Looking for reseller account for Linux and NT. Could you name top 5 best company to go with for reseller business.

:)

Best in what way? Without knowing what you want exactly, there's no way to determine who people think are the 'best'.

Edit: Forgot to mention that it is also rather doubtful that any one member could determine the top 5 as I'm sure one person hasn't used 5 providers, let alone would be able to tell that these five are indeed 'the best'.

Why don't you post a request in the advertising forums and after seeing who replies look them up in a search on WHT to see what people are saying about them. The best really does depend on what you are specifically requiring from a reseller--if you want bandwith and they can't provide it then they are the best for you, but for someone else they may be perfect.

i use kualo, great host...search this forum for these hosts..
kualo
mchost
httpme
voxtreme

Also check www.splashhost.com

havent used that many hosts , but i can second splashhost.com

I can say FreeStyleHosting, I am using their service, their really good.

i am with MCHost and their an excellent company! but i think they offer linux only, not NT

try also www.hostdiscount.net


bye

i also recommend splashhost.com (great uptime, fast responses ... )

;)

I have been with MCHost and enjoy being with Voxtreme now.

Great and fast support.

If you search for Voxtreme here, you'll find lots of good posts on their support.

I have very good experiences with Splashhost.
Not that cheap, but great value for your money!

deleted

Originally posted by chrisb
How could you forget VenturesOnline.com. I hear they are very good.
No big deal, Chris. :D But I think you should be a current customer before you suggest their services to others from what you "hear". Although what folks "hear" is probably a good indication of a host's performance etc. But then again, I'm just in a pedantic mood this afternoon. :D

I changed my mind. :)

Originally posted by jolly
Looking for reseller account for Linux and NT. Could you name top 5 best company to go with for reseller business.

:)
You've got 492 posts up here, so by now, you should know what's up. :)

Oops! I overlooked the NT part of your question. Sorry, but I no no 'nuthing 'bout NT hosts. You might try exa-bytes or matrixreseller, though. I think they sell both NT and Unix plans, and Vortech is a good guy that posts here, and I think he owns matrixreseller.

Originally posted by Aussie Bob

You've got 492 posts up here, so by now, you should know what's up. :)

I've got 492 but I still can't decide which one is the best :( I want to know your opinion cos I can't decide bymyself which one is the BEST...
:D

Originally posted by Aussie Bob

You've got 492 posts up here, so by now, you should know what's up. :)

Yeah, all 492 are the same questions too. What is a VDS? How much is Ensim? Who is the best reseller? :)

I also suggest splashhost.com. Great uptime and quality support.

purple-paw.com

Originally posted by chrisb
Oops! I overlooked the NT part of your question. Sorry, but I no no 'nuthing 'bout NT hosts. You might try exa-bytes or matrixreseller, though. I think they sell both NT and Unix plans, and Vortech is a good guy that posts here, and I think he owns matrixreseller.

Hey at least some one likes me.. hehe


Yes we do both NT and FreeBSD hosting from matrixreseller.com.

Originally posted by UmBillyCord
Yeah, all 492 are the same questions too. What is a VDS? How much is Ensim? Who is the best reseller? :)
....Whois UmBillyCord really?? :D ;)

I recommend Weberz.com

recommend httpme
although voxtreme, splashhost, freestylehosting all seem good

If I had to choose a reseller to go with, Id look at:

1. VenturesOnline.com (Current customer)
2. SplashHost.com
3. MCHost.com

Originally posted by Aussie Bob

....Whois UmBillyCord really?? :D ;) :pimp: He is a riddle, wrapped in a enigma, layered with mystery, on top of a conundrum, smothered in hot mustard sauce. :liplick:

Originally posted by SoftWareRevue
:pimp: He is a riddle, wrapped in a enigma, layered with mystery, on top of a conundrum, smothered in hot mustard sauce. :liplick:

I am actually Bill Cordulous. I own the hosting giant Intraland.

Originally posted by UmBillyCord
I am actually Bill Cordulous. I own the hosting giant Intraland.
AHAH!! The secret has been revealed. :D

BTW Bill, your site is down. :eek:

splashost work for me. Normal problems but usually solved very quickly.

