ok i got one of those servers to test out for them and post a review.

here goes the start of it.

---------

speed tests

--------------------

----------------------------------------
from rpmfind.net@ 3:54A.M 9-21-02
---
[ <=> ] 32,461,563 1.70M/s

01:55:32 (1.70 MB/s) - `kernel-2.4.19-4a.src.rpm' saved [32461563]

----------------------------------------

from Webreseller.net @ 1:50p.m. 9-21-02
---

100%[====================================>] 45,495,695 461.51K/s ETA 00:00

11:55:21 (461.51 KB/s) - `radioOZ-09-13-02.zip' saved [45495695/45495695]

----------------------------------------
from Tucows.com Dallas, Texas Mirror @ 1:50p.m. 9-21-02
---

100%[====================================>] 48,908,140 853.19K/s ETA 00:00

11:53:33 (853.19 KB/s) - `Q3ADemo.exe' saved [48908140/48908140]

----------------------------------------
ftp.uu.net @ 2:00p.m. 9-21-02
---

100%[====================================>] 8,520,221 537.57K/s ETA 00:00

12:03:55 (537.57 KB/s) - `uumap.tar.Z' saved [8520221]

----------------------------------------
from Atrivo (cogent) @ 2:10p.m. 9-21-02
---
100%[====================================>] 67,941,814 3.10M/s ETA 00:00

12:09:12 (3.10 MB/s) - `Lil%20Flip%20Freestyle.mpg' saved [67941814/67941814]
----------------------------------------

Hm, so it's actually real? :D
How's the hardware?

http://unitedcolo.wofut.com/speedtest/ feel free to download some files from the box and please post your speeds.

Originally posted by Nadav
Hm, so it's actually real? :D
How's the hardware?

hav'nt been able to do very much yet as my cable was out ALL weekend and people at the isp dont have internet techs avail on weekends but somthing is screwed between me and them because my cable goes off for hours and can't connect then just comes back on.

Originally posted by zdwebhosting


hav'nt been able to do very much yet as my cable was out ALL weekend and people at the isp dont have internet techs avail on weekends but somthing is screwed between me and them because my cable goes off for hours and can't connect then just comes back on.


:uzi: Charter :D

00:19:14 (1.17 MB/s) - `rides.mpg' saved [45748982/45748982]

from hostmania


03:28:20 (849.03 KB/s) - `uumap.tar.Z' saved [8520221/8520221]

from fdcservers

03:31:17 (1.02 MB/s) - `uumap.tar.Z' saved [8520221/8520221]

from rackshack

from... earhost :D:D:D

04:41:13 (960.47 KB/s) - `uumap.tar.Z' saved [8520221/8520221]

~250 KB/s from my RoadRunner cable connection here in Overland Park, KS. But, I was using Download Accelerator as well... ;)

Okay got my server ! :)

Some traceroutes first.

From webreseller - > UCG :

traceroute to xxxxxxxxxx (xxxxxxxxxxx), 30 hops max, 38 byte packets
1 66.54.168.1 (66.54.168.1) 0.521 ms 0.462 ms 0.270 ms
2 66.7.139.81 (66.7.139.81) 0.789 ms 1.501 ms 0.765 ms
3 o1-10s11.phl053s101.yipes.com (66.54.144.189) 2.147 ms 19.459 ms 2.482 ms
4 o1-53s11.phl004bd01.yipes.com (66.54.144.110) 3.154 ms 2.735 ms 1.987 ms
5 66.54.175.193 (66.54.175.193) 3.406 ms 2.333 ms 2.891 ms
6 gigabitethernet8-0-515.hsipaccess1.Philadelphia1.Level3.net (63.209.178.161) 2.463 ms 2.257 ms 1.714 ms
7 ge-6-0-0.mp2.Philadelphia1.Level3.net (64.159.0.153) 2.591 ms 3.549 ms 3.559 ms
8 so-0-0-0.mp1.NewYork1.level3.net (64.159.1.65) 5.352 ms 6.099 ms 27.100 ms
9 gigabitethernet2-0.core1.NewYork1.Level3.net (64.159.17.5) 6.855 ms 5.745 ms 5.774 ms
10 mny1-cr10.bbnplanet.net (209.244.160.142) 6.707 ms 4.580 ms 4.849 ms
11 p1-0.nycmny1-nbr2.bbnplanet.net (4.24.8.169) 4.551 ms 6.454 ms 5.502 ms
12 p15-0.nycmny1-nbr1.bbnplanet.net (4.24.10.209) 5.403 ms 5.291 ms 5.762 ms
13 so-6-0-0.chcgil2-br2.bbnplanet.net (4.24.4.17) 33.230 ms 23.138 ms 23.021 ms
14 so-1-0-0.dnvtco1-br2.bbnplanet.net (4.24.9.62) 51.478 ms 51.102 ms 51.030 ms
15 p15-0.snjpca1-br2.bbnplanet.net (4.0.6.225) 75.031 ms 83.124 ms 77.485 ms
16 p2-0.paix-bi3.bbnplanet.net (4.24.7.38) 103.205 ms 79.058 ms 75.696 ms
17 p5-0.paix-bi1.bbnplanet.net (4.0.3.130) 75.588 ms 75.762 ms 82.762 ms
18 p6-0.paloalto-nbr2.bbnplanet.net (4.0.6.101) 75.841 ms 75.479 ms 76.255 ms
19 p1-0.paloalto-cr2.bbnplanet.net (4.0.6.78) 76.327 ms 76.203 ms 76.053 ms
20 h1-0-0.internap31.bbnplanet.net (4.0.26.86) 83.606 ms 84.301 ms 83.530 ms
21 border6.ge4-1-bbnet2.sfo.pnap.net (63.251.63.75) 85.575 ms 83.111 ms 91.895 ms
22 digitalwire-1.border6.sfo.pnap.net (63.251.61.230) 85.641 ms 83.659 ms 84.437 ms
23 GigE-9.sfo-core1.pnap.net (66.111.47.1) 83.941 ms 83.526 ms 85.075 ms
24 xxxxxxxxxxx (xxxxxxxxxxx) 83.659 ms 123.318 ms 92.208 ms

From UCG > WebReseller :

traceroute to apollo.webdns.ws (xxxxxxxxxxxx), 30 hops max, 38 byte packets
1 66.111.33.1 (66.111.33.1) 0.278 ms 0.194 ms 0.172 ms
2 66.111.47.2 (66.111.47.2) 0.567 ms 0.327 ms 0.296 ms
3 63.251.61.229 (63.251.61.229) 0.741 ms 0.576 ms 0.542 ms
4 63.251.63.66 (63.251.63.66) 0.839 ms 0.619 ms 0.786 ms
5 POS2-3.GW4.SFO4.ALTER.NET (157.130.205.201) 1.020 ms 0.966 ms 0.771 ms
6 162.ATM3-0.XR2.SFO4.ALTER.NET (152.63.48.190) 1.411 ms 0.943 ms 1.163 ms
7 0.so-0-0-0.XL2.SFO4.ALTER.NET (152.63.55.69) 1.257 ms 1.075 ms 1.086 ms
8 0.so-2-3-0.XL2.SAC1.ALTER.NET (152.63.50.161) 3.425 ms 3.585 ms 3.215 ms
9 POS7-0.BR5.SAC1.ALTER.NET (152.63.52.229) 3.498 ms 3.596 ms 3.285 ms
10 atm3-0.core2.SanFrancisco1.Level3.net (166.90.50.133) 6.400 ms 6.096 ms 6.303 ms
11 so-4-1-0.mp2.SanFrancisco1.Level3.net (209.247.10.237) 6.105 ms 5.781 ms 5.527 ms
12 so-0-1-0.mp1.Philadelphia1.Level3.net (64.159.0.141) 82.140 ms 82.113 ms 81.949 ms
13 gige9-0.hsipaccess1.Philadelphia1.Level3.net (64.159.0.146) 82.054 ms 82.009 ms 81.855 ms
14 unknown.Level3.net (63.209.178.162) 82.391 ms 82.119 ms 82.419 ms
15 66.54.175.194 (66.54.175.194) 82.575 ms 82.580 ms 82.360 ms
16 o1-4bd1.phl053s101.yipes.com (66.54.144.109) 83.020 ms 83.754 ms 83.140 ms
17 o1-53s11.phl054si01.yipes.com (66.54.144.190) 83.805 ms 83.787 ms 83.583 ms
18 66.7.139.82 (66.7.139.82) 84.311 ms 84.757 ms 83.990 ms
19 xxxxxxxxxxx (xxxxxxxxxxxx) 83.772 ms 83.996 ms 83.417 ms

From my server @ ThePlanet.com > UCG

traceroute to xxxxxxxxxxxx (xxxxxxxxxxxxx), 30 hops max, 38 byte packets
1 12.96.164.2 (12.96.164.2) 1.217 ms 0.323 ms 0.223 ms
2 ibr1-vlan-2.dllstx2.theplanet.com (12.96.160.33) 0.318 ms 0.315 ms 0.230 ms
3 POS1-2.GW1.DFW13.ALTER.NET (157.130.174.65) 0.899 ms 0.911 ms 0.809 ms
4 0.so-0-0-0.XL2.DFW13.ALTER.NET (152.63.103.90) 0.969 ms 0.971 ms 0.918 ms
5 0.so-0-0-0.TL2.DFW9.ALTER.NET (152.63.2.181) 1.697 ms 1.747 ms 1.674 ms
6 0.so-7-0-0.TL2.SCL2.ALTER.NET (152.63.1.69) 48.619 ms 48.654 ms 48.593 ms
7 0.so-7-0-0.XL2.SFO4.ALTER.NET (152.63.54.130) 49.897 ms 49.867 ms 49.828 ms
8 POS4-0.XR2.SFO4.ALTER.NET (152.63.55.70) 49.762 ms 49.794 ms 49.760 ms
9 190.ATM7-0.GW4.SFO4.ALTER.NET (152.63.48.197) 49.909 ms 49.923 ms 49.845 ms
10 internap-gw.customer.alter.net (157.130.205.202) 50.504 ms 50.449 ms 50.436 ms
11 border6.ge3-1-bbnet1.sfo.pnap.net (63.251.63.11) 48.830 ms 48.674 ms 48.679 ms
12 digitalwire-1.border6.sfo.pnap.net (63.251.61.230) 50.706 ms 50.878 ms 50.462 ms
13 GigE-9.sfo-core1.pnap.net (66.111.47.1) 50.489 ms 50.816 ms 50.564 ms
14 xxxxxxxxxxxx (xxxxxxxxxxx ) 50.848 ms 50.670 ms 50.579 ms

From UCG > ThePlanet.com

traceroute to saturn.webdns.ws (xxxxxxxxxxxx), 30 hops max, 38 byte packets
1 66.111.33.1 (66.111.33.1) 0.241 ms 0.191 ms 0.170 ms
2 66.111.47.2 (66.111.47.2) 0.553 ms 0.323 ms 0.300 ms
3 63.251.61.229 (63.251.61.229) 0.691 ms 0.575 ms 0.544 ms
4 63.251.63.2 (63.251.63.2) 0.812 ms 0.627 ms 0.782 ms
5 POS2-3.GW4.SFO4.ALTER.NET (157.130.205.201) 0.891 ms 0.915 ms 1.119 ms
6 162.ATM3-0.XR1.SFO4.ALTER.NET (152.63.48.74) 1.339 ms 1.163 ms 1.112 ms
7 0.so-0-0-0.XL1.SFO4.ALTER.NET (152.63.55.57) 1.657 ms 1.134 ms 1.123 ms
8 0.so-4-0-0.TL1.SCL2.ALTER.NET (152.63.0.253) 2.559 ms 2.344 ms 2.349 ms
9 0.so-5-1-0.TL1.DFW9.ALTER.NET (152.63.0.54) 47.299 ms 47.118 ms 47.032 ms
10 0.so-7-0-0.XL1.DFW13.ALTER.NET (152.63.103.218) 48.713 ms 48.316 ms 48.412 ms
11 POS6-0.GW1.DFW13.ALTER.NET (152.63.103.85) 48.467 ms 48.192 ms 48.260 ms
12 inflowdallas-gw.customer.alter.net (157.130.174.66) 50.773 ms 50.851 ms 50.663 ms
13 car0101-vlan-2.dllstx2.theplanet.com (12.96.160.43) 48.475 ms 48.491 ms 48.747 ms
14 xxxxxxxxxxxxx (xxxxxxxxxxx ) 50.676 ms 50.811 ms 50.919 ms

From HE.net > UCG

traceroute to xxxxxxxxx (xxxxxxxxxxx ), 30 hops max, 38 byte packets
1 extreme.gw233.ultraservers.net (216.218.233.1) 0.896 ms 0.710 ms 0.766 ms
2 gige-g0-0-18.gsr12008.fmt.he.net (64.71.128.37) 2.247 ms 0.939 ms 1.103 ms
3 gige-g4-0.gsr12012.sjc.he.net (64.71.128.181) 2.436 ms 2.402 ms 2.976 ms
4 4.24.145.29 (4.24.145.29) 3.827 ms 3.009 ms 3.246 ms
5 p1-0.snjpca1-br1.bbnplanet.net (4.24.9.133) 3.343 ms 4.432 ms 2.790 ms
6 p2-0.paix-bi1.bbnplanet.net (4.24.7.62) 3.490 ms 3.867 ms 4.227 ms
7 p6-0.paloalto-nbr2.bbnplanet.net (4.0.6.101) 4.188 ms 4.167 ms 3.654 ms
8 p1-0.paloalto-cr2.bbnplanet.net (4.0.6.78) 3.910 ms 3.678 ms 3.537 ms
9 h1-0-0.internap31.bbnplanet.net (4.0.26.86) 6.776 ms 10.260 ms 6.469 ms
10 border6.ge3-1-bbnet1.sfo.pnap.net (63.251.63.11) 6.291 ms 44.986 ms 16.353 ms
11 digitalwire-1.border6.sfo.pnap.net (63.251.61.230) 6.420 ms 7.471 ms 6.431 ms
12 GigE-9.sfo-core1.pnap.net (66.111.47.1) 6.261 ms 6.278 ms 6.473 ms
13 xxxxxxxxxxxxxx (xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) 6.592 ms 6.860 ms 6.358 ms

