I have been searching on WHT since quite some time, but have not found any one single reliable reseller-hosting provider. Some time ago, there used to be a clear winner in ResellerZoom. These days it seems to be InnoHosting.

These are some names that come up on the forum

ResellerZoom - I am already using ResellerZoom and it is no longer what it used to be.
HostGator - HostGator has one major negative. It doesn't allow over-selling. Difficult to survive without overselling at least the bandwidth.
InnoHosting - They seem to be most preferred this days on WHT. I was about to signup with their current offer. But some answers received in pre-sales has made re-think my decision. Not to say that they are bad, but it doesn't suit my purpose.
HostNine - There are plenty of bad reviews about them on WHT.


Which other re-seller host to consider? :confused: This is a really big dilema.:(

What exactly are you looking for in a reseller?

At least similar features as ResellerZoom with better TechSupport. I don't mind paying more than what I pay there.

InnoHosting - They seem to be most preferred this days on WHT. I was about to signup with their current offer. But some answers received in pre-sales has made re-think my decision. Not to say that they are bad, but it doesn't suit my purpose.


Mind if you share more info on this? I'm also considering Innohosting for my needs.

Thanks.

Mind if you share more info on this? I'm also considering Innohosting for my needs.

Thanks.
Even am curious about that. Would you mind to share?

Even am curious about that. Would you mind to share?

Mind if you share more info on this? I'm also considering Innohosting for my needs.

Thanks.

Here are some points that make me uncomfortable about innohosting. They may not matter much to many.

No RAID1 in their servers. So the whole of data is on just 1 disk!! TOS 3.15 says "We do not make any guarantees on the integrity and reliability of the backups." It is a niche saying that people are supposed to keep their own backups. But ...
200 outgoing emails per hour. Of course there has to be a limit. But this limit is too low, at least for me and some of my clients. ResellerZoom has a limit of 400 and I have accommodated most clients accordingly.
PERSONAL nameservers not PRIVATE. We have no IPs for our name servers. This surely is not a major issue. But this could be troublesome in some scenarios that I have faced in past.
No clear limit on resource usage. This could be considered either negative or positive. When I know my sites don't use too much resources, I consider it a negative. TOS 3.2 is vague. This is the answer I received and this means I could be in some bad neighborhood :(
There are no set limits as this would be counter-productive. We simply ask users to use resources in such a way that it does not have adverse effects on other users. As a result of this policy, this means a user can use a lot of resources if nobody else is using them and so it does not have a bad effect on the system.

Here are some points that make me uncomfortable about innohosting. They may not matter much to many.

No RAID1 in their servers. So the whole of data is on just 1 disk!! TOS 3.15 says "We do not make any guarantees on the integrity and reliability of the backups." It is a niche saying that people are supposed to keep their own backups. But ...
200 outgoing emails per hour. Of course there has to be a limit. But this limit is too low, at least for me and some of my clients. ResellerZoom has a limit of 400 and I have accommodated most clients accordingly.
PERSONAL nameservers not PRIVATE. We have no IPs for our name servers. This surely is not a major issue. But this could be troublesome in some scenarios that I have faced in past.

I don't know but, did ResellerZoom have RAID-1 ?

Regarding TOS thing nearly all hosts state that in their TOS. And yes, it's advisable that you take your own backups.

I'm sure InnoHosting should have no problems rasing the per emails limit for your account(s).

What's the difference between Personal and Private? Also, why do you need separate IPs for your nameservers? I guess you can buy IPs separately as well?

I don't know but, did ResellerZoom have RAID-1 ?

ResellerZoom has RAID1 on both their servers in FailOver (whatever!). So effectively the data is on 4 disks! Forget the FailOver setup, they have RAID1 even on their budget servers.

Regarding TOS thing nearly all hosts state that in their TOS. And yes, it's advisable that you take your own backups. I agree. But plan A is very prone to fail. There has to be a plan B in place!