Its great to be a 'Total Newbie' better that being the Kn*****d old dog I am elase where!

Originally posted by chrisb
:)

1. Futurequest.com (how could I have forgot that one?)

.

well from what I see futurequest is not offering bulck accounts. To what I learned on WHT per accounts dicount prices are a thing of the past, am worng to assume that?

Originally posted by sharkman
well from what I see futurequest is not offering bulck accounts. To what I learned on WHT per accounts dicount prices are a thing of the past, am worng to assume that?
You pay for your domains, 1 at a time and simply get a "reseller's discount" on their normal plans. It's not what I would consider an ideal platform for a webhost starting out but it has its advantages.

So in genral what make this companies the best. Is it just the price and support, or there is something else?

Originally posted by Aussie Bob

You pay for your domains, 1 at a time and simply get a "reseller's discount" on their normal plans. It's not what I would consider an ideal platform for a webhost starting out but it has its advantages.

what advantage?

Originally posted by Aussie Bob

You pay for your domains, 1 at a time and simply get a "reseller's discount" on their normal plans. It's not what I would consider an ideal platform for a webhost starting out but it has its advantages.

There is a reason why large companies do not offer "bulk Plans". It is very easy to start a host by offering them like you did. It is also easy for small host to add this option. Now imagine having 10,000 customers or more like FQ. You eat your own. It is very difficult for large, established host to migrate. Soon, one will. Probabaly C-I-Host. Once they do, then they all will follow. Umbillycordhost is not a huge host, but when we introduced 'bulk plans' or 'multi-site plans', we had a huge migration. We lost revenue on some of our biggest customers. The funny thing is, many people would still rather have totally seperate accounts and get a discount. To them, it seems easier to manage.

Originally posted by UmBillyCord


There is a reason why large companies do not offer "bulk Plans". It is very easy to start a host by offering them like you did. It is also easy for small host to add this option. Now imagine having 10,000 customers or more like FQ. You eat your own. It is very difficult for large, established host to migrate. Soon, one will. Probabaly C-I-Host. Once they do, then they all will follow. Umbillycordhost is not a huge host, but when we introduced 'bulk plans' or 'multi-site plans', we had a huge migration. We lost revenue on some of our biggest customers. The funny thing is, many people would still rather have totally seperate accounts and get a discount. To them, it seems easier to manage.


Very well said we had to deal with the same thing and still are dealing with it.

We have not lost money because the new signups are helping out but if it was not for them we would be loosing from going to bulk plans to.

I dont see any very large hosts going to this soon, we are not that small and its taking a huge impact on our staff resources.

Originally posted by sharkman
what advantage?
There are advantages if your client's sites use a lot of resources etc. But ask Deb from futurequest for other advantages.

Originally posted by UmBillyCord
There is a reason why large companies do not offer "bulk Plans". It is very easy to start a host by offering them like you did. It is also easy for small host to add this option. Now imagine having 10,000 customers or more like FQ. You eat your own. It is very difficult for large, established host to migrate. Soon, one will. Probabaly C-I-Host. Once they do, then they all will follow. Umbillycordhost is not a huge host, but when we introduced 'bulk plans' or 'multi-site plans', we had a huge migration. We lost revenue on some of our biggest customers. The funny thing is, many people would still rather have totally seperate accounts and get a discount. To them, it seems easier to manage.
Who's talking about large hosts adding the option? There's a place for both plans on this great planet. We can live in sweet harmony.

Peace and love, brother. :D

I've got news for you.. the bulk reseller plans as we know them are going to be swept under the carpet.. :)

Wish i could tell you more, but at this stage it's a closely guarded secret :D :)

Just thought I'd get you going :D

Originally posted by UmBillyCord
We lost revenue on some of our biggest customers. The funny thing is, many people would still rather have totally seperate accounts and get a discount. To them, it seems easier to manage.