From UCG > HE.net

traceroute to mercury.webdns.ws (xxxxxxxxxxx), 30 hops max, 38 byte packets
1 66.111.33.1 (66.111.33.1) 0.244 ms 0.190 ms 0.171 ms
2 66.111.47.2 (66.111.47.2) 0.474 ms 0.316 ms 0.300 ms
3 63.251.61.229 (63.251.61.229) 0.699 ms 0.573 ms 0.552 ms
4 63.251.63.1 (63.251.63.1) 0.791 ms 0.617 ms 1.126 ms
5 sl-gw13-sj-0-2-155M.sprintlink.net (160.81.100.1) 1.879 ms 1.906 ms 1.888 ms
6 sl-bb21-sj-6-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.3.173) 2.273 ms 2.154 ms 1.972 ms
7 sl-bb20-sj-14-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.3.157) 2.188 ms 2.310 ms 2.004 ms
8 sl-gw12-sj-9-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.3.146) 2.225 ms 1.904 ms 1.778 ms
9 sl-williamscom-12-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.217.22) 46.037 ms 46.594 ms 46.174 ms
10 snfcca1wcx3-oc48.wcg.net (64.200.199.74) 46.049 ms 45.718 ms 45.836 ms
11 sntcca2lce1-oc48.wcg.net (64.200.210.178) 46.511 ms 46.624 ms 46.728 ms
12 gige-g2-0.gsr12008.pao.he.net (64.71.128.117) 5.206 ms 5.159 ms 4.596 ms
13 gige-g1-0.gsr12008.fmt.he.net (64.71.128.177) 5.295 ms 5.374 ms 5.505 ms
14 64.71.131.174 (64.71.131.174) 6.693 ms 6.376 ms 6.425 ms
15 xxxxxxxxxxx (xxxxxxxxxxxx) 6.690 ms 7.131 ms 6.602 ms

your traces look nice ... though there are sometimes many hops for just some miles ....

greets,

I dont see Cogent in any of those traces.. Guess it really is Internap + Cogent mix on the uplink.

- D.

You x'ed out the ips but left the hostname ?

traceroute to mercury.*.ws (xxxxxxxxxxx), 30 hops max, 38 byte packets

traceroute to saturn.*.ws (xxxxxxxxxxxx), 30 hops max, 38 byte packets

traceroute to apollo.*.ws (xxxxxxxxxxxx), 30 hops max, 38 byte packets

bah i been working on getting this lady friend from our church's laptop back into shape reinstalling everything and i got her dial up info so now i at least have a backup in case charter is down BAH I hate charter lol.

Kill them.

are you running on one of their $49 a month boxes?

skylab - I'm not sure if this was meant for me, but I just got this box for personal sites / testing stuff. There won't be any customers on them :)

heh, no no, i'm asking because i'm interested in them for my own personal sites as well.

Aah ok :D

Much too early to pass judgement on their service, but just want to say they are located in one of the finest data centers in the country.

Originally posted by skylab
are you running on one of their $49 a month boxes?
yes the one i am doing a review for is in fact the 49$ box and i've had nothing but good from it so far now that my cable seems back up and i have a 56k account as standby more to come :)

---------

[root@demo2 root]# cat /proc/cpuinfo
processor : 0
vendor_id : GenuineIntel
cpu family : 15
model : 1
model name : Intel(R) Celeron(R) CPU 1.70GHz
stepping : 3
cpu MHz : 1699.957
cache size : 20 KB
fdiv_bug : no
hlt_bug : no
f00f_bug : no
coma_bug : no
fpu : yes
fpu_exception : yes
cpuid level : 2
wp : yes
flags : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36 clflush dts acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss ht tm
bogomips : 3394.76

[root@demo2 root]#

I wish i'd heard of united colo sooner than this! I'm getting a Pentium 4 2 ghz package with a terrabyte of bandwidth!

Originally posted by sour
I wish i'd heard of united colo sooner than this! I'm getting a Pentium 4 2 ghz package with a terrabyte of bandwidth!

where did you get it at?

Originally posted by zdwebhosting


where did you get it at?

If you have a look in the UCG dedicated servers section you'll their plans for 1TB and 10mbit servers. They both come with p4 2ghz, 1gb ram and 100gb hard drives - not bad :).

I did ask about having one of these instead of the celeron on the other bandwidth plans but it turns out they can only provide them on the $299/mo + plans :(

Anyway if you want to have a look for yourself then the dedicated server plan page is here (http://servers.unitedcolo.com/) and the 1TB/mo plan is here (http://servers.unitedcolo.com/pentium.htm) :)

i'm testing the connection right now, and have to say it does look nice ... especially if you consider the price!
did some tests here, soem dl there ...
this is what i got:
they seem to have internap connectivity, but seem to have some connections to " www.bluetelegraph.com " from where they seem to have a Cogent and WCG connection ... which isn't listed in their network map anywhere ...

example:
traceroute to zeus-pub.kernel.org (204.152.189.116), 30 hops max, 38 byte packets
1 xxxxxxx (xxxxxxx) 0.259 ms 0.183 ms 0.166 ms
2 66.111.47.2 (66.111.47.2) 0.449 ms 0.317 ms 0.297 ms
3 ge-1-2-0.cr1.sfo1.bluetelegraph.com (157.206.254.245) 0.713 ms 0.521 ms 1.745 ms
4 g1.ba21.b003070-1.sfo01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.20.225) 2.778 ms 2.503 ms 2.908 ms
5 g1-2.core01.sfo01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.5.249) 3.034 ms 2.474 ms 2.356 ms
6 g49.ba01.b003070-1.sfo01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.5.178) 3.198 ms 2.854 ms 2.727 ms
7 ISC-1.demarc.cogentco.com (66.250.6.50) 2.570 ms 2.402 ms 2.527 ms
8 so-1-0-0.orsf3.pf.isc.org (192.5.4.235) 2.822 ms 2.386 ms 2.796 ms
9 so-1-2-1.orpa7.pf.isc.org (192.5.4.232) 2.662 ms 2.559 ms 2.315 ms
10 zeus-pub.kernel.org (204.152.189.116) 2.641 ms 2.746 ms 2.654 ms

seems to be very near ... and i got impressive speeds:
16:20:20 (5.55 MB/s) - `linux-2.4.19.tar.bz2' saved [26042494/26042494] (d/l from kernel.org)

traceroute showing WCG:

traceroute to adq232-f187.dialo.tiscali.de (62.246.232.187), 30 hops max, 38 byte packets
1 xxxxxxx (xxxxxxx) 0.288 ms 0.192 ms 0.167 ms
2 66.111.47.2 (66.111.47.2) 0.474 ms 0.330 ms 0.300 ms
3 ge-1-2-0.cr1.sfo1.bluetelegraph.com (157.206.254.245) 1.116 ms 0.582 ms 0.833 ms
4 snfcca1wcx1-s14-0.wcg.net (64.200.198.149) 45.090 ms 44.722 ms 44.686 ms
5 snfcca1wcx2-oc48.wcg.net (64.200.199.61) 44.801 ms 45.328 ms 44.878 ms
6 64.200.210.186 (64.200.210.186) 47.368 ms 46.922 ms 46.868 ms
7 sntcca2lce1-pos.wcg.net (64.200.151.26) 46.717 ms 46.513 ms 46.774 ms
8 equinix-sjc.ip.tiscali.net (206.223.116.19) 4.658 ms 4.626 ms 4.363 ms
9 so-0-1-3.chi10.ip.tiscali.net (213.200.82.141) 53.057 ms 53.764 ms 52.917 ms
10 so-4-0-0.nyc31.ip.tiscali.net (213.200.82.137) 73.059 ms 72.754 ms 72.853 ms
11 so-1-0-0.nyc30.ip.tiscali.net (213.200.81.193) 73.804 ms 73.763 ms 72.881 ms
12 so-2-0-0-3.fra30.ip.tiscali.net (213.200.81.202) 148.715 ms 148.945 ms 148.801 ms
[...]

and on most of the routes i traced to they seem to prefer WCG ... (a traceroute to rackshack which has also got severall other providers also took the route via WCG for example)

traceroute to easynews.dl.sourceforge.net (140.99.102.30), 30 hops max, 38 byte packets
1 xxxxx (xxxxx) 0.238 ms 0.185 ms 0.164 ms
2 66.111.47.2 (66.111.47.2) 0.528 ms 0.325 ms 0.305 ms
3 63.251.61.229 (63.251.61.229) 1.153 ms 0.596 ms 0.549 ms
4 63.251.63.3 (63.251.63.3) 0.816 ms 0.606 ms 1.470 ms
5 12.126.195.77 (12.126.195.77) 1.256 ms 1.089 ms 1.377 ms
6 gbr1-p70.sffca.ip.att.net (12.123.13.58) 1.168 ms 1.161 ms 1.014 ms
7 tbr2-p012701.sffca.ip.att.net (12.122.11.85) 2.948 ms 2.556 ms 2.007 ms
8 tbr1-cl3.la2ca.ip.att.net (12.122.10.26) 41.612 ms 21.853 ms 10.509 ms
9 tbr2-p012501.la2ca.ip.att.net (12.122.9.146) 11.897 ms 41.319 ms 23.712 ms
10 gbr2-p40.sd2ca.ip.att.net (12.122.12.2) 12.135 ms 12.530 ms 12.223 ms
11 gbr1-p60.sd2ca.ip.att.net (12.122.1.109) 12.709 ms 11.910 ms 12.419 ms
12 gbr1-p30.phmaz.ip.att.net (12.122.2.142) 20.410 ms 19.845 ms 19.885 ms
13 gar2-p360.phmaz.ip.att.net (12.123.142.45) 20.171 ms 19.947 ms 20.047 ms
14 puregig-oc12-gw.customer.ALTER.NET (157.130.230.146) 22.877 ms 23.122 ms 22.605 ms
15 ge1-2-1000M.sw2.core.phx.puregig.net (140.99.96.66) 20.597 ms 20.401 ms 20.214 ms
16 easynews.dl.sourceforge.net (140.99.102.30) 21.091 ms 20.684 ms 20.322 ms

16:21:46 (2.57 MB/s) - `webmin-1.000.tar.gz' saved [5643949/5643949]

Nice Speeds from the easynews Mirror of sourceforge here ... going directly through att.


and now a strange example to a network connected via GBLX:

traceroute to telesouth1.com (64.215.249.10), 30 hops max, 38 byte packets
1 xxxxx (xxxxx) 0.267 ms 0.189 ms 0.167 ms
2 66.111.47.2 (66.111.47.2) 0.447 ms 0.325 ms 0.295 ms
3 63.251.61.229 (63.251.61.229) 1.058 ms 0.939 ms 0.899 ms
4 63.251.63.1 (63.251.63.1) 1.214 ms 1.025 ms 0.595 ms
5 sl-gw13-sj-0-2-155M.sprintlink.net (160.81.100.1) 2.026 ms 1.906 ms 2.013 ms
6 sl-bb21-sj-6-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.3.173) 2.436 ms 2.730 ms 2.727 ms
7 sl-bb22-sj-15-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.3.162) 116.586 ms 204.329 ms 7.404 ms
8 208.51.243.225 (208.51.243.225) 2.950 ms 2.960 ms 3.119 ms
9 pos4-0-2488M.cr2.SFO1.gblx.net (206.132.110.193) 3.305 ms 2.623 ms 3.553 ms
10 pos0-0-622M.cr2.ATL1.gblx.net (206.132.115.90) 61.727 ms 61.712 ms 61.218 ms
11 pos4-0-0-155M.ar1.ATL1.gblx.net (206.132.115.122) 61.345 ms 61.810 ms 61.544 ms
12 TelesouthNetwork.s4-1-0-23-0.ar1.ATL1.gblx.net (64.215.80.242) 69.314 ms 75.626 ms 69.008 ms
13 64.215.249.10 (64.215.249.10) 68.940 ms 68.956 ms 68.450 ms

hrm. doesn't internap include GBLX in their provider list? so shouldn't this route have taken GBLX upfront from the NAP border router? strange why it goes via Sprint to GBLX.

same here via Verio ... thought Internap has got direct Connectivity to Verio?!