I'm sure InnoHosting should have no problems rasing the per emails limit for your account(s).I don't expect them to change company policies for me. In any case, this limit is set from root WHM so will have a server wide effect.

What's the difference between Personal and Private? Also, why do you need separate IPs for your nameservers? I guess you can buy IPs separately as well?
I may be wrong, but PRIVATE nameservers mean nameservers with my own IP and PERSONAL means they will be with a shared IP. They will just be entered in the DNS Zone. But as I said, this isn't a major issue, just a niggle.

I too in the same boat like you :)

Have a look at http://www.crucialp.com, they have a current offer going on at WHM. I am not a customer of them yet, but during my search and few email communications with them I found they are professionals and the plan and support seems to be good.

Another option would be www.dathorn.com I am their customer for last 3 years or more.

ResellerZoom has RAID1 on both their servers in FailOver (whatever!). So effectively the data is on 4 disks! Forget the FailOver setup, they have RAID1 even on their budget servers.

I agree. But plan A is very prone to fail. There has to be a plan B in place!

I don't expect them to change company policies for me. In any case, this limit is set from root WHM so will have a server wide effect.


I may be wrong, but PRIVATE nameservers mean nameservers with my own IP and PERSONAL means they will be with a shared IP. They will just be entered in the DNS Zone. But as I said, this isn't a major issue, just a niggle.
1. I didn't know that RZ's Budget servers had RAID-1.

2. Hmmm....

3. I don't know but, many hosts do it for their clients. e.g. JodoHost has such limits and you can ask them to raise it for you and they do it. How they do I don't know but, it is possible. But, JodoHost are H-Sphere based. Why not ask Inno?

4. I guess many hosts use those words interchangeably. But, AFAIK RZ didn't offer that. BTW, what's the harm in that?

P.S.: Could you tell me how to Multi Quote like you have done. I've never figured how to do it. Seems dumb doesn't it ;)

Here are some points that make me uncomfortable about innohosting. They may not matter much to many.
No RAID1 in their servers. So the whole of data is on just 1 disk!! TOS 3.15 says "We do not make any guarantees on the integrity and reliability of the backups." It is a niche saying that people are supposed to keep their own backups. But ...

It is not necessary for us to have RAID. In case of any failures, we can restore pretty quickly as our hard drives are low capacity drives.

You need to also take into account the RAID can also fail.



200 outgoing emails per hour. Of course there has to be a limit. But this limit is too low, at least for me and some of my clients. ResellerZoom has a limit of 400 and I have accommodated most clients accordingly.

The limit is based on current user needs. If users need more then it is something we would consider.



PERSONAL nameservers not PRIVATE. We have no IPs for our name servers. This surely is not a major issue. But this could be troublesome in some scenarios that I have faced in past.

This isn't troublesome. IP's for your nameservers do not do *anything* at all. It has no benefit to have private IP's for your nameservers. That said, if you really want to have private IP's for your nameservers, then you can simply order the IP's.

We give our customers 4 nameserver IP's to use. Much better than having 2 nameservers with 2 dedicated IP's.



No clear limit on resource usage. This could be considered either negative or positive. When I know my sites don't use too much resources, I consider it a negative. TOS 3.2 is vague. This is the answer I received and this means I could be in some bad neighborhood :(

If you read our reviews, you will see uptime, reliability and performance has never been an issue for us. It is actually due to the policies we have that enables us to achieve high availability.

But that said, no single hosting provider can be perfect for everyone. But we do our best to keep it attractive to the mainstream, and for the most part, it caters for quite a lot of people..

Just thought it would be important for me to elaborate on those points. All the best with your search however. :agree:

It is not necessary for us to have RAID. In case of any failures, we can restore pretty quickly as our hard drives are low capacity drives.

Could you elaborate on this? I didn't get what you are trying to say? :confused:

It is not necessary for us to have RAID. In case of any failures, we can restore pretty quickly as our hard drives are low capacity drives.