We invited some of our larger clients over to a reseller/unlimited plan, and they refused. "We don't have time to manage that. You do it." Multi-domain plans are proving more popular in 2 weeks than out 3 month venture into resellers.

Having been a reseller ourselves for 2 years, and still having a range of reseller accounts today to serve specific purposes, the problems are clearly evident. It's a shaky position to be in, from either perspective, IMO.

Cheers

Gary

Multi-domain plans

Sometimes the software can be your own worst enemy... Gary could be onto something there :)

'Fess up Steve...where's this leading? :)

Gary

Sorry guys.. Just getting everyone thinking is all :)

Said too much already ;D Over and out :D

Darn Kiwis. Away with you. :)

Gary

Steve I know your "big secret" think I should spill the beans?

Steve I know your "big secret" think I should spill the beans?

hehehe.. don't think this is the place for that.


In the spirit of the thread... I don't think you could go far wrong with any of these:-

1. httpme.com
2. MCHost
3. Voxtreme
4. Splashhost
5. Venturesonline.com

Simply based on the companies standing, popularity and length of time in business. Hard choice but many are looking at "smaller" companies and getting bigger results it seems at present.
There are a few open threads on the topic at the mo :)

Good luck in your search.

Originally posted by Editor
We invited some of our larger clients over to a reseller/unlimited plan, and they refused. "We don't have time to manage that. You do it." Multi-domain plans are proving more popular in 2 weeks than out 3 month venture into resellers.

Having been a reseller ourselves for 2 years, and still having a range of reseller accounts today to serve specific purposes, the problems are clearly evident. It's a shaky position to be in, from either perspective, IMO.
The problem is folks try to define "reality" based upon their own experiences. UmbillyCord defines reality based around his experiences and his knowledge. That's quite ok. That's his reality. It's not "reality". There is no such thing as "reality". Anyone who thinks that reality is based upon their experiences and understanding and this is how it is for everyone, is self delusional, IMHO.

Gary, the fact that you invited some of your clients to cross over to the bulk plans just says that those clients weren't interested. This is based upon your experiences and circumstances. You can't cast broad definitions and assumptions based around those small sets of variables. This was your reality, not "reality".

Gary, talk to Kiwi about the reseller type plans and how business is going. Let him tell you about his reality. Is it a viable business model? Will it work? Can you work the business model? I can tell you from my experiences, it's going great. But that's my reality and not reality. :)

Originally posted by Aussie Bob
Anyone who thinks that reality is based upon their experiences and understanding and this is how it is for everyone, is self delusional, IMHO.

There are some constants that need to be observed Bob. Overlooking those will lead to trouble. Of course I am only speaking of our own experiences, but a lot of them are not unique and/or unforeseen.

Hey, I'm not knocking your own model directly. Each to their own. We're sharing ideas. I can't agree with your statement that the number of domains put on to a server is totally irrelevant, but that's what sets us apart. No problems.

Cheers

Gary

Originally posted by Editor
....Each to their own. We're sharing ideas. I can't agree with your statement that the number of domains put on to a server is totally irrelevant, but that's what sets us apart. No problems.
:D:agree:

Originally posted by Editor
There are some constants that need to be observed Bob. Overlooking those will lead to trouble.
The problem here is "constants" can only be defined as that which you know based upon certian experiences. We're not laying down universal laws here. :)
Of course I am only speaking of our own experiences, but a lot of them are not unique and/or unforeseen.
That's right, they are your experiences and mean something. Your experiences can be taken and the knowledge gained from them can be applied by others.
Hey, I'm not knocking your own model directly. Each to their own. We're sharing ideas.
Our business model works. It works very well. It pays the bills, keeps food on the table.
I can't agree with your statement that the number of domains put on to a server is totally irrelevant
My statement would be that the number of domains on a server is not always relevant to that server's actual performance. It's what each of those domains is doing and has been promised as far as resources by the host to the client. How many single domain hosts out there have 500 accounts on the server with each account being promised 5 to 10GB data transfer/mth?

Server A has 1200 domains. They are very plain html sites with no CGI etc. The server pushes 10GB data transfer/mth.