traceroute to www.webusenet.com (64.154.60.58), 30 hops max, 38 byte packets
1 66.111.33.1 (66.111.33.1) 0.233 ms 0.188 ms 0.168 ms
2 66.111.47.2 (66.111.47.2) 0.418 ms 0.322 ms 0.299 ms
3 63.251.61.229 (63.251.61.229) 0.643 ms 0.575 ms 0.681 ms
4 63.251.63.1 (63.251.63.1) 1.317 ms 0.874 ms 0.586 ms
5 sl-gw13-sj-0-2-155M.sprintlink.net (160.81.100.1) 1.952 ms 2.072 ms 1.779 ms
6 sl-bb21-sj-6-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.3.173) 2.543 ms 2.191 ms 2.650 ms
7 p4-0.sprint.mlpsca01.us.bb.verio.net (144.232.8.166) 3.959 ms 4.048 ms 4.166 ms
8 p16-0-1-1.r20.plalca01.us.bb.verio.net (129.250.4.2) 7.335 ms 6.543 ms 6.504 ms
9 p16-0-0-0.r00.plalca01.us.bb.verio.net (129.250.3.79) 7.286 ms 6.761 ms 6.655 ms
10 p4-6-0-0.r02.mclnva02.us.bb.verio.net (129.250.2.246) 82.907 ms 83.568 ms 82.763 ms
11 p16-1-1-0.r20.mclnva02.us.bb.verio.net (129.250.5.11) 83.028 ms 81.797 ms 81.241 ms
12 p16-0-0-0.r00.atlnga03.us.bb.verio.net (129.250.2.49) 99.855 ms 99.385 ms 99.418 ms
13 ge-0-0-0.a00.atlnga03.us.ra.verio.net (129.250.26.227) 99.417 ms 99.683 ms 98.905 ms
14 ge-1-2.a02.atlnga03.us.ra.verio.net (129.250.25.68) 99.301 ms 98.886 ms ge-1-1.a02.atlnga03.us.ra.verio.net (129.250.26.229) 99.648 ms
15 p-4-2.br1.atl3.webusenet.com (64.154.61.6) 86.946 ms 87.644 ms 86.672 ms
16 p-5-1-br1.atl2.webusenet.com (64.154.61.5) 86.150 ms 86.398 ms 85.806 ms
17 br2-ve-2.atl2.webusenet.com (64.154.60.134) 87.600 ms 87.061 ms 87.571 ms
18 www1.atl2.webusenet.com (64.154.60.58) 86.225 ms 85.835 ms 85.995 ms

and another strange one:
traceroute to www.stealth.net (206.252.192.5), 30 hops max, 38 byte packets
1 xxxxx (xxxxx) 0.272 ms 0.185 ms 0.164 ms
2 66.111.47.2 (66.111.47.2) 0.451 ms 0.322 ms 0.297 ms
3 63.251.61.229 (63.251.61.229) 1.417 ms 0.587 ms 0.564 ms
4 63.251.63.70 (63.251.63.70) 0.812 ms 0.657 ms 0.584 ms
5 svl-edge-09.inet.qwest.net (63.145.224.1) 2.600 ms 3.008 ms 2.340 ms
6 svl-core-03.inet.qwest.net (205.171.14.97) 3.161 ms 3.272 ms 2.869 ms
7 svl-brdr-02.inet.qwest.net (205.171.14.161) 2.829 ms 2.962 ms 2.403 ms
8 205.171.1.166 (205.171.1.166) 5.393 ms 5.157 ms 4.521 ms
9 tbr1-p012702.sffca.ip.att.net (12.122.11.69) 6.074 ms 5.883 ms 7.888 ms
10 tbr1-cl1.cgcil.ip.att.net (12.122.10.5) 47.722 ms 47.876 ms 48.325 ms
11 tbr1-p013601.n54ny.ip.att.net (12.122.10.57) 68.373 ms 67.142 ms 67.487 ms
12 gbr2-p10.n54ny.ip.att.net (12.122.11.6) 65.921 ms 65.665 ms 67.970 ms
13 ar10-a300s2.n54ny.ip.att.net (12.123.0.225) 66.354 ms 67.150 ms 69.883 ms
14 c2.ny1.stealth.net (206.252.222.66) 65.036 ms 65.967 ms 64.557 ms
15 millennium.stealth.net (206.252.192.5) 65.292 ms 65.668 ms 65.357 ms

didn't we saw they got a direct conneciton to att? so why is this going via qwest first?!

Conclusion:
very strange routing here .... also i did miss an (some?) Internap hop(s) on all traces here?! strange, strange.
from some location the speed is really fast (as it should be on a, non oversold, network with Internap Connectivty. but from other places it averages around 500-700kb/s which isn't that fast, but also not that slow ...
well ... in the end it's up to you if you buy a server from unitedcolo or not ...
I have to say i'm still very tempted, but i'd really like to know why they have such a strange routing there, Maybe UCG could clear the shadow ...

best regards,

Tad bit early for a review.. don't you think?

Well, normally this is a bit early. However, a lot of us are interested to see if UCG is "real," so this review is still useful.

Of course, one must realize that this is only a one day review.

Peter

sure, it's just a snapshot of the status atm, but it's better then nothing, right? ;))

btw. i did find GBLX, strange, eh? ;))

traceroute to www.demon.co.uk (193.195.1.1), 30 hops max, 38 byte packets
1 xxxxx (xxxxx) 0.242 ms 0.184 ms 0.162 ms
2 66.111.47.2 (66.111.47.2) 0.399 ms 0.320 ms 0.298 ms
3 63.251.61.229 (63.251.61.229) 0.616 ms 1.032 ms 1.720 ms
4 63.251.63.6 (63.251.63.6) 0.856 ms 1.275 ms 0.963 ms
5 pos10-0-0.ar1.SFO1.gblx.net (64.209.88.53) 1.812 ms 1.687 ms 1.139 ms
6 pos2-0-155M.cr1.SFO1.gblx.net (206.132.110.129) 2.947 ms 1.084 ms 1.635 ms
7 pos0-0-2488M.br2.SFO1.gblx.net (206.132.110.190) 2.304 ms 1.957 ms 1.019 ms
8 208.51.243.226 (208.51.243.226) 3.090 ms 3.814 ms 3.261 ms
9 sl-bb24-sj-13-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.3.214) 3.836 ms 3.206 ms 3.188 ms
10 sl-bb21-rly-14-1.sprintlink.net (144.232.20.22) 62.773 ms 63.969 ms 61.353 ms
11 sl-bb20-tuk-0-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.20.123) 67.861 ms 66.863 ms 66.526 ms
12 sl-bb21-tuk-15-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.20.133) 66.851 ms 65.283 ms 66.754 ms
13 sl-bb21-lon-14-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.19.70) 134.801 ms 134.421 ms 134.175 ms
14 sl-gw10-lon-15-0.sprintlink.net (213.206.128.46) 139.570 ms 139.173 ms 139.580 ms
15 sle-thus-1-0-0.sprintlink.net (213.206.130.82) 140.137 ms 140.182 ms 140.099 ms
16 tele-service-11-47.router.demon.net (194.159.36.233) 141.289 ms * 156.980 ms
17 tele-service-2-165.router.demon.net (194.159.36.149) 140.608 ms 139.987 ms 139.986 ms
18 first.www.demon.net (193.195.0.162) 141.791 ms * 142.560 ms

interesting.

http://www.bluetelegraph.com/ could be their BW provider:

Blue Telegraph Silver Band © This offers a client a value priced bandwidth solution with full support, starting at $25 Mbps. Blue Telegraph Gold Band © Is known as our premium offering, providing clients with the premiun in IP transit from carriers Internap and Verio. It includes managed service levels and performance for companies that have specific needs for their online products and services. We provide Gold Band bandwidth starting at $95 Mbps.

Unitedcolo and our pal at http://unitedcolo.wofut.com/ have both been down for the past five (5) minutes or so. So much for the 99.99% uptime guarantee, unless, I guess, this is "routine maintenance."

I hope they work the kinks out.

Located in the same building:

" The facility at 200 Paul Ave. in San Francisco is a Carrier Hotel with over 29 carriers in place. Blue Telegraph provides its carrier class services on the 3rd floor in the meet-me-room and in its dedicated cages on the 5th floor. "

Down for five whole minutes...lets panic...lets throw them to the wolves. Really now.

Also, when you see someone down for 5 minutes, it may well have to do with your isp or something unrelated.

BTW, it's still down (20 minutes now). And it's evidently a DNS problem (not on my end, which you could test for yourself, numbnuts).

http://66.111.32.10 works, but unitedcolo.com won't resolve.

And, http://unitedcolo.wofut.com/ came back up. This is a case for providing your own DNS.

Just checked and kept checking between your posts. In fact, I setup a monitor on it.

atr, no need to be rude and call name.

Peter

Hi Atr,

We have no report of any network problem within the last 24 hours. You can ask zdwebhosting and other folks who recently got their server from us to check their logs for confirmation.

BTW -- We have our own /20 and also manage reverse DNS / PTR by ourself.


Best Regards.

http://cc-www.uia.ac.be/cc/ping.html

Ping Result

----unitedcolo.com PING Statistics----
5 packets transmitted, 0 packets received, 100% packet loss


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Ping Result
64 bytes from he.net (216.218.186.2): icmp_seq=0. time=158. ms
64 bytes from he.net (216.218.186.2): icmp_seq=1. time=285. ms
64 bytes from he.net (216.218.186.2): icmp_seq=2. time=156. ms
64 bytes from he.net (216.218.186.2): icmp_seq=3. time=157. ms
64 bytes from he.net (216.218.186.2): icmp_seq=4. time=157. ms

----he.net PING Statistics----
5 packets transmitted, 5 packets received, 0% packet loss
round-trip (ms) min/avg/max = 156/182/285

DNS for Unitedcolo.com seems to be broken for me as well. ZD's site as well as accessing UC homepage via the IP work, however. Could just be a Time Warner Cable (my ISP) problem.

Hi Atr,

You won't be able to ping unitedcolo.com directly or any IPs in the 66.111.32.XX block because this entire block is behind a firewall with ICMP restriction. Customers IP begins in the 66.111.33.XX block -- which are open to ping test.

http://cc-www.uia.ac.be/cgi-bin/ping-query?hostname=66.111.33.10

Ping Result
64 bytes from 66.111.33.10: icmp_seq=0. time=167. ms
64 bytes from 66.111.33.10: icmp_seq=1. time=167. ms
64 bytes from 66.111.33.10: icmp_seq=2. time=165. ms
64 bytes from 66.111.33.10: icmp_seq=3. time=165. ms
64 bytes from 66.111.33.10: icmp_seq=4. time=177. ms

----66.111.33.10 PING Statistics----
5 packets transmitted, 5 packets received, 0% packet loss
round-trip (ms) min/avg/max = 165/168/177


Best Regards.

Originally posted by UCG Inc.
Hi Atr,

We have no report of any network problem within the last 24 hours. You can ask zdwebhosting and other folks who recently got their server from us to check their logs for confirmation.

BTW -- We have our own /20 and also manage reverse DNS / PTR by ourself.


Best Regards.

i did'nt notice any downtime and only the best so far ;)

btw... UnitedColo you should upgrade webmin it has old apache which i jsut noticed so now i am about to uninstall webmin and compile it all from source ;)

Originally posted by zdwebhosting


i did'nt notice any downtime and only the best so far ;)



I am happy to hear that, since I signed up with them this afternoon (confirm e-mail says I'll get my server on Thursday or Friday). Like I said above, looks like a DNS problem (and, apparently it's not just for me).

Please don't panic . . . please don't throw me to the wolves. Really now. [insert newbie-ducking image here]



UCG, thanks for not jumping at my throat. I will be sure to check your ip next time, and I'm looking forward to my new server.

Originally posted by atr


I am happy to hear that, since I signed up with them this afternoon (confirm e-mail says I'll get my server on Thursday or Friday). Like I said above, looks like a DNS problem (and, apparently it's not just for me).

Please don't panic . . . please don't throw me to the wolves. Really now. [insert newbie-ducking image here]



UCG, thanks for not jumping at my throat. I will be sure to check your ip next time, and I'm looking forward to my new server.

hope you enjoy it ;) i've enjoyed testing this one out although i hav'nt had much time to thorougly review it :(

Zac

well, I just ordered a server from there, they have not tried to charge my card yet which worries me, i also have an order into server beach, we shall see, somehow i feel a call to citibank coming soon...

:bawling:

Hi Haxorboi,

Our policy is not to charge a customer's credit card until his/her server is activated. We have a big shipment of servers coming this Wednesday so you'll get your server soon.


Best Regards.

well, I just ordered a server from there, they have not tried to charge my card yet which worries me, i also have an order into server beach, we shall see, somehow i feel a call to citibank coming soon...


The page says they won't charge until they have it, or something like that..........

please charge it now.... lol... you are making me nervous.... take my credit!!!:eek: :confused: :mad: :angry:

Originally posted by haxorboi
please charge it now.... lol... you are making me nervous.... take my credit!!!:eek: :confused: :mad: :angry:

rofl

some of us it people who have not had jobs for 3+ months are running out of cash and running low on credit, i have a card i use for online ****, and well... i have about $110 available credit on it.... so... i have a server beach order waiting, and a unitedcolo order waiting.... first one to charge it wins, and to the other...well... too late...
:D

also, if anyone wants to donate $20 to the save the broke as it consultant fund, they are more then welcome!:cartman:

Originally posted by haxorboi
some of us it people who have not had jobs for 3+ months are running out of cash and running low on credit, i have a card i use for online ****, and well... i have about $110 available credit on it.... so... i have a server beach order waiting, and a unitedcolo order waiting.... first one to charge it wins, and to the other...well... too late...
:D

also, if anyone wants to donate $20 to the save the broke as it consultant fund, they are more then welcome!:cartman:

lol call serverbeach and cancel? lol anyhow i heard server beach has horrible support and i can't comment on united colo as i hav'nt dealth with them enough yet but i plan to call tomorrow to see how long takes to get somone on the phone

UCG Inc. whats your name? i will ask for you lol :)

A bit off topic but www.unitedcolo.com still down for me...time for me to switch new ISPs. :angry:

Time Warner has a really bad habit of breaking their DNS servers, this has happened quite a lot.