You need to also take into account the RAID can also fail.

But how old is the data in such case?

Seems strange to me that there are hosts nowadays not using raid.

It is not necessary for us to have RAID. In case of any failures, we can restore pretty quickly as our hard drives are low capacity drives.

You need to also take into account the RAID can also fail.
What is more prone to data loss? Just one disk with data or two disks with data-replication? Additionally, restoring from backup will give little old data and therefore there is at least some data loss.

The limit is based on current user needs. If users need more then it is something we would consider.
Per hour emails limits are for you to consider as a company policy matter. Of course, any special concessions are greatly appreciated.

But that said, no single hosting provider can be perfect for everyone. But we do our best to keep it attractive to the mainstream, and for the most part, it caters for quite a lot of people..

Just thought it would be important for me to elaborate on those points. All the best with your search however. :agree:

Just to clarify Rameen, not even once I thought/said that you provide bad service. I was excited to see good reviews about your services. But your current setup, as-it-is, would be somewhat uncomfortable. Probably, it was more disappointing for me. :(

4. I guess many hosts use those words interchangeably. But, AFAIK RZ didn't offer that. BTW, what's the harm in that?

P.S.: Could you tell me how to Multi Quote like you have done. I've never figured how to do it. Seems dumb doesn't it

I have seen govts blocking certain sites and their IPs. On one occassion one blog was blocked and the whole gamut of other sites got blocked! :( Of course, this is a rarity.

There are three buttons at the end of every post. One of them is for multiquote. :D

But how old is the data in such case?

Seems strange to me that there are hosts nowadays not using raid.

In any case, the data will be less than 24hrs old. When we do our backups, we keep a daily, weekly and monthly archive.

In any case, the data will be less than 24hrs old. When we do our backups, we keep a daily, weekly and monthly archive.

So at least some emails, at least some posts/threads on a forum, at least some posts/comments on blog may get lost in case of outage. No site owner keeps minute to minute backup. There is no equally effective substitute to RAID1.

There are three buttons at the end of every post. One of them is for multiquote. :D

I know that buddy. Nothing happens when I click on it. How to use it? :cry: I feel so dumb :(

What is more prone to data loss? Just one disk with data or two disks with data-replication? Additionally, restoring from backup will give little old data and therefore there is at least some data loss.


No doubt RAID would be provide extra redundancy, but in our case, we really don't believe on our environment it is necessary. It is something we can consider for future deployed servers, but as it stands, it won't actually provide much benefit to us.

Worst case scenario is that you lose a few hours work. As previously mention, RAID can also fail, so just by using RAID you won't be eliminating the chances of data corruption or failures from happening.


So at least some emails, at least some posts/threads on a forum, at least some posts/comments on blog may get lost in case of outage. No site owner keeps minute to minute backup. There is no equally effective substitute to RAID1.


We are actually considering using CDP backups.


Per hour emails limits are for you to consider as a company policy matter. Of course, any special concessions are greatly appreciated.
:)


Just to clarify Rameen, not even once I thought/said that you provide bad service. I was excited to see good reviews about your services. But your current setup, as-it-is, would be somewhat uncomfortable. Probably, it was more disappointing for me. :(
I appreciate the enthusiasm :agree:


I have seen govts blocking certain sites and their IPs. On one occassion one blog was blocked and the whole gamut of other sites got blocked! :( Of course, this is a rarity.
Private nameservers won't fix that. You'll need to have those sites on a dedicated IP too :)

Like I said, I do appreciate your comments and all of them have been noted. We do implement services based on user demand and so we like to provide what is beneficial for majority of users. But there will always be cases where our solution won't be fit for someone. :)

I know that buddy. Nothing happens when I click on it. How to use it? :cry: I feel so dumb :(

when you click on the button, it turns into a plus sign. then when you go to the bottom and click "post reply", you will see the quotes from every post you chose to quote ;)

when you click on the button, it turns into a plus sign. then when you go to the bottom and click "post reply", you will see the quotes from every post you chose to quote ;)
OH. OK. Thanks. I'll try it now.