Server B has 1 domain. It is an extremely large and complex site with heavy CGI usage. It pushes 850GB/mth.

Which is the most reliable server? A or B?

If you pick A, you prove my above statement as correct. If you pick B, then my above statement is completely wrong and without any merit. Which will it be?
but that's what sets us apart. No problems.
Differences of opinion is good. We should celebrate differences instead of thinking that our opinions represent the very foundation for universal truths.

It keeps us sharp and open to new concepts, to new ways of thinking. It's the evoltution of thought in action....:)

Originally posted by Aussie Bob
Which will it be?

Before I can answer that, you need to state whether a client on Server A is to be treated the same as a client on Server B, whether it's a direct client or a reseller. Otherwise you can't expect me to pick one of them. What if they were both servers of yours, and the first server was full and the second server copped a reseller who introduced that domain within his unlimited domains provision. Will you run that server at $20/mth and move on to another? I doubt it. :)

Gary

Originally posted by Editor
Before I can answer that, you need to state whether a client on Server A is to be treated the same as a client on Server B, whether it's a direct client or a reseller. Otherwise you can't expect me to pick one of them. What if they were both servers of yours, and the first server was full and the second server copped a reseller who introduced that domain within his unlimited domains provision. Will you run that server at $20/mth and move on to another? I doubt it. :)
What's this "run that server at $20/mth" thing?? Are you referring to the revenue gained from Server B was only $20/mth? Look at the data transfer that site is using. Who in their right mind would allow an account like that to return only $20/mth in revenue??

A or B ?

"This was your reality, not "reality"."

Actually this was his perception.....and folks we all know this whether we admit it, like it, or face it...

PERCEPTION IS REALITY

and that is a fact. Put enough people together that share the same perception on a matter, and it's reality....

You could take a really good hosting company, and someone could just post and bash them left and right(which it's been done) and the PERCEPTION of that host is THEY SUCK. Is it true? maybe, maybe not, but you wouldn't know if you never sign up for sure. But if I see a host get bashed it does make think twice about signing up with them.

Perceptions is reality and thats the way the world is run, it might not be fair, buts thats life.

JMO

I like deahost.com
I've been a customer for a few weeks now and I have no complaints.

Originally posted by Aussie Bob
Who in their right mind would allow an account like that to return only $20/mth in revenue??

Who in their right mind would ask me to compare A to B? ;)

Your A is similar to some (most?) reseller situations. It doesn't compare to a normal virtual/shared situation. And that normal is not just within my own perspective, but industry wide.

Gary

Originally posted by Editor
Who in their right mind would ask me to compare A to B? ;)
So you won't/refuse/can't answer it?
Your A is similar to some (most?) reseller situations. It doesn't compare to a normal virtual/shared situation. And that normal is not just within my own perspective, but industry wide.
For this instance, can we characterise A as a "normal virtual/shared situation"? If so, A or B. Given my statement was -
The number of domains on a server is not always relevant to that server's actual performance.
Is the above statement completely wrong?

I can't answer it Bob, because it's not what we're comparing. And I can't characterize A as a normal virtual/shared situation, because I believe it's cause for more potential problems as well (same as the last statement).

We're going around in circles mate. I've been through all the unlimited scenarios there is, and tried a few myself. I've seen what works for others, and more importantly what hasn't. So I'll base my own opinion on that, and we'll just have to see how it pans out. Neither of us is obviously more accurate in "today's" market.

[Edit: I'll rephrase that first sentence Bob. I don't believe I can answer it Bob, because I don't believe it's what we're comparing. You might...and that's okay. :)]

Cheers

Gary

The problem is folks try to define "reality" based upon their own experiences. UmbillyCord defines reality based around his experiences and his knowledge. That's quite ok. That's his reality. It's not "reality". There is no such thing as "reality". Anyone who thinks that reality is based upon their experiences and understanding and this is how it is for everyone, is self delusional, IMHO.

Yes, but someones reality is all they know. I will ask you this. Name one large host who migrated to offering bulk plans. Now of course our perception of large is different, so for sake of arguement, I will say 10,000 *customers* or more.