Originally posted by mushrew
A bit off topic but www.unitedcolo.com still down for me...time for me to switch new ISPs. :angry:

Time Warner has a really bad habit of breaking their DNS servers, this has happened quite a lot.

It might be that they have recently upgraded Bind. The newest version is a lot more picky about rules than previous versions. If unitedcolo's dns records are off by a smidge, they'll resolve fine with older versions of Bind and not with the new one. :)

Could UCG please explain their routing, and name all of their bandwidth providers.

that'd be of interest for me, and surely everyone else, too.

greets,

Hi Atr,

You won't be able to ping unitedcolo.com directly or any IPs in the 66.111.32.XX block because this entire block is behind a firewall with ICMP restriction. Customers IP begins in the 66.111.33.XX block -- which are open to ping test.

http://cc-www.uia.ac.be/cgi-bin/pin...me=66.111.33.10

Ping Result
64 bytes from 66.111.33.10: icmp_seq=0. time=167. ms
64 bytes from 66.111.33.10: icmp_seq=1. time=167. ms
64 bytes from 66.111.33.10: icmp_seq=2. time=165. ms
64 bytes from 66.111.33.10: icmp_seq=3. time=165. ms
64 bytes from 66.111.33.10: icmp_seq=4. time=177. ms

----66.111.33.10 PING Statistics----
5 packets transmitted, 5 packets received, 0% packet loss
round-trip (ms) min/avg/max = 165/168/177


Best Regards.


__________________
United Colocation Group, Inc.
Tier-1 Servers & Bandwidth Solutions
(888) 993-9339
www.unitedcolo.com



Hey, 66.111.33.10 thats my server!!! Did I get the first or something????

Originally posted by ikiwi.net


Hey, 66.111.33.10 thats my server!!! Did I get the first or something????

lol am i mistaken or does'nt ikiwi sell servers? why would'nt you use one of your own? makes no sense

Originally posted by haxorboi
some of us it people who have not had jobs for 3+ months are running out of cash and running low on credit, i have a card i use for online ****, and well... i have about $110 available credit on it.... so... i have a server beach order waiting, and a unitedcolo order waiting.... first one to charge it wins, and to the other...well... too late...
:D

also, if anyone wants to donate $20 to the save the broke as it consultant fund, they are more then welcome!:cartman:

wow. why would you say this out loud on a forum??????

Originally posted by clocker1996


wow. why would you say this out loud on a forum??????

heh i was asking myself the same question but i did'nt say much lol.

I think UCG Inc. and some members on this forum need a Reality Check! Ask your-self how many $400 servers you can sell for $50. This companies business plan must read like a fairy tale.

What is everyone thinking?

At last someone speaks out!

Hi SiteKeeper & Multivol,

While dedicated servers is an important part of our operations, the bulk of our revenues come from co-location customers and companies that buys bandwidth (only) from UCG. Therefore, UCG is not technically losing money on each server because we are shifting the profits / cash from other units to increase capital expenditure (i.e. buying servers) rather than keeping it in the bank.

Some capital expenditures are treated as an asset which make your balance sheet looks great while too much cash on hand in the bank give you at best 5% ROI and it's also treated as taxable income. What would you do -- build up your company infrastructure or pay unnecesssary taxes?

Originally posted by UCG Inc.
Some capital expenditures are treated as an asset which make your balance sheet looks great while too much cash on hand in the bank give you at best 5% ROI and it's also treated as taxable income. What would you do -- build up your company infrastructure or pay unnecesssary taxes?

What/When is your break even point for the dedicated servers? Looks like a lose lose program to me.

Does this UCG person have a name? Why won't s/he answer the routing question? in/out routing, please explain.

i ordered one today

they told me thursday.. lets see what happens

Originally posted by chrisb
Does this UCG person have a name? Why won't s/he answer the routing question? in/out routing, please explain.

From what I've seen, and the PM's I've had answered it appears that the UGC Inc. Account on WHT is used by more then one person within the company.

Originally posted by clocker1996
i ordered one today

they told me thursday.. lets see what happens

I think you might get one, but it looks way too much like a Pyramid scheme. How long can they shell out the money for the new servers and pay support and data center costs?

An old joke:

A store owner purchases pencils for ten cents a piece, then turns around and sells them for only a nickel. Noticing this bizarre behavior, his partner asks, “How do you expect us to stay in business that way?” The man replies, “Volume!”

Surprisingly, many novice entrepreneurs choose a similar strategy. They think they can succeed merely by pricing their products or services cheaper than the competition. Low prices, they assume, will generate sufficient sales to more than make up for smaller profits. Like the store owner of the joke, these entrepreneurs rationalize, “What I lose in margins, I’ll make up in volume.”
http://www.rhondaonline.com/RO/content/hmrArticles_view.asp?sect=column&did=315

What's strange to me is that these UCG threads have gone on for days and many pages, and yet UCG still has not addressed the in/out bandwidth routing question, or been willing to name all of their incoming and outgoing bandwidth providers.

<quote>lol am i mistaken or does'nt ikiwi sell servers? why would'nt you use one of your own? makes no sense</quote>

For $49 I thought I could not pass it up, plus if it goes well after testitng its far cheaping to resell them I guess - well for low spec anyway.

Originally posted by ikiwi.net
<quote>lol am i mistaken or does'nt ikiwi sell servers? why would'nt you use one of your own? makes no sense</quote>

For $49 I thought I could not pass it up, plus if it goes well after testitng its far cheaping to resell them I guess - well for low spec anyway.

do you guys have your own servers you also sell or are you strictly resellers?

Please keep the thread on-topic. Use PM for off-topic discussion, so that a poor soul such as myself doesn't check the thread every minute.

Peter

Originally posted by chrisb
What's strange to me is that these UCG threads have gone on for days and many pages, and yet UCG still has not addressed the in/out bandwidth routing question, or been willing to name all of their incoming and outgoing bandwidth providers.

Yeah, I'm also anxious to hear UCG's response. I'm feeling a bit weary right now about UnitedColo.

Oh yeah, Chris; This is what a fixedorbit search pulls up: http://www.fixedorbit.com/cgi-bin/cgiip.exe?Machine=unitedcolo.com

:rolleyes:

after tracing numerious sites (mostly cvsup*.freebsd.org) they do have internap and that bluetelegraph for outgoing


3 63.251.61.229 (63.251.61.229) 0.887 ms 0.575 ms 0.562 ms
4 63.251.63.70 (63.251.63.70) 0.906 ms 0.629 ms 0.730 ms
^ those will use internap

3 ge-1-2-0.cr1.sfo1.bluetelegraph.com (157.206.254.245) 0.564 ms 0.526 ms 0.600 ms

^ that uses well bluetelegraph as you can see which from i seen so far peers with williams or cogent

out of all the sites ive traced it used cogent once, williams a fair number of times, and internap the most

basicly it only takes cogent if the other host has cogent
like fdcservers..

3 ge-1-2-0.cr1.sfo1.bluetelegraph.com (157.206.254.245) 0.671 ms 1.755 ms 0.682 ms
4 g1.ba21.b003070-1.sfo01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.20.225) 3.027 ms 3.256 ms 2.909 ms
5 g1-2.core01.sfo01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.5.249) 3.107 ms 2.858 ms 2.991 ms
6 p14-0.core01.ord01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.41) 150.825 ms 62.432 ms 62.293 ms
7 g49.ba02.b000268-0.ord01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.66.74) 62.993 ms 66.388 ms 62.283 ms
8 Datacenter.demarc.cogentco.com (66.28.21.82) 68.217 ms 73.734 ms 71.156 ms
9 * 66.28.242.138 (66.28.242.138) 74.406 ms 73.730 ms


EDIT: tip for those with bsd who dont feel like searching for cvsup servers

i found some .... ok ones ;)
cvsup.yahoo.com (cvsup10.freebsd.org)
cvsup.above.net (cvsup14.freebsd.org)

8 ge-1-2-0.msr1.sc5.yahoo.com (216.115.101.234) 2.783 ms 2.876 ms 2.753 ms
9 vl48.bas2-m.sc5.yahoo.com (66.163.160.214) 3.179 ms vl42.bas2-m.sc5.yahoo.com (66.163.160.218) 3.457 ms 2.881 ms
10 ocvsup.FreeBSD.org (216.136.204.25) 3.471 ms 3.439 ms 2.757 ms

&

11 pos1-0.mpr5.sjc2.us.mfnx.net (208.185.156.66) 4.233 ms 4.291 ms 4.016 ms
12 pos0-0.er6a.sjc2.us.mfnx.net (208.184.210.66) 4.176 ms 4.021 ms 4.549 ms
13 cvsup.above.net (208.185.175.214) 5.044 ms 5.237 ms 4.910 ms

Originally posted by 311
Oh yeah, Chris; This is what a fixedorbit search pulls up: http://www.fixedorbit.com/cgi-bin/cgiip.exe?Machine=unitedcolo.com


I see EContinents there, interesting.

BTW, that also shows that they are not a direct customer of nor get a bandwith directly from Internap, at least does not seem so. Feel free to compare it against our company as an example.

But having being very suspicious about them very much (especially in how they are routing their traffic with the possibility of intentionally giving misleading information), I still think the $49/mo for the server is a very-very good deal.

FHDave,

Getting your own IP allocation is not an easy task so we asked some of the old consultants from ECI to assist. Since ECI was being absorbed by another company, they gave up their ASN 22427 and we ended up with it from ARIN.

Do a lookup on arin.net on either our IPs or ASN 22427 and it only show United Colocation Group, Inc. Looks like fixedorbit needs to update their "orbit" a little sooner.

Heh. Here's mine @ home

17:03:26 (330.60 KB/s) - `uumap.tar.Z' saved [8520221/8520221]

<q>do you guys have your own servers you also sell or are you strictly resellers?</q>

A bit of both depending on what deals we can get on hardware etc. - Ifwe can get it cheaper else where we will to save both us and the client $ (although quaility must be the same)

I'm considering trying their colo services. Anyone try this yet?

a business plan like this is viable dependant on their bandwidth expense...

Originally posted by sitekeeper
I think UCG Inc. and some members on this forum need a Reality Check! Ask your-self how many $400 servers you can sell for $50. This companies business plan must read like a fairy tale.

What is everyone thinking?

For those of you who want your questions answered, they do have a phone number you can call. Here is the info from the UGC Inc sig:

United Colocation Group, Inc.
Tier-1 Servers & Bandwidth Solutions
(888) 993-9339
www.unitedcolo.com

Another note, I purchased a $49/month server from them a few days ago, I as well, was told I'd have the server by the 27th or 28th of September. We shall see how it goes.

Did anyone else get a Pentium 4 instead of the Celeron?

Originally posted by baygirl
Did anyone else get a Pentium 4 instead of the Celeron?

As in ordered one of there p4 packages? or The os is reporting it as a P4?


If you ment you ordered the celeron and your os says P4 thats because these celerons based on the p4 core.

I see now. That 's what I was thinking. Thanks.

Originally posted by UCG Inc.
Do a lookup on arin.net on either our IPs or ASN 22427 and it only show United Colocation Group, Inc. Looks like fixedorbit needs to update their "orbit" a little sooner.

Sure it does need some updating ... Thank you for clarifying this up :)

Can't say I'm too pleased with tech support so far. Here's my email to tech support not going through:

To: <leif@mcsebraindumps.com>
Subject: Warning: could not send message for past 4 hours


**********************************************
** THIS IS A WARNING MESSAGE ONLY **
** YOU DO NOT NEED TO RESEND YOUR MESSAGE **
**********************************************


The original message was received at Tue, 24 Sep 2002 18:27:41 -0400 (EDT)
from 12-222-65-240.client.insightBB.com [12.222.65.240]


----- Transcript of session follows -----
451 unitedcolo.com: Name server timeout
Warning: message still undelivered after 4 hours
Will keep trying until message is 5 days old
Reporting-MTA: dns; mcsebraindumps.com
Arrival-Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 18:27:41 -0400 (EDT)


Final-Recipient: RFC822; support@unitedcolo.com
Action: delayed
Status: 4.4.3
Last-Attempt-Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 22:32:06 -0400 (EDT)
Will-Retry-Until: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 18:27:41 -0400 (EDT)
Return-Path: <leif@mcsebraindumps.com>
Received: from none-0j1hshgvil.mcsebraindumps.com (12-222-65-240.client.insightBB.com [12.222.65.240])
by mcsebraindumps.com (8.12.5/8.11.4) with ESMTP id g8OMQN8q093376
for <support@unitedcolo.com>; Tue, 24 Sep 2002 18:27:41 -0400 (EDT)
(envelope-from leif@mcsebraindumps.com)
Message-Id: <5.1.1.6.0.20020924172846.0642bff0@mcsebraindumps.com>
X-Sender: leif@mcsebraindumps.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1.1
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 17:29:57 -0500
To: support@unitedcolo.com
From: Leif Nissen <leif@mcsebraindumps.com>
Subject: Problems with my server
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed


My server, IP 66.111.33.80, got messed up. I need you to log on as root (I haven't changed my pass since you emailed it to me) and to edit /etc/rc.conf, removing the "ifconfig_rl0_alias" lines and then run /etc/netstart or just reboot the computer, either one. Looking forward to having this done quickly.