So back to the main and most important discussion :(

Any other reseller hosting provider that can be considered?

Most of those hosts you have listed are generally good. It has nothing to do with a "clear winner". They are all winners in their own right as they are successful companies..

You need to realize that your needs are just not right for an out of box package. Maybe you need to begin considering something like a VPS or dedicated server? If your budget is not enough for it, then you just have to drop some of your requirements.

Most of those hosts you have listed are generally good. It has nothing to do with a "clear winner". They are all winners in their own right as they are successful companies..

You need to realize that your needs are just not right for an out of box package. Maybe you need to begin considering something like a VPS or dedicated server? If your budget is not enough for it, then you just have to drop some of your requirements.
Well said. :)

VPS might do the trick for you ;)

Most of those hosts you have listed are generally good. It has nothing to do with a "clear winner". They are all winners in their own right as they are successful companies..

You need to realize that your needs are just not right for an out of box package. Maybe you need to begin considering something like a VPS or dedicated server? If your budget is not enough for it, then you just have to drop some of your requirements.

Well said. I too have considered this. But turned it down b'coz I don't need the power of VPS/Dedicated for these sites. Can't use a machine-gun to kill a goose ;)

I don't expect them to change company policies for me. In any case, this limit is set from root WHM so will have a server wide effect.


Hi minipro,

First of all i wanted to explain that the limit is not a WHM set limit only, while you can set this limit in WHM server-wide a host has the possibility to change this limit per domain.

Also to your original question, there are many other resellers account sellers around, i would take a look and just start to write them to see if they can offer what you need.

Remember that a TOS is made for general usage and like no hosting-package fits each and every customer, a genetal TOS will not fit to everyone either. Just make sure that if a host agrees on making exceptions you have this black on white.

Hope you will find a good host for your reseller hosting.

Even am curious about that. Would you mind to share?

Careful, I asked this same question and got smacked with warning points.

@Shaw

Yep that happens, every once in awhile (up late, lack of coffee, etc...) I forget the rules and make a bad post myself.

Careful, I asked this same question and got smacked with warning points.

What's wrong with that post :confused:

I have got up early and my brain is still booting :P But, seriously what's wrong?

You have to add JaguarPC into the Reseller list. I like JaguarPC. Whenever i have a support question for them, they answer it almost instantly.

No doubt RAID would be provide extra redundancy, but in our case, we really don't believe on our environment it is necessary. It is something we can consider for future deployed servers, but as it stands, it won't actually provide much benefit to us.

Worst case scenario is that you lose a few hours work. As previously mention, RAID can also fail, so just by using RAID you won't be eliminating the chances of data corruption or failures from happening.

We are actually considering using CDP backups.


It is rather scary to loose "a few hours of work" (well, up to 24 hours).
Any CONCRETE plans about CDP backups?

I find the data security issue along with uptime to be absolutely crucial for any host.

It is rather scary to loose "a few hours of work" (well, up to 24 hours).
Any CONCRETE plans about CDP backups?

I find the data security issue along with uptime to be absolutely crucial for any host.

That's only if you lose it. Nobody said it will or is going to happen. Nothing stopping you from losing data on RAID either - especially in the case where some hosts falsely believe RAID is enough and serves as backups. We have had hard drive failures/problems before, and in non of the cases have we ever lost data as a result of it.

As for the CDP backups, I don't tend to give out specifics until it is actually complete. :agree:

That's only if you lose it. Nobody said it will or is going to happen. Nothing stopping you from losing data on RAID either...


Eventually all hard drives fail :bomb: Then what? Hours of work lost!
With RAID you still have data on other drives.

Eventually all hard drives fail :bomb: Then what? Hours of work lost!
With RAID you still have data on other drives.

Ok, we are just going round in circles here now. The OP already stated this and I already responded.