Kiwi started bulk. Not the same thing. Starting is easy. Change is hard!

Reality for large host is MUCH different then a small one. No one will ever understand how difficult it is to 'move on a dime' with a large business until you are there. It takes a long time. This is why capitalism is so great. It allows the smaller, nimble guy to adapt quicker and compete. However, once that quick and nimble person grows large, they too will soon understand that which made him successful is now not as easy. A host with 100,000 customers can not just say, "OK, we now support multiple domains". Could you imagine the backlash?

kiwi didnt start bulk, i was using a bulk reseller account about a year and a half before he started offering it.

Originally posted by SplashHost.com
kiwi didnt start bulk, i was using a bulk reseller account about a year and a half before he started offering it.

Actually people were doing it long before even you. What I meant was his company started as a bulk provider and not a standard virtual provider. I did not mean he invented bulk domain hosting.

Originally posted by UmBillyCord
Kiwi started bulk. Not the same thing. Starting is easy. Change is hard!

We were offering single-domain accounts at the very beginning, but then switched to reseller plans only :)

Actually, MCHost did offer virtual plans if memory serves me correctly. Am I right Marc? ;)

Originally posted by UmBillyCord


Now of course our perception of large is different, so for sake of arguement, I will say 10,000 *customers* or more.




Is that 10,000 direct customers or 10,000 customers including resold accounts.

Originally posted by Kiwi


We were offering single-domain accounts at the very beginning, but then switched to reseller plans only :)

I was going to check on archive.org how long that lasted, but guess what. MChost requested that archive.org not archive their site. hmm....

Anyway, I am pretty sure your virtaul didn't last long and that you had little to worry in switching to your current model. My point, as stated from the beginning, is about large host making the switch.

Originally posted by Paul L.



Is that 10,000 direct customers or 10,000 customers including resold accounts.

Billable, direct customers.

Originally posted by UmBillyCord


I was going to check on archive.org how long that lasted, but guess what. MChost requested that archive.org not archive their site. hmm....

Anyway, I am pretty sure your virtaul didn't last long and that you had little to worry in switching to your current model. My point, as stated from the beginning, is about large host making the switch.

Yeah, blocked because our old designs always appeared on 4-5 competitor sites the moments we took them down.

Agreed, if you ar offering per-domain reseller plans and then switch, you'll most probably notice a decrease in revenues.

Originally posted by UmBillyCord
Yes, but someones reality is all they know. I will ask you this. Name one large host who migrated to offering bulk plans.
Since when are we discussing how "large hosts" operate? Of course they can't change business models quickly. I don't see the relevance as to what a large host can and cannot do. How is this relavant to the topic at hand? :)

Originally posted by Kiwi
We were offering single-domain accounts at the very beginning, but then switched to reseller plans only :)
Yep, that's true. It can be seen by going back through Kiwi's posts in this forum. They started by going after the cheap end of the market and then changed tact to go after the Reseller type account. Kiwi's posts make good reading, back when mchost was just getting off the ground. :)

Originally posted by Aussie Bob

Since when are we discussing how "large hosts" operate? Of course they can't change business models quickly. I don't see the relevance as to what a large host can and cannot do. How is this relavant to the topic at hand? :)

Damn it Bob. Now I need to go back and read the thread to find this.

OK, I believe you were talking about FQ. They are rather large. You were talking about "advantages". You seem to forget you were debating between bulk and discounted. Then my post came in on why there are not so many bulk guys out there yet. Also, there is huge relevence as to waht a large host can or can not do. What large host do, can directly effect the way the rest of the market acts. This is common sense and can be seen in ANY business market.

I think if you read the thread and follow it, you will see the flow. Good luck.