Thanks,
Leif

Hi Leif,

You now have access to your server. For future reference, please call our tech support line at (888) 993-9339 if you don't received a response / confirmation to your email after 10 minutes. It's a toll-free number and we're here 24/7.

BTW -- Only a few employees from UCG peruse WHT on their spare time. We spend our times answering phone call and resolving support request ticket (which have been coming in fine throughout this evening).

Thanks, I'll use the phone # from now on.

i just got my ugc server

here are some traceroutes

GEE WHIZ, I JUST LOVE THIS INTERNAP BANDWIDTH! COGENT WOOOHOOOO.........

[root@ip90 root]# traceroute www.vdi.net
traceroute to www.vdi.net (216.10.16.24), 30 hops max, 38 byte packets
1 66.111.36.1 (66.111.36.1) 0.241 ms 0.193 ms 0.162 ms
2 66.111.47.2 (66.111.47.2) 0.480 ms 0.366 ms 0.297 ms
3 g4.ba21.b003070-1.sfo01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.250.7.65) 2.430 ms 2.097 ms 2.295 ms
4 g1-2.core01.sfo01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.5.249) 2.998 ms 2.255 ms 1.987 ms
5 p14-0.core01.ord01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.41) 56.069 ms 55.146 ms 55.909 ms
6 p15-0.core02.ord01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.62) 57.893 ms 55.088 ms 55.696 ms
7 p6-0.core02.jfk02.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.85) 134.763 ms 133.986 ms 135.701 ms
8 p6-0.core01.jfk01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.122) 134.800 ms 134.722 ms 134.003 ms
9 g49.ba01.b002894-1.jfk01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.65.142) 135.991 ms 136.211 ms 134.833 ms
10 * * *
11 pos.core2.cft.vdi.net (66.78.63.246) 68.987 ms 68.754 ms 68.913 ms
12 ge.edge1.cft.vdi.net (66.78.63.250) 69.227 ms 68.859 ms 68.564 ms
13 www.vdi.net (216.10.16.24) 69.165 ms 74.978 ms 69.129 ms

[root@ip90 root]# traceroute venturesonline.com
traceroute to venturesonline.com (209.151.79.223), 30 hops max, 38 byte packets
1 66.111.36.1 (66.111.36.1) 0.241 ms 0.189 ms 0.170 ms
2 66.111.47.2 (66.111.47.2) 0.456 ms 0.347 ms 0.327 ms
3 g4.ba21.b003070-1.sfo01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.250.7.65) 2.527 ms 2.636 ms 2.345 ms
4 g1-2.core02.sfo01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.5.253) 2.522 ms 2.334 ms 2.195 ms
5 p15-0.core01.sfo01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.69) 2.337 ms 2.161 ms 2.442 ms
6 p14-0.core01.ord01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.41) 56.021 ms 55.205 ms 55.564 ms
7 p15-0.core02.ord01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.62) 61.547 ms 55.724 ms 55.375 ms
8 p6-0.core02.jfk02.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.85) 142.467 ms 242.198 ms 202.227 ms
9 p15-0.core01.jfk02.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.13) 133.931 ms 133.956 ms 135.324 ms
10 p4-0.core02.dca01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.81) 76.234 ms 76.131 ms 75.927 ms
11 p15-0.core01.dca01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.21) 76.157 ms 76.177 ms 76.074 ms
12 mae-east.twtelecom.com (198.32.187.48) 75.131 ms 74.801 ms 74.850 ms
13 core-01-so-2-2-0-0.nycl.twtelecom.net (66.192.240.17) 80.811 ms 80.782 ms 80.659 ms
14 core-02-so-1-0-0-0.dnvr.twtelecom.net (168.215.53.14) 125.038 ms 125.595 ms 127.417 ms
15 sagg-01-rif-2.dnvr.twtelecom.net (66.192.245.94) 126.247 ms 125.591 ms 138.904 ms
16 66.162.99.2 (66.162.99.2) 126.022 ms 126.075 ms 125.535 ms
17 venturesonline.com (209.151.79.223) 80.073 ms 79.728 ms 79.827 ms

[root@ip90 root]# traceroute voxel.net
traceroute to voxel.net (207.99.115.50), 30 hops max, 38 byte packets
1 66.111.36.1 (66.111.36.1) 0.243 ms 0.203 ms 0.175 ms
2 66.111.47.2 (66.111.47.2) 0.385 ms 0.334 ms 0.320 ms
3 63.251.61.229 (63.251.61.229) 0.970 ms 1.116 ms 0.910 ms
4 63.251.63.66 (63.251.63.66) 199.610 ms 205.545 ms 200.333 ms
5 POS2-3.GW4.SFO4.ALTER.NET (157.130.205.201) 2.023 ms 1.016 ms 0.769 ms
6 162.ATM2-0.XR1.SFO4.ALTER.NET (152.63.48.194) 1.468 ms 1.149 ms 1.238 ms
7 0.so-0-0-0.XL1.SFO4.ALTER.NET (152.63.55.57) 1.140 ms 1.409 ms 1.742 ms
8 0.so-3-0-0.TL1.SAC1.ALTER.NET (152.63.53.250) 4.918 ms 17.192 ms 3.963 ms
9 0.so-7-0-0.TL1.NYC8.ALTER.NET (152.63.146.53) 69.439 ms 68.765 ms 68.727 ms
10 0.so-1-2-0.XL1.NYC1.ALTER.NET (152.63.21.21) 69.922 ms 68.876 ms 69.683 ms
11 0.so-0-0-0.XR1.NYC1.ALTER.NET (152.63.19.85) 69.930 ms 68.520 ms 68.940 ms
12 507.ATM6-0.GW7.NYC1.ALTER.NET (152.63.25.81) 70.074 ms 68.367 ms 70.259 ms
13 nac-nyc-gw1.customer.alter.net (157.130.9.142) 73.000 ms 72.976 ms 73.304 ms
14 ge-0-0-0-95.gbr1.oct.nac.net (64.21.102.1) 73.399 ms 72.731 ms 72.294 ms
15 a-0-1-0.1187.core2.nwr.nac.net (209.123.11.126) 73.187 ms 74.232 ms 73.996 ms
16 neuromancer.voxel.net (207.99.115.50) 73.930 ms 74.604 ms 76.862 ms

[root@ip90 root]# traceroute lifetime.com
traceroute to lifetime.com (64.226.5.30), 30 hops max, 38 byte packets
1 66.111.36.1 (66.111.36.1) 0.277 ms 0.202 ms 0.173 ms
2 66.111.47.2 (66.111.47.2) 0.376 ms 0.353 ms 0.351 ms
3 g4.ba21.b003070-1.sfo01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.250.7.65) 2.474 ms 2.706 ms 2.529 ms
4 g1-5.core02.sfo01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.66.253) 42.273 ms 4.025 ms 4.895 ms
5 p14-0.core02.dfw01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.133) 47.871 ms 47.147 ms 47.254 ms
6 p15-0.core01.dfw01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.25) 48.004 ms 48.262 ms 47.259 ms
7 p13-0.core01.iah01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.98) 52.235 ms 52.143 ms 52.495 ms
8 p15-0.core01.tpa01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.46) 73.765 ms 73.596 ms 73.733 ms
9 p5-0.core01.mco01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.141) 73.328 ms 73.463 ms 73.498 ms
10 p14-0.core01.jax01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.154) 73.636 ms 73.291 ms 73.503 ms
11 p5-0.core01.atl01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.138) 73.842 ms 73.358 ms 73.468 ms
12 g50.ba01.b000174-0.atl01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.65.246) 73.898 ms 73.292 ms 73.520 ms
13 64.224.0.38 (64.224.0.38) 80.403 ms 80.378 ms 80.346 ms
14 64.224.0.100 (64.224.0.100) 81.196 ms 80.995 ms 80.601 ms
15 lifetime.com (64.226.5.30) 79.543 ms 79.693 ms 79.223 ms

[root@ip90 root]# traceroute jobs.com
traceroute to www-us.monster2.akadns.net (63.112.169.1), 30 hops max, 38 byte packets
1 66.111.36.1 (66.111.36.1) 0.231 ms 0.200 ms 0.196 ms
2 66.111.47.2 (66.111.47.2) 74.180 ms 322.947 ms 0.830 ms
3 ge-1-2-0.cr1.sfo1.bluetelegraph.com (157.206.254.245) 0.711 ms 0.608 ms 0.506 ms
4 g1.ba21.b003070-1.sfo01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.20.225) 3.000 ms 2.805 ms 2.364 ms
5 g1-5.core01.sfo01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.66.249) 2.921 ms 2.823 ms 2.410 ms
6 p15-0.core02.sfo01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.70) 3.057 ms 2.687 ms 2.867 ms
7 p6-0.core03.sfo01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.150) 2.577 ms 2.217 ms 2.204 ms
8 ge10-1.mpr1.pao1.us.mfnx.net (64.124.11.197) 2.410 ms 2.292 ms 2.201 ms
9 so-2-0-0.mpr3.sjc2.us.mfnx.net (208.184.233.141) 3.132 ms 3.041 ms 2.890 ms
10 so-5-1-0.cr1.dca2.us.mfnx.net (208.184.233.134) 69.381 ms 69.325 ms 69.264 ms
11 so-6-0-0.cr1.iad1.us.mfnx.net (208.184.233.126) 71.350 ms 69.476 ms 69.711 ms
12 so-2-0-0.cr1.lga1.us.mfnx.net (208.184.233.62) 135.721 ms 135.437 ms 134.123 ms
13 pos0-0.pr1.lga1.us.mfnx.net (208.185.0.238) 135.837 ms 135.525 ms 138.473 ms
14 att-above-oc12.lga1.att.net (64.125.12.22) 68.027 ms 67.674 ms 67.898 ms
15 tbr2-p012501.n54ny.ip.att.net (12.122.9.130) 78.091 ms 82.183 ms 76.947 ms
16 tbr1-p013601.cb1ma.ip.att.net (12.122.9.153) 73.539 ms 72.513 ms 73.114 ms
17 gbr1-p40.cb1ma.ip.att.net (12.122.11.194) 71.972 ms 72.285 ms 72.142 ms
18 ar6-p310.cb1ma.ip.att.net (12.123.40.145) 72.294 ms 71.987 ms 72.173 ms
19 12.127.84.10 (12.127.84.10) 79.744 ms 79.885 ms 80.994 ms
20 * *

It will more than likely go over cogent if thats the best route... with VDI they use Cogent :rolleyes:

Also .. those pings are good :eek:

wow why in the world did all your pings go through cogent and the one i tested was 100% internap?

66.111.33.251 was the ip i used and maybe you should call them.

Mhh, seems like a good marketing trick of them. Have Internap for inbound traffic, keep Internap for outbound traffic for the first few days so that customers order servers and once bandwidth started becoming serious, they started primarily routing through Cogent.
Quite a good marketing trick :)

Even if it was Cogent only, $49 is still a pretty good deal.

tazzy... you don't get the point... *smacks up side the head*

unitedcolo been bragging all over their site about their wonderful providers... namely internap... and their numerous GigE feeds... yet they never even hint at cogent... a shady tactic in my eyes... if i were to use cogent... and internap... i'd atleast let people know theres a bunch of cogent in there... why does it matter? because BGP does NOT take geography into consideration when doing routing... so even if a network is better according to BGP, it doesn't mean its better latency-wise... catch my drift? with someone like internap, thats not an issue... each internap city has feeds to all the providers within that city... and data ends up going to the end user via 'superior peering' (geographically accurate as in data doesn't just from the west coast to the east n back to the west just to take advantage of a peering circuit on the east coast)...

Originally posted by tazzy
It will more than likely go over cogent if thats the best route... with VDI they use Cogent :rolleyes:

Also .. those pings are good :eek:

not for 100GB dude... i mean... rackshack blows that outa the water... 400GB of mid-range bandwidth for $99... now that rocks!

Originally posted by lightnin
Even if it was Cogent only, $49 is still a pretty good deal.

hmm... marketing trick, deceptive business practices... whatever u wanna call it, its wrong... heh... i was so hyped 'bout their stuff for a bit there, just preparing a few servers to get ready for colo (notice... their colo ain't too particular about rackspace use, i had a bunch of big bulky rackmounts here that i was gonna send... can't send anywhere else cuz its too expensive)...

Originally posted by Gernot
Mhh, seems like a good marketing trick of them. Have Internap for inbound traffic, keep Internap for outbound traffic for the first few days so that customers order servers and once bandwidth started becoming serious, they started primarily routing through Cogent.
Quite a good marketing trick :)

i wanna know who Digital Wire Works is...

cuz i see digitalwire in the internap traceroutes... and this data is from the cogent whois...

network:Org-Name: Digital Wire Works
network:Street-Address: 4960 Almedan Expressway suite:301
network:City: San Jose
network:State: CA
network:Postal-Code: 95113-2007
network:Country-Code: US

i m curious as to who these guys are...

I'm not really sure what you are whinging about people - Internap or Congent bandwidth or a bit of both.

What it simply comes down to is ping times, link quality and bandwidth throughput, I couldnt care less if that's through Cogent or Internap - whether a trace takes 10 hops or 20 doesnt really mean much to me as long as it's stable and relatively well priced.