Surely you don't expect us to keep the same server for many years. They are bound to get upgraded like we have already before. So no actually, there is a good chance it won't fail. Nearly 5 years we have been running this model without a single problem. We have experienced HDD failures before, and have recovered from them without losing any data. RAID will not provide 100% protection against any data loss. It is simply an extra step taken to increase redundancy.

What will you do if your RAID fails? What will you do in case of data corruption? This list can go on and on. The amount of possibilities of something happening to your data is simply too huge for any host to be able to provide a completely fault tolerant system. What if a meteorite hits your DC and all backup locations at the same time? Unlikely? Of course it is - just like HDD failures. Can you protect against it? Sure, build an underground bunker. It is all chances those concerned take.

Ultimately, it is down to the host what decisions they decide upon. This is the decision we have taken and it is working fine. The thousands of people we host don't have a problem with it and are perfectly happy the way things are. All of which are aware of our system specifications and what disaster recovery procedures are available.

If this solution is not right for you, then the answer is quite simple, you don't sign up. But I am not going to keep justifying every tiny spec of the policies we adopt because it doesn't cater to some. I'm willing to discuss custom solutions in private and discuss feedback in private, but not willing to keep debating our policies. We do internally evaluate our policies based on customer feedback :)

The problem with the OP is misunderstanding RAID.
ResellerZoom has RAID1 on both their servers in FailOver (whatever!). So effectively the data is on 4 disks! Forget the FailOver setup, they have RAID1 even on their budget servers.
I may not have looked hard enough, but I don't see mentioned the number of hard drives they have, could be a minimum of two.

Anyway, just because a host has RAID 1 doesn't mean it's reliable, and could probably hurt performance. There's no mention if it's hardware or software RAID. Also, in my experience with hosts using RAID 1, the downtime is usually longer while rebuilding the array and swapping hard drives, whereas it would have been quicker and more cost effective to just restore from a backup.

Just FYI, RAID is NOT a substitute for backups.

What if a meteorite hits your DC and all backup locations at the same time? Unlikely? Of course it is - just like HDD failures. Can you protect against it? Sure, build an underground bunker. It is all chances those concerned take.

:rofl: Are you serious about your comparison? Are meteorite strikes on a DC as common as HD failures? :D

Anyway, just because a host has RAID 1 doesn't mean it's reliable, and could probably hurt performance. There's no mention if it's hardware or software RAID. Also, in my experience with hosts using RAID 1, the downtime is usually longer while rebuilding the array and swapping hard drives, whereas it would have been quicker and more cost effective to just restore from a backup.

Just FYI, RAID is NOT a substitute for backups.

I agree. Reliability and RAID has no connection, otherwise I would not have been looking for new host. As far as my information goes, RZ has hardware RAID1.

But the way RAID is no substitute for backups, backups are no substitute of RAID!!

:rofl: Are you serious about your comparison? Are meteorite strikes on a DC as common as HD failures? :D

I think it was implied that I was exaggerating the scenarios to prove a point ;)

Reliability and RAID has no connection, otherwise I would not have been looking for new host. As far as my information goes, RZ has hardware RAID1.

But the way RAID is no substitute for backups, backups are no substitute of RAID!!

RAID does not prevent data corruption and involves lengthy array resyncs. BUT it will save your data in case of an HD crash - and that would be my priority

RAID does not prevent data corruption and involves lengthy array resyncs. BUT it will save your data in case of an HD crash - and that would be my priority

Yeah I'm not a big fan of raid-1 rebuilding the array is killer. I'd rather make use of raid-5 or even better raid-10. We've had a few drive failures in our raid-10 arrays and it wasn't even noticable just swap the drives out and rebuild.

Oh and a good white paper on raid-5 vs raid-10 http://www.alliancesystems.com/Documents/RAID10.pdf.


Raid really makes lives easier to a degree it's not fun recovering from drive failures and those are far more likely then complete array failure.