Originally posted by UmBillyCord
Damn it Bob. Now I need to go back and read the thread to find this.
:blush: :D
OK, I believe you were talking about FQ. They are rather large. You were talking about "advantages". You seem to forget you were debating between bulk and discounted.
No I wasn't debating that in this thread. I was being diplomatic -

Sharkman said -
well from what I see futurequest is not offering bulck accounts. To what I learned on WHT per accounts dicount prices are a thing of the past, am worng to assume that?
I followed that with -
You pay for your domains, 1 at a time and simply get a "reseller's discount" on their normal plans. It's not what I would consider an ideal platform for a webhost starting out but it has its advantages.
Then you slide in with -
There is a reason why large companies do not offer "bulk Plans". It is very easy to start a host by offering them like you did. It is also easy for small host to add this option. Now imagine having 10,000 customers or more like FQ. You eat your own. It is very difficult for large, established host to migrate. Soon, one will. Probabaly C-I-Host. Once they do, then they all will follow. Umbillycordhost is not a huge host, but when we introduced 'bulk plans' or 'multi-site plans', we had a huge migration. We lost revenue on some of our biggest customers. The funny thing is, many people would still rather have totally seperate accounts and get a discount. To them, it seems easier to manage.
I wasn't knocking their reseller plans. I said they have their advantages. See how I have grown here?? :D
I think if you read the thread and follow it, you will see the flow. Good luck.
Read it. ^^ :D

:D

Originally posted by UmBillyCord
:D
Always got to get the last word, hey?? :D :stickout

Duice :)

You guys.... :)

This has been a very interesting thread to read, although it likely has not stayed true to the original poster's intent, and perhaps should be split off at some time for further exploration and discussion.

The discussion about perceptions and reality bring to mind many such similar strategic discussions with CEOs and executives during my former life as a Quality Director/Engineer. I think that the fact that you had such a great interchange determining the definitions of such things goes towards proving AussieBob's point regarding reality.

In dealing with different "realities", I've often use the term "working premise". This gives a model based on perceptions and assumptions that are tested by an individual or group of individuals. Some of the hardest, yet most productive effort is to actually define what a given term means to those involved. Without this clear understanding and agreement, misunderstandings often block productive interchange of ideas.

For myself, I take issue with there being such a thing as "common sense" when dealing with more complex issues and target group. This assumes a perception on the part of all involved that may or may not be true. That is the basis for the axiom "greater than the sum of its parts".

OK, going to end this before I get too longwinded :D . Suffice to say, I did find this thread a good read, unexpected as it turned out to be when I first opened it.

DW

A or B? :D ;)

Originally posted by Aussie Bob
A or B? :D ;)

Okay Bob, I'll play your game... :)

Server A has 1200 domains. They are very plain html sites with no CGI etc. The server pushes 10GB data transfer/mth.

Server B has 1 domain. It is an extremely large and complex site with heavy CGI usage. It pushes 850GB/mth.

Which is the most reliable server? A or B?

If you pick A, you prove my above statement as correct. If you pick B, then my above statement is completely wrong and without any merit. Which will it be?

Server B. You can set the environment up to control and maintain the one constant...that constant being the 1 domain.

Now, back to whether in reality, the number of domains on a server is relevant or not... :)

Gary

Originally posted by Editor
Okay Bob, I'll play your game... :)
No game Gary. Just a very simple question. :)
Server B. You can set the environment up to control and maintain the one constant...that constant being the 1 domain.
I wonder if we held a poll and users had to chose which server they would rather have their site hosted on. How many would follow your choice and go with server B?? I'll take server A, thanks, as I think 99% of folks would. :) *note to self, start poll in another thread*
Now, back to whether in reality, the number of domains on a server is relevant or not... :)
My statement is - "The number of domains on a server is not always relevant to that server's actual performance."

I gave a simple example of 2 servers as such -
Server A has 1200 domains. They are very plain html sites with no CGI etc. The server pushes 10GB data transfer/mth.

Server B has 1 domain. It is an extremely large and complex site with heavy CGI usage. It pushes 850GB/mth.

Which is the most reliable server? A or B?
You would need to provide hard evidence that proves the above statement is totally incorrect and void of any truth if you disagree with my statement.....

Jeez...you guys from Down Under take this domains per server argument seriously...