Unless I'm mistaken whether they use Cogent or an Internap bandwidth provider you can't beat physics - if it's going to take 60ms to get somewhere and you can do it with Cogent at 1/3rd the price or use an Internap link why would you use Internap?

Am I missing something here?

Matt

How are the servers set up in terms of partitions? Have they just created one huge root partition, or have they split it sensibly?

I notice there's a space on the order form for 'special instructions' (or words to that effect). I guess you could ask for a specific partitioning scheme there...has anyone done this?

Ta.

Andy

I didn't request anything specific. I got the server, and it's up, I'm just waiting for them to turn on the root FTP (they turn it off by default for security reasons).

So far I'm quite impressed. But, I've had the server for about a whole 2 hours :stickout

I will post once I get some things going with it. :)

Netdude,

You need to peruse our site more thoroughly Our enterprise package is priced at $99 / 500GB. BTW -- Our service in on a monthly basis (no contract), so anyone doesn't approve or disagree with of our network / routing protocol, perhaps another provider is more suitable to his/her requirement.



Originally posted by netdude
not for 100GB dude... i mean... rackshack blows that outa the water... 400GB of mid-range bandwidth for $99... now that rocks!

Netdude,

We invite you to use our service for one month and report back WHT with your assesment. Otherwise, your statement is presumptuous and premature.



Originally posted by netdude
hmm... marketing trick, deceptive business practices... whatever u wanna call it, its wrong... heh... i was so hyped 'bout their stuff for a bit there, just preparing a few servers to get ready for colo (notice... their colo ain't too particular about rackspace use, i had a bunch of big bulky rackmounts here that i was gonna send... can't send anywhere else cuz its too expensive)...

Gernot,

It has been more than a few days and our primarily outbound traffic is still Internap and not Cogent. Do you have any more assumptions that we can answer for you?




Originally posted by Gernot
Mhh, seems like a good marketing trick of them. Have Internap for inbound traffic, keep Internap for outbound traffic for the first few days so that customers order servers and once bandwidth started becoming serious, they started primarily routing through Cogent.
Quite a good marketing trick :)

Originally posted by tazzy
It will more than likely go over cogent if thats the best route... with VDI they use Cogent :rolleyes:


VDI has ATT and Cogent. Which one is a better route, I leave it up to you to decide. But here is my traceroute (from Internap's datacenter) to VDI:


traceroute to VDI.net (216.10.16.24), 64 hops max, 40 byte packets
1 fluidhosting-1.bsn.pnap.net (66.150.201.125) 0.451 ms 0.421 ms 0.395 ms
2 border7.fe5-20.fluidhosting-1.bsn.pnap.net (66.150.201.251) 0.933 ms 0.511 ms 0.495 ms
3 core3.ge0-0-0-bbnet1.bsn.pnap.net (63.251.128.3) 0.668 ms 0.635 ms 0.576 ms
4 12.125.40.117 (12.125.40.117) 1.266 ms 1.309 ms 1.166 ms
5 gbr1-p52.cb1ma.ip.att.net (12.123.40.90) 1.294 ms 1.283 ms 1.203 ms
6 tbr1-p013401.cb1ma.ip.att.net (12.122.11.193) 4.587 ms 29.833 ms 2.583 ms
7 tbr2-p013701.n54ny.ip.att.net (12.122.10.22) 15.012 ms 7.609 ms 8.571 ms
8 gar1-p340.nwrnj.ip.att.net (12.123.214.185) 8.226 ms 8.888 ms 7.271 ms
9 12.119.140.50 (12.119.140.50) 8.281 ms 8.268 ms 7.348 ms
10 pos.core2.cft.vdi.net (66.78.63.246) 8.782 ms 8.748 ms 8.485 ms
11 ge.edge1.cft.vdi.net (66.78.63.250) 8.918 ms 9.097 ms 8.655 ms
12 www.vdi.net (216.10.16.24) 8.844 ms 8.998 ms 9.612 ms


ATT all the way .... :)

Argh..I seem to remember people going after ServerBeach when they first came around as well..

Guys, just as with ServerBeach, you gotta give UnitedColo a chance, how do you expect them to be able to prove themselves if you guys (some of you, not all) have already condemned them?

Time will tell...;)

I personally think I can't compalint at $49/mo at all :) Even if it's all cogent, it may still worth it. But what really becomes a problem is the false advertising where nowhere they even claim to have cogent in the routing .... :)

traceroute to aol.com (64.12.149.24), 64 hops max, 40 byte packets
1 66.111.33.1 (66.111.33.1) 0.225 ms 0.188 ms 0.178 ms
2 66.111.47.2 (66.111.47.2) 0.592 ms 0.334 ms 0.341 ms
3 63.251.61.229 (63.251.61.229) 172.228 ms 234.113 ms 3.456 ms
4 63.251.63.70 (63.251.63.70) 5.436 ms 7.160 ms 2.138 ms
5 svl-edge-09.inet.qwest.net (63.145.224.1) 4.227 ms 6.926 ms 5.480 ms
6 svl-core-03.inet.qwest.net (205.171.14.97) 5.038 ms 3.747 ms 2.850 ms
7 svl-edge-08.inet.qwest.net (205.171.14.86) 2.954 ms 3.537 ms 3.192 ms
8 63.145.225.202 (63.145.225.202) 10.313 ms 10.362 ms 10.128 ms
9 bb1-sun-P0-0.atdn.net (66.185.140.161) 11.476 ms 10.086 ms 10.300 ms
10 bb1-den-P7-0.atdn.net (66.185.152.252) 204.514 ms 131.464 ms 226.496 ms
11 bb2-den-P1-0.atdn.net (66.185.152.137) 39.006 ms 34.291 ms 34.913 ms
12 bb2-kcy-P7-0.atdn.net (66.185.152.189) 54.098 ms 49.839 ms *
13 bb1-kcy-P1-0.atdn.net (66.185.152.126) 47.198 ms 47.472 ms 45.045 ms
14 bb1-chi-P6-0.atdn.net (66.185.152.124) 59.516 ms 59.433 ms 60.259 ms
15 bb2-chi-P7-0.atdn.net (66.185.152.131) 58.841 ms 58.959 ms 58.251 ms
16 bb2-vie-P10-0.atdn.net (66.185.152.215) 86.605 ms 83.330 ms 82.794 ms
17 bb2-rtc-P3-0.atdn.net (66.185.152.164) 80.857 ms 79.455 ms 78.800 ms
18 bb2-mtc-P8-0.atdn.net (66.185.152.100) 80.906 ms 82.676 ms 80.074 ms
19 pop1-mtc-P15-0.atdn.net (66.185.143.199) 79.245 ms 79.888 ms 80.084 ms
20 ow1-mc1-P0-0.atdn.net (66.185.144.210) 80.328 ms 80.452 ms 80.519 ms
21 www-mc3-P0-0.router.aol.com (64.12.128.18) 80.171 ms 80.421 ms 81.638 ms
22 * * *
23 www-mc3-P0-0.router.aol.com (64.12.128.18) 79.913 ms !X * *
24 * * *
25 www-mc3-P0-0.router.aol.com (64.12.128.18) 79.129 ms !X * 79.462 ms !X


traceroute to microsoft.com (207.46.230.219), 64 hops max, 40 byte packets
1 66.111.33.1 (66.111.33.1) 0.256 ms 0.192 ms 0.176 ms
2 66.111.47.2 (66.111.47.2) 0.408 ms 0.340 ms 0.362 ms
3 63.251.61.229 (63.251.61.229) 2.113 ms 2.388 ms 2.558 ms
4 63.251.63.65 (63.251.63.65) 1.444 ms 1.102 ms 1.199 ms
5 sl-gw13-sj-0-2-155M.sprintlink.net (160.81.100.1) 2.728 ms 4.086 ms 4.267 ms
6 sl-bb21-sj-6-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.3.173) 4.746 ms 4.177 ms 4.268 ms
7 sl-bb22-tac-12-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.8.138) 21.228 ms 21.094 ms 20.491 ms
8 sl-bb21-tac-4-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.17.93) 20.510 ms 22.453 ms 21.832 ms
9 144.232.187.194 (144.232.187.194) 27.136 ms 27.444 ms 28.103 ms
10 207.46.154.5 (207.46.154.5) 32.249 ms 27.514 ms 27.037 ms
11 207.46.155.10 (207.46.155.10) 27.539 ms 27.558 ms 27.548 ms
12 * * *
13 * *^C


traceroute to nytimes.com (64.15.247.200), 64 hops max, 40 byte packets
1 66.111.33.1 (66.111.33.1) 0.265 ms 0.189 ms 0.174 ms
2 66.111.47.2 (66.111.47.2) 0.412 ms 0.363 ms 0.328 ms
3 63.251.61.229 (63.251.61.229) 1.318 ms 1.813 ms 1.093 ms
4 63.251.63.3 (63.251.63.3) 1.824 ms 1.472 ms 1.014 ms
5 12.126.195.77 (12.126.195.77) 2.028 ms 1.852 ms 3.059 ms
6 gbr2-p50.sffca.ip.att.net (12.123.13.62) 1.307 ms 1.724 ms 1.318 ms
7 gbr4-p70.sffca.ip.att.net (12.122.1.189) 2.581 ms 1.474 ms 1.451 ms
8 ggr1-p370.sffca.ip.att.net (12.123.13.69) 1.767 ms 2.227 ms 1.882 ms
9 att-gw.sf.cw.net (192.205.32.110) 2.045 ms 3.375 ms 2.255 ms
10 agr3-loopback.NewYork.cw.net (206.24.194.103) 72.478 ms 72.294 ms agr4-loopback.NewYork.cw.net (206.24.194.104) 73.929 ms
11 dcr1-so-7-3-0.NewYork.cw.net (206.24.207.77) 73.039 ms 73.523 ms 73.641 ms
12 cable-and-wireless-internal-isp.NewYork.cw.net (206.24.207.82) 73.526 ms 73.046 ms 72.349 ms

Originally posted by UCG Inc.
our primarily outbound traffic is still Internap and not Cogent.



Then why do my traceroutes go out through cogent? I have a server with you guys...... loook at my previous post

Thanks Radon3k, but there's no need to worry about UCG. Criticism is good because it keeps us sharp and focused on our goals. Beside, it seems the more people like netdude complain, the more customers we get on a daily basis.

Remember when people thrashed Windows 95? Guess that didn't hurt the devils in Redmond too much. They've only grown more powerful and richer since then.

Thanks netdude for the free advertising. We love you and keep up the good work.


Originally posted by Radon3k
Argh..I seem to remember people going after ServerBeach when they first came around as well..

Guys, just as with ServerBeach, you gotta give UnitedColo a chance, how do you expect them to be able to prove themselves if you guys (some of you, not all) have already condemned them?

Time will tell...;)

:stickout :D

I like that approach UGC Inc. :D :)

Originally posted by Radon3k


I like that approach UGC Inc.

yep. me too. keep up the good work UCG.

Originally posted by UCG Inc.
Gernot,

It has been more than a few days and our primarily outbound traffic is still Internap and not Cogent. Do you have any more assumptions that we can answer for you?






Hello,

No thanks, there are no more assumptions you can help me with at the moment.

Originally posted by mattonline
if it's going to take 60ms to get somewhere and you can do it with Cogent at 1/3rd the price or use an Internap link why would you use Internap?

Because their offer is this: Internap Special I -- Celeron 1.7GHz, 512MB SDRAM, 60GB HD, 100GB Transfer and they say their network is: Network: Dual GigE (BGP-4) to Internap, Global Crossing, Genuity, UUNET, Qwest, Cable & Wireless, AT&T, Verio, and Sprint. .

Their marketing trick is really the same as efree. At the time in efree, you never found any Cogent route for incoming traffic. But their outgoing traffic is all Cogent. I am not saying that it's not good, but you should be honest to tell your customer.

Their page design is also looks very similar to efree (same designer ) :eek:

So be careful.

Well UCG Inc., if you're happy for constructive criticism, how about keeping to promises made about when my server is going to be ready, and respond to emails?

I'll take it as a sign you're completely rushed of your feet, but a few more days of this and I'll start to get twitchy...

Mellowman, have you tried calling them? I called them and asked for an update of when my server would be activated, the guy that helped me was extremely friendly and helpful. He answered me right there and said if I had any questions, email him and he'd respond quickly, and he did. I'm sure they've had tons of orders and they're doing the best that they can.

I ordered my server last Sunday and it just got activated today, more than likely due to the fact that they've been swamped with orders. Call them and see what they say. :)

Radon3k.

I just sent them a question and they answered me in 20 minutes. That's pretty impressive in my book.

Originally posted by clocker1996



Then why do my traceroutes go out through cogent? I have a server with you guys...... loook at my previous post

Are you going to answer my question UCG????

clocker, they are busy, just because they don't respond at your convienience doesn't mean they won't answer.

Would you prefer them to spend every minute they have on the WHT boards or doing actual work to service their customers? They don't have to post at WHT at all, but they do for our convienience.

Something strange just happened..... I called the 1-800 # they have... and somebody actually answered the phone and had answers for my 10 or so questions!!! :cool:


Btw, one thing I found a bit dubious is this:
Q: "What's with all the company logos on your site? (left hand bottom corner)"
A: "We're trying to have them colocate with us"
Me: "Ehm... okay... that's kind of dubious"
A: "It's free advertising for them!"

