my post count? :confused:

:rolleyes: My post had useful information (did you read that part about ping times? About my server at nocster? See the title, there, about Nocster? Can you combine these details together to understand?). Yours, in general, do not.

And, again, here is some more *on topic* information:

Apparently Cogent has been turned off, once again, probably because of the small amount of packet loss. Nocster is running on Burst bandwidth at least for the time being. Guess we're not screwed, eh, edude?

yea well i don't care.. :P

But do you think its fair for Burstnet clients to have the nocster clients who are paying 3-4 times less congesting their bandwidth?

I don't really care if my posts have content or not, your not the moderator so your opinion means nothing to me..

I doubt that Burst's network is by any means "congested", it still seems very fast to me.

On the other hand though, do you think it's fair that your posts congest this forum, while others contain 3-4 times more valuable content?

Maybe I'll start a new thread about that to raise my post count... :rolleyes:

You have a problem with my posts, take it up with the moderators... :stickout :stickout

To avoid giving edude even more posts, why don't we just stop this discussion about post count?

I am sure he, from now on, will make sure that his posts contain useful information.

Peter

Contain useful information?

I was backing my point up... :bawling:

Originally posted by edude
Poorly written news articles? hahaha....

The article was from: http://www.americasnetwork.com/americasnetwork/

Contact them with your opinions about their article..

Also you criticized me first ;)

edude, with all due respect, that article is inexcusably lame. No matter where it came from. It offers no proof whatsoever of it's unsubstantiated claims from disgruntled employees who may or may not even exist for all we know. That's bad journalism at best. I've seen people post it before and no matter what your opinion on Cogent may be, that article is crap.

Originally posted by neonlexx
I was considering nocster for dedicated server(s) but i keep seeing all these people have terrible connectivity issues. Could someone suggest another alternative or are these connectivity issues not affecting everyone at nocster?? It seems that not everyone is having problems at Nocster. We had some issues when they first added the cogent line; but it's been fairly good since. Sorry you have to keep getting alerted back here with off topic posts. Anywho . . . . . . I'm sure Nocster will get it sorted out.

LOL, how long have you been a journalist for? I'm sure Americasnetwork hire professional journlists...

Or is it because you don't like what the article portrays? :eek:


Originally posted by lightnin


edude, with all due respect, that article is inexcusably lame. No matter where it came from. It offers no proof whatsoever of it's unsubstantiated claims from disgruntled employees who may or may not even exist for all we know. That's bad journalism at best. I've seen people post it before and no matter what your opinion on Cogent may be, that article is crap.

Originally posted by edude
LOL, how long have you been a journalist for? I'm sure Americasnetwork hire professional journlists...

Or is it because you don't like what the article portrays? :eek:




Honestly, it's not a personal thing about cogent. When I was pointed to that article, I was ready, in fact to be dazzled with reasons why Cogent sucks. The only thing it convinced me of was that the article was crap.

Did I miss something? Was I touting my abilities as a journalist? That kind of simplistic response is just plain immature. I _know_ you are capable of better than that.

but i don't want to do better, why should i?

Bah.. :P

I'm not a host, i'm just a basic poster, no one goes and checks each phrase i post..

Now if i was a webhost, i would have to portray some professionalism like you do :D

LOL...not to worry, those people that check every post are usually the same people that troll the internet looking for similar hosting sites to compare and act all horrified about. I don't think they're a core market...:)