:homer: :love: :smash:

Originally posted by Aussie Bob
I wonder if we held a poll and users had to chose which server they would rather have their site hosted on.

Users? How would more than one have that choice? You're talking about a dedicated, single site solution for a specific type of site. If someone had those specific requirements (server B), then they would expect to have that solution.

But in my opinion, generally speaking it is very important how many domains go an a server. It's often one of the first questions we get asked. Your milleage may vary. There will always be exceptions to any rule, so I'll go with what I know. ;)

Cheers

Gary

Originally posted by lightnin
Jeez...you guys from Down Under take this domains per server argument seriously...

:homer: :love: :smash:

Who's arguing...? :)

Gary

Originally posted by Editor
Who's arguing...? :)
This is how we Queenslanders have civil and intelligent discussions. You should see it when we argue. :D

Server B as long as they were paying like $2-$3 extra per GB and the server had dual cpu's and plenty of RAM :)

Much easier to manage :D

That's the one that I would rather host anyway...

Don't think people would want their site on any of those servers A or B though :D

Bob, your A vs. B is flawed and set to be flawed to validate your arguement. To make things perfectly fair, look at it this way:

Shared Server A: 1000 sites. 200 GBs/mo and an avergae server load of 2.00.

Shared Server B: 100 sites. 200 GBs/mo and an avergae server load of 2.00.


What would you pick?

It would have to be B. Laws of averages or propensity will validate this. There is 10 times the chance someone will run a bad script or site will be flooded, etc on A....

To let you know, no matter how low the server use is, we always stop adding at 300 sites No matter what. This is from trial and error over the years.

My statement is - "The number of domains on a server is not always relevant to that server's actual performance."

True. However, the number of domains on a server is always relevant to the fact that the chances for a disruption in a server's actual performance increases with the number of domains on a server. :)

Originally posted by UmBillyCord
To let you know, no matter how low the server use is, we always stop adding at 300 sites No matter what. This is from trial and error over the years.
Ok - 300 accounts per server. What is the average promised disk space and data transfer/account on that server??

If this is too personal, then don't worry about it.

I have also heard great things about venturesonline.com Their support in particular. I had some minor dealings in the past with Daniel. P when he was on his own and even just his support was tremendous. It appears their company has been moulded around his nature...hence the great feedback we commonly hear!

All the best in your decision. :)

Originally posted by UmBillyCord
[B]To let you know, no matter how low the server use is, we always stop adding at 300 sites No matter what. This is from trial and error over the years.

What Service Pack of NT 4.0 are you on?

If this is too personal, don't post any more.

Originally posted by chrisb
1. Futurequest.com (how could I have forgot that one?)
2. VentureOnline.com
3. Splashhost.com
4. Voxtreme.com
5. HostMatters.com

Note: None of the above hosts are run by kiddies under the age of 20. At least I don't think so.

BONG!

At least one of them is under 20, for sure. :cool: In fact, one isn't even 19 yet ....

Now who could that be .... :stickout

Sarah

What I see from all this information posted in this and other threads on hosting is; that the coming "ANTCHRIST" will be a schoolkid running the world from a computer in his bedroom! I am sorry but I do not believe that a 'schoolkid' has the mental or moral responsibility to fulfill the tasks required to be a satisfactory webhost, unless their IQ is over 160 :kaioken:

Originally posted by SarahBurton


BONG!

At least one of them is under 20, for sure. :cool: In fact, one isn't even 19 yet ....

Now who could that be .... :stickout

Sarah

DING! I know exactly at least one of them, and I am a happy customer, as well :D

If you know what you are doing, know what you are talking about, are helpful to me, work hard, and respond appropriately depending on the need, it makes absolutely no difference how old you are: you will be successful.

The list of the incompetent and unscrupluous spans all age groups and is--regretfully--too long to get the individual pity so deservedly due.

Originally posted by Aussie Bob

Ok - 300 accounts per server. What is the average promised disk space and data transfer/account on that server??

If this is too personal, then don't worry about it.
Awwwwww, come on UmBillyCord!! :D

Will you guys please post top 5 reseller companies.