Not sure what to think of that....

clocker, they are busy, just because they don't respond at your convienience doesn't mean they won't answer.

Would you prefer them to spend every minute they have on the WHT boards or doing actual work to service their customers? They don't have to post at WHT at all, but they do for our convienience.


They've answered questions since he asked, so sure.. they should be answering him.

Just got my server online and I'm waiting for my cPanel license to be activated before doing anything, but I'll post my comments once I've started using the server.

I have to say though, that I've already had one (pretty minor) question and got a reply in just over 25 minutes, which I think is quite good for a day when they're having to set up a lot of new machines. Hopefully the experience will stay good ;)

jayjay-

What you're asking them to do is drop everything they're doing and rush to his beck and call to answer his questions. Yes, they should answer his questions, and yes, they have answered them before, and yes, I'm sure they will continue to answer his questoins. But if his questions are that important he can call them.

They are working on setting up machines and they're doing the best that they can. Honestly tell me that you would rather them sit here on WHT all day and answer questions rather than setting up new machines..

I don't think you can tell me that, because if you ordered a server from them (or perhaps you have?) then I know you'd want your server to be set up. They don't have the time to sit on WHT all day and answer these questions. They answer when they can.

jayjay-

What you're asking them to do is drop everything they're doing and rush to his beck and call to answer his questions. Yes, they should answer his questions, and yes, they have answered them before, and yes, I'm sure they will continue to answer his questoins. But if his questions are that important he can call them.

They are working on setting up machines and they're doing the best that they can. Honestly tell me that you would rather them sit here on WHT all day and answer questions rather than setting up new machines..

I don't think you can tell me that, because if you ordered a server from them (or perhaps you have?) then I know you'd want your server to be set up. They don't have the time to sit on WHT all day and answer these questions. They answer when they can.


Blah.. Blah.. The fact is, that they came here and answered questions after he posted his. They could take a few seconds longer, and answer his. So they answer when they can, but they are ignoring questions when they come here to answer some.

It's very clear that some questions are being ignored. But I also think some of you should be bringing your problems directly to them and not on this forum. Give them a bit to respond, and if they don't .. or if they do. Come here if you still need too. You're going to get a better answer, I would assume.

If I ordered a server from them (Not planning on it -- they do seem fishy. Although that $49.99 server might be a good personal box.). I wouldn't be pestering them if my box wasn't up in a week or so. Although I'd much rather deal with a company who already has the boxes in their possession. If I choose to deal with one that wasn't, I have a thing called patience.

As much as it might boggle your mind.. answering a few questions does not take much time. Now with saying that.. I wouldn't expect them to become a "regular" here.

Originally posted by Radon3k
clocker, they are busy, just because they don't respond at your convienience doesn't mean they won't answer.

Would you prefer them to spend every minute they have on the WHT boards or doing actual work to service their customers? They don't have to post at WHT at all, but they do for our convienience.

uhm.... don't give me that BS.

I asked my simple question, and right after i asked, he responded to YOU.

"Thanks Radon3k, but there's no need to worry about UCG." blah blah

but he doesnt respond to my simple question?

give me a break

yeah sure. and you act like i'm asking for a whole lot? my question was so simple it would only take a sec to answer. they are avoiding it, that's what they are doing.

Originally posted by UCG Inc.
BTW -- Only a few employees from UCG peruse WHT on their spare time. We spend our times answering phone call and resolving support request ticket (which have been coming in fine throughout this evening).


Answering questions doesn't take much time, you're right, however, you're missing the point. They are trying to set up servers that people have ordered, which is far more important than sitting on a message board all day.

The quote above shows that they persue WHT in their free times as a curtesy (spelling) to us.

If your questions are so important, call them, then they'll answer.

Originally posted by clocker1996


uhm.... don't give me that BS.

I asked my simple question, and right after i asked, he responded to YOU.

"Thanks Radon3k, but there's no need to worry about UCG." blah blah

but he doesnt respond to my simple question?

give me a break

yeah sure. and you act like i'm asking for a whole lot? my question was so simple it would only take a sec to answer. they are avoiding it, that's what they are doing.

Have you tried calling their 1-800? I got some dude on the phone and he seemed to have answers for all my questions (though I am still waiting for my email reply).

well i called and they told me they have no idea why it goes through cogent right off the bat.

so i'm going to email network@unitedcolo.com i guess

Answering questions doesn't take much time, you're right, however, you're missing the point. They are trying to set up servers that people have ordered, which is far more important than sitting on a message board all day.

Which is exactly why I stated the above. Answering a few questions does NOT take all day.

so far Im more than happy with the service from UCG.

I ordered Friday, got a server Saturday, and was able to talk to someone on the phone when I had a question. They also responded to a PM from me here

I received very prompt email replies (<15 mins) to a problem I had (user error :blush:, sorry UCG ) this morning

Im well aware that it's early days, but so far Im very happy. :D

jayjay -

It may not take a lot of time, but they first have to have the time. If they are spending their time setting up new servers for their clients and answering support tickets, then they don't have a lot of time to be on WHT. Remember, they said that only a few employees post at WHT and when they do, it's in their spare time. Answering questions on WHT isn't their primary job. I'll say it again, they do it for our convienience. :)

Radon3k.

Here is what I sent:

What is up you say you have Internap BW but when someone found some Cognet in the trace roots you won't respond. Why? I would like to know what this is about before I take the final step and get a server.

Thank you.


This is what I got back:

Our engineers are constantly making adjustment to our network so that each packet can be delivered to its destination via the most optimal route. If you're not satisfied or in disagreement with our routing protocols, perhaps another provider is more suitable to your needs.

after reading homeiss's post...

so basically they do have cogent, and do route traffic through cogent, but won't admit it ?

gee whiz. that would explain why they completely ignored my question on wht, and why when you call them, nobody seems to know why....

interesting :)

matt... you are missing something... did you miss my entire splurge on BGP and how useless it can be? here it is again... most of the major carriers peer with other networks in numerous other major cities across the country... cogent on the other had has some very poor peering... so as a result... can have very bad latency even with "direct connectivity" (according to BGP routing standards)...

why does it matter? because BGP does NOT take geography into consideration when doing routing... so even if a network is better according to BGP, it doesn't mean its better latency-wise... catch my drift? with someone like internap, thats not an issue... each internap city has feeds to all the providers within that city... and data ends up going to the end user via 'superior peering' (geographically accurate as in data doesn't just from the west coast to the east n back to the west just to take advantage of a peering circuit on the east coast)...

Originally posted by mattonline
I'm not really sure what you are whinging about people - Internap or Congent bandwidth or a bit of both.

What it simply comes down to is ping times, link quality and bandwidth throughput, I couldnt care less if that's through Cogent or Internap - whether a trace takes 10 hops or 20 doesnt really mean much to me as long as it's stable and relatively well priced.

Unless I'm mistaken whether they use Cogent or an Internap bandwidth provider you can't beat physics - if it's going to take 60ms to get somewhere and you can do it with Cogent at 1/3rd the price or use an Internap link why would you use Internap?

Am I missing something here?

Matt

I think I will still get a server with them, I don't mind. Sounds like they just use Cognet when it's faster, that doesn't bother me because if Cognet is faster I would rather it use Cognet then something else just because something else is supposed to be "better".

true. i just don't like how they can't admit it, or they hide it. that's all.

Yah, that kind of makes me wonder. But still toy around with a server from them. ;)

Yeah, $49 is a good deal. No question about that. But after pages and pages, and a week of posts, they still ignore questions they don't want to answer, and have NEVER addressed the routing issue with a full explanation. I think the reason they haven't speaks for itself. I wasn't too surprised to see some of the unprofessional responses from UCG that one person in this thread posted. They are being disingenious, if not flat out untruthful.

Guys...You guys are dragging this way out of proportion.

Let me explain.

I just had a conversation with a very nice and helpful gentlemen from UnitedColo on the phone.

He explained to me that their network is dynamic, not static. Meaning, they have more than one route that the bandwidth is carried through. He did tell me that Cogent takes up about 5-6% of the outgoing bandwidth.

Their network isn't stricly through one provider, they have multiple providers for redudancy. He did explain to me that around the first of October they [UCG] will be disabling the Cogent bandwidth all together to see how the network stands. If it succeeds, they will leave Cogent off.

I have a question for you guys. Should it matter where the bandwidth comes from if the ping times are good? I understand you wish they had stated that Cogent was on there, but still, the fact remains that this should be a petty matter in which you guys are making a big fuss out of.

I'm not a representative for UCG, I'm merely pointing out what I see. If you guys are going to be this picky about who the bandwidth is from, or the fact that they didn't state that Cogent was in there, then go somewhere else. For $49/month you really have no room to complain.

And as I have said before, you have to give these guys a chance to work out any bugs that they may have. They are more concerned with making sure their network is in tact and that their customers are being cared for, not a petty issue such as this in which you all feel you deserve a direct answer to right this very second.

When I called the guy, he answered my questions, and was extremely friendly and helpful. I'm extremely impressed with the service and support I've received thus far. I have no complaints and I don't think you guys should be complaining this much. It's just my $0.02 so don't come after me with guns blazing for it.

Radon3k.

Well, like I said I don't care if they use Cognet as long as I am using the fastest line for the persons location...

I think that everyone is mad about that fact that UCG would not just answer the Cognet issue...the fact that it took this long to find out what we did is kind of stupid. But like I said I really don't care ifthey use Cognet or not.

Also my 2 cents.

Well I'm not sure why it's taking everyone else so long. I called them and they answered me right away.

Call their sales department (888-993-9339 and then press 1) and they'll answer all of your questions. No problems here.

Originally posted by Radon3k
Guys...You guys are dragging this way out of proportion.

I have a question for you guys. Should it matter where the bandwidth comes from if the ping times are good? I understand you wish they had stated that Cogent was on there, but still, the fact remains that this should be a petty matter in which you guys are making a big fuss out of.

If you guys are going to be this picky about who the bandwidth is from, or the fact that they didn't state that Cogent was in there, then go somewhere else. For $49/month you really have no room to complain.


It doesnt matter where the bandwidth comes from but the fact is no place on there website or the offer they put on the forums does it say they use cogent or bluetelegraph for outgoing bw...

$49/mo for a server is great even if it does have cogent
BUT IT SAYS ITS INTERNAP
not internap + cogent + bluetelegraph for "redudency" that is clearly false advertising. THEY DENY they even have cogent to top it off.

They dont do it because its a better route.. tracerouting from a server that has cogent only it switchs providers just to come up with internap at the end of the route. Its clearly a out going only cogent link.


Had they stated they had cogent / not deny it when asked I really dont think anyone would fuss as its only $49/mo

Originally posted by Faggle


It doesnt matter where the bandwidth comes from but the fact is no place on there website or the offer they put on the forums does it say they use cogent or bluetelegraph for outgoing bw...

$49/mo for a server is great even if it does have cogent
BUT IT SAYS ITS INTERNAP
not internap + cogent + bluetelegraph for "redudency" that is clearly false advertising. THEY DENY they even have cogent to top it off.

They dont do it because its a better route.. tracerouting from a server that has cogent only it switchs providers just to come up with internap at the end of the route. Its clearly a out going only cogent link.


Had they stated they had cogent / not deny it when asked I really dont think anyone would fuss as its only $49/mo

Exactly. No one is complaining about their bandwidth providers or the cost of their servers. The complaints are about their dishonesty or misrepresentation. If they are going to advertise something in this forum, it seems to me that they have an obligation to rectify their mistatements or falsities also in the same forum.

Radon, that is silly. Of course, people have a right to complain when someone is not being upfront, and that seems to be the case here.

You guys are missing the point, from what I see UCG dont have direct connections with Internap, Cogent or VERIO ...

There only connection seems to be with BlueTelegraph (which has VERIO and Internap as "premium" and Cogent as the "value prced"). DigitalWire seems to be the name used to hide there company for those using the bandwidth (like anonymous reseller nameservers).

This has to be false advertisement, jeez and you guys want to host which such a company....

I stand to be corrected.

-s.h.a.z.y.

Originally posted by Radon3k

Guys...You guys are dragging this way out of proportion.

Let me explain.


mmm... You're the one who keeps dragging this on. I don't think anybody wants YOU to explain anything. That's not your place.


I have a question for you guys. Should it matter where the bandwidth comes from if the ping times are good? I understand you wish they had stated that Cogent was on there, but still, the fact remains that this should be a petty matter in which you guys are making a big fuss out of.


Ping times are good because when you're ping and tracerouting the box, that's Internap-in. Do you know anything about routing? I'm assuming the answer to that is "no".

See, when someone uses Internap-IN and Cogent-OUT, but tells you it's only Internap. That's false advertising. If you are on Internap, and you're doing a traceroute on att.com. Do you think it's going to go through cogent? It could happen. But everybody I've talked to that has a box there, it goes through cogent everytime. Even other pnaps.


I'm not a representative for UCG, I'm merely pointing out what I see. If you guys are going to be this picky about who the bandwidth is from, or the fact that they didn't state that Cogent was in there, then go somewhere else. For $49/month you really have no room to complain.


Yes. They do have the right to complain. It's called false advertising. They are complaining because they did not get the product they purchased, and money isn't a matter there.


And as I have said before, you have to give these guys a chance to work out any bugs that they may have. They are more concerned with making sure their network is in tact and that their customers are being cared for, not a petty issue such as this in which you all feel you deserve a direct answer to right this very second.