:D

Originally posted by Aussie Bob

Awwwwww, come on UmBillyCord!! :D

Servers run 80 GB HDs (older ones - 40s). Our basic plans start from 100 MBs up to 500 MBs.

Bandwidth varies and is not relevent. Our Terms are very strict in what we host and we list the exact resource use allowed in a shared environment. Meaning we filter our customer base. We are not wanting to host anyone. We don't even offer things like MySQL on or lower plan. For this reason, script kiddies needing 100 MySQL databases will go elsewhere - which we want.

I can tell you our average loads are .1 or lower! We have a few sysadmins who post here from our company, so if they see me posting false stuff, they will be on me. Meaning, this is actual runnings of our servers.

We do not determine the # of accounts based off of resources. We base it on target revenue/server and hard numbers derived through time. 300 is what we feel comfortable with. If it were not for patches, most our servers would run 6 months or more without a reboot. Now, I am not saying we have servers under 300 sites. We do. However most people who use a lot of resources that could effect our target number, usually move to a VDS.

There Bob. Are you happy?:)

I don't know about Bob, but I sure got that warm fuzzy feeling. :)

Originally posted by SarahBurton


BONG!

At least one of them is under 20, for sure. :cool: In fact, one isn't even 19 yet ....

Now who could that be .... :stickout

Sarah

LOL.... Yeah, I forgot that Alan of Splashhost was so young. I'm going to have to retract that list. I just noticed one of them used dv2, and I would not recommend a dv2 host.

Darnit! I hate it when I am wrong. :)

Why would you NOT recommend a DV2 host. From what I have seen you recommend and not recommend with gay abandon! Have you ACTUALLY had any experience with ANY host? :rolleyes:

At least one of them is under 20, for sure. In fact, one isn't even 19 yet ....

Now who could that be ....


whats funny about that? Im 18, i believe matt from voxtreme is about the same age, and kiwi was 19 the last time i spoke to him.

kiwi was 19 the last time i spoke to him.

I am sure he will post he is a 45 year old businessman. :)

I didn't know all you guys were youngsters. Good on ya. :cool:

Originally posted by NAMES
Why would you NOT recommend a DV2 host. From what I have seen you recommend and not recommend with gay abandon! Have you ACTUALLY had any experience with ANY host? :rolleyes:

Yes, chrisb, please support your statement with at least some reasoning. :)

Originally posted by UmBillyCord
There Bob. Are you happy?:)
Pretty much. :) I'd be even happier if you'd let us know the name of your company that you own/work for. ;) :D

Originally posted by UmBillyCord
I am sure he will post he is a 45 year old businessman. :)
When you hit your early 30s, you want to be 20 again. :D I just don't get these young chaps wanting to be old like Umbillycord. :D
I didn't know all you guys were youngsters. Good on ya. :cool:
I wish I was 19 and running a successful web hosting business. Small piece of advise to those chaps - don't forget to have a life too - find a partner - settle down - maybe even breed.

Originally posted by Aussie Bob

Pretty much. :) I'd be even happier if you'd let us know the name of your company that you own/work for. ;) :D

Bob, I told you. I am Bill Cordiuos. I own the web hosting giant Intraland.com.

maybe even breed


...just the first part of doing that is good enough for me :D I think if i produced the end product then then my customer service might suffer just a little..

Originally posted by SplashHost.com


whats funny about that? Im 18, i believe matt from voxtreme is about the same age, and kiwi was 19 the last time i spoke to him.

When was the last time you spoke to Kiwi?

BTW, I did not mean any deference to Alan. From what I see here, he appears to do a good job.

That was in march.

Originally posted by SplashHost.com


whats funny about that? Im 18, i believe matt from voxtreme is about the same age, and kiwi was 19 the last time i spoke to him.

I feel like an old man (at 35) compared to you guys :D

What a roller coaster ride this thread has been :D

What was it about again?? *ahem* :laugh:

Personally, we had some experience with DynastyHost.com and found them very helpful and reliable.

Best Regards,
Boris