Don't sell until you have it right. It might be "petty" to you, but maybe that's because you haven't been "around the way". Providers like this come by MONTHLY. They come and go. Come and go. I can't count how many crap hosts have come through these parts and others.


When I called the guy, he answered my questions, and was extremely friendly and helpful. I'm extremely impressed with the service and support I've received thus far. I have no complaints and I don't think you guys should be complaining this much. It's just my $0.02 so don't come after me with guns blazing for it.


Great for you. But other people aren't impressed.

If you don't have anything good to say, don't say it. You are repeating yourself and you are ignoring the clear facts that people are bringing up. Which they are not giving a formal response too. They haven't done that yet. So I think they have every right to bitch and moan.

Originally posted by s.h.a.z.y.
You guys are missing the point, from what I see UCG dont have direct connections with Internap, Cogent or VERIO ...

There only connection seems to be with BlueTelegraph (which has VERIO and Internap as "premium" and Cogent as the "value prced"). DigitalWire seems to be the name used to hide there company for those using the bandwidth (like anonymous reseller nameservers).

internap->
1 66.111.34.1 (66.111.34.1) 0.245 ms 0.241 ms 0.197 ms
2 66.111.47.2 (66.111.47.2) 0.472 ms 0.447 ms 0.330 ms
3 border6.s5-9.digitalwire-3.sfo.pnap.net (63.251.61.229) 1.004 ms 1.004 ms 1.491 ms
4 core1.ge0-0-bbnet1.sfo.pnap.net (63.251.63.1) 1.583 ms 0.667 ms 0.615 ms

cogent->
1 66.111.34.1 (66.111.34.1) 0.239 ms 0.212 ms 0.193 ms
2 66.111.47.2 (66.111.47.2) 0.551 ms 0.357 ms 0.372 ms
3 g4.ba21.b003070-1.sfo01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.250.7.65) 3.286 ms 3.255 ms 2.696 ms

bluetelegraph/wcg ->
1 66.111.34.1 (66.111.34.1) 0.238 ms 0.218 ms 0.198 ms
2 66.111.47.2 (66.111.47.2) 0.506 ms 0.376 ms 0.355 ms
3 ge-1-2-0.cr1.sfo1.bluetelegraph.com (157.206.254.245) 2.853 ms 0.823 ms 0.610 ms
4 snfcca1wcx1-s14-0.wcg.net (64.200.198.149) 48.984 ms 45.858 ms 45.110 ms

bluetelegraph/cogent ->

1 66.111.34.1 (66.111.34.1) 0.242 ms 0.204 ms 0.194 ms
2 66.111.47.2 (66.111.47.2) 0.366 ms 0.342 ms 0.335 ms
3 ge-1-2-0.cr1.sfo1.bluetelegraph.com (157.206.254.245) 0.491 ms 0.599 ms 0.567 ms
4 g1.ba21.b003070-1.sfo01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.20.225) 2.554 ms 3.670 ms 3.512 ms

I'm not getting into a pissing contest here. You guys are complaining because you feel they deceived you. How many of you have actually bothered calling them?

If you call them they'll give you the answers they want. I keep repeating myself because you aren't seeing the picture. I understand where you're coming from, but their network isn't directly connected to one provider and one provider only. Would you like them to list every single provider they go through? And while you're at it, let's have them list out each hop it makes, and a detailed map would be nice as well.

I'm not saying you don't have the right to complain, if you read what I said, I said you don't have the right to complain about the price for the server. We've established that.

As for me dragging it on, I don't see how, you guys are the ones that keep going back to the issue of how they deceived you on purpose, how much they're out to get you, etc.

Guys, CALL THEM. I'm telling you that they'll answer and help you out. It's a two way street, and it goes both ways.

I'm only saying that I'm impressed with what I've seen/got so far, and I'm telling you the information that I've gotten directly from them. If you wanna shoot me for it, that's your problem. It's your problem even more so if you aren't willing to call them and ask instead of whining on here as to how they won't answer you on the forums.

Another question. This is for anybody. If someone asks you a question and you respond, they respond, and then you go off to school, work, vacation, what-have-you, and you didn't answer them til when you got a chance to, well why didn't you answer them right away? You answered them before, why not immediately?

Originally posted by Radon3k
If you call them they'll give you the answers they want.

So they don't have the time to answer 20 people in this forum asking the same question by writing out a simple post that will take probably only 2 minutes and yet they have time to answer 20 calls each of about 5 minutes long?

Is that what you mean?

Originally posted by Radon3k
... but their network isn't directly connected to one provider and one provider only.

Ok goto there website and tell me what providers they are connected to.

Uh, FHDave, what do you think their sales department does? They don't sit there and twiddle their thumbs...They answer questions from prospective clients, or current clients.

radon keeps repeating himself over and over.... call them call them

blah blah blah

again, as i said before. i did call them. nobody seemed to have a clue as to why it routed through cogent or anything that they didnt advertise.

i emailed them and they said:

Hi,


Our engineers are constantly making modification to the network. If you're not satisfied with our routing protocols, perhanps another provider is more suitable to your needs.


Best Regards,


Customer Support Team
United Colocation Group
www.unitedcolo.com

so stop saying call them call them

they still can't admit it though :X

clocker, did you call their sales or tech support?

And I wouldn't advise shooting me down for this. I'm just stating my opinions and trying to inform you on what I've been told. If it's not good enough for you, then it's your problem, but don't start mocking me about it.

Originally posted by Radon3k
clocker, did you call their sales or tech support?



Both.

and here you guys go on again... totally ignoring my splurge on BGP... unless UCG is using the 'revolutionary routing technology' that internap is using... u are NOT getting the fastest route (best latency)... but you will be getting the best route according to BGP... and this difference in latency can be anywhere from a few ms to (in a lot of cases on a network like cogent) a few hundred ms... plain and simple...

Originally posted by homeiss
Well, like I said I don't care if they use Cognet as long as I am using the fastest line for the persons location...

I think that everyone is mad about that fact that UCG would not just answer the Cognet issue...the fact that it took this long to find out what we did is kind of stupid. But like I said I really don't care ifthey use Cognet or not.

Also my 2 cents.

hmm..maybe it depends on who you talk to clocker, because the guy I talked to seemed to know exactly what he's talking about.

Originally posted by netdude
and here you guys go on again... totally ignoring my splurge on BGP... unless UCG is using the 'revolutionary routing technology' that internap is using... u are NOT getting the fastest route (best latency)... but you will be getting the best route according to BGP... and this difference in latency can be anywhere from a few ms to (in a lot of cases on a network like cogent) a few hundred ms... plain and simple...


Sorry, I did read your post but had forgotten (11 pages, cut me some slack). Yah, that makes sense but I still want to toy around with one of them servers. ;)

and here you guys go on again... totally ignoring my splurge on BGP... unless UCG is using the 'revolutionary routing technology' that internap is using... u are NOT getting the fastest route (best latency)... but you will be getting the best route according to BGP... and this difference in latency can be anywhere from a few ms to (in a lot of cases on a network like cogent) a few hundred ms... plain and simple... Not really true. There are several devices out there that will do dynamic BGP routing, Radware has one.

BGP does not care about latency, etc. It cares about number of hops.

Originally posted by RackMy.com
BGP does not care about latency, etc. It cares about number of hops

That's the difference between BGP and Internap's Intelligent routing (Assimilator) which not only look at the least hops but also the least latency and route traffic based on this information.

Originally posted by FHDave


That's the difference between BGP and Internap's Intelligent routing (Assimilator) which not only look at the least hops but also the least latency and route traffic based on this information.

And to add to this it is a patented technology.

That's the difference between BGP and Internap's Intelligent routing (Assimilator) which not only look at the least hops but also the least latency and route traffic based on this information.Correct. There are several providers that offer "inteligent routing" including Internap and Inflow. There are also hardware solutions that will accomplish the same.

Straight BGP looks at hops, not latency.

Anyone done any hard drive testing?


[root@ip36-200 root]# /sbin/hdparm -t /dev/hda

/dev/hda:
Timing buffered disk reads: 64 MB in 11.18 seconds = 5.72 MB/sec


Might need a kernel recompile.

Downloads are ok I guess.


.19.gzip36-200 root]# wget http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.4/patch-2.4
--18:22:05-- http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.4/patch-2.4.19.gz
=> `patch-2.4.19.gz'
Resolving www.kernel.org... done.
Connecting to www.kernel.org[204.152.189.116]:80... connected.
HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK
Length: 5,819,056 [application/x-gzip]

100%[=========================================================================================================================>] 5,819,056 3.43M/s ETA 00:00

18:22:06 (3.43 MB/s) - `patch-2.4.19.gz' saved [5819056/5819056]

I've been trying to look at their site for about an hour with no luck. Site won't come up.

Brandon, have you used hdparam to tweak the settings first? (before you arrived at the conclusion to recompile the kernel).

If not, read the man pages. Using the right settings could really speed up your hard drive.

Peter

Originally posted by HostInspect

Downloads are ok I guess.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

.19.gzip36-200 root]# wget http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.4/patch-2.4
--18:22:05-- http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/ker...patch-2.4.19.gz
=> `patch-2.4.19.gz'
Resolving www.kernel.org... done.
Connecting to www.kernel.org[204.152.189.116]:80... connected.
HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK
Length: 5,819,056 [application/x-gzip]

100%[===============================================================================================
==========================>] 5,819,056 3.43M/s ETA 00:00

18:22:06 (3.43 MB/s) - `patch-2.4.19.gz' saved [5819056/5819056]


...
pff when the box first went up and used internap it went like this:
Receiving linux-2.4.15.tar.gz (29404736 bytes): 100%
29404736 bytes transferred in 5.1 seconds (5.48 MBps)

now its like this:
Receiving linux-2.4.15.tar.gz (29404736 bytes): 100%
29404736 bytes transferred in 10.7 seconds (2.62 MBps)

Why you ask?

1 66.111.34.1 (66.111.34.1) 0.231 ms 0.202 ms 0.195 ms
2 66.111.47.2 (66.111.47.2) 0.602 ms 0.345 ms 0.340 ms
3 g4.ba21.b003070-1.sfo01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.250.7.65) 2.328 ms 2.484 ms 2.492 ms
4 g1-5.core02.sfo01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.66.253) 2.362 ms 2.026 ms 2.154 ms
5 g50.ba01.b003070-1.sfo01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.5.182) 2.598 ms 2.411 ms 2.872 ms
6 ISC-1.demarc.cogentco.com (66.250.6.50) 2.227 ms 2.127 ms 2.136 ms
7 so-1-0-0.orsf3.pf.isc.org (192.5.4.235) 2.244 ms 2.321 ms 2.496 ms
8 so-1-2-1.orpa7.pf.isc.org (192.5.4.232) 2.574 ms 2.671 ms 2.312 ms
9 zeus-pub.kernel.org (204.152.189.116) 2.375 ms 2.695 ms 2.945 ms

oh look its cogent

LOL.

clarification... straight BGP does not look at hops... it looks at how many ASNs the data has to transverse... :) for networks like worldcom and at&t, there can be 3-4 hops per city, 2-3 intermediary cities before the destination... but still only 1 ASN... :)

companies like c&w and level3, they have so much fiber laid that routes between major cities... direct fiber between each, don't need to bounce around... :) not to forget their direct fiber overseas from a lot of major cities too... :) worldcom has that too, but they have so many hops per city it hurts... :( too many customers/routers i guess... heh

Originally posted by RackMy.com
Correct. There are several providers that offer "inteligent routing" including Internap and Inflow. There are also hardware solutions that will accomplish the same.

Straight BGP looks at hops, not latency.

clarification... straight BGP does not look at hops... it looks at how many ASNs the data has to transverse... for networks like worldcom and at&t, there can be 3-4 hops per city, 2-3 intermediary cities before the destination... but still only 1 ASN... Not always true

Originally posted by RackMy.com
Not always true


Whats not true about it?

Originally posted by Radon3k
He did tell me that Cogent takes up about 5-6% of the outgoing bandwidth.


Originally posted by Radon3k
Should it matter where the bandwidth comes from if the ping times are good?


Here is the catch. It may not matter if ping times are good as from what you said they are only using cogent for outbound traffic. So if you are going to ping them sure it will be good but if you ran a ping from a server with them to a differnt server the results may be differnt.

when is it not true? i mean... true, i didn't get into the details of things such as cost metrics within the BGP protocol, but thats just a bit too much detail... more than needed here... have any examples when its not true? (cuz i m pretty sure i'm right, but i'd love to be enlightened about my misconceptions)

Originally posted by RackMy.com
Not always true

I got my box ysterday, I have not played with it much but so far it looks pretty good. I am going to keep it and play with for a month or so and see how it does and the datacenter does before passing judgement on these guys.

Like I need another server to play with:rolleyes:

Any way I will let you all know in a few weeks what it looks like from this end, but so far so good.

Originally posted by dhabets
Something strange just happened..... I called the 1-800 # they have... and somebody actually answered the phone and had answers for my 10 or so questions!!! :cool:


Btw, one thing I found a bit dubious is this:
Q: "What's with all the company logos on your site? (left hand bottom corner)"
A: "We're trying to have them colocate with us"
Me: "Ehm... okay... that's kind of dubious"
A: "It's free advertising for them!"

Not sure what to think of that....

.. Misleading -- posting logo's on your Web site usually means a relationship beyond "we're trying to have them colocate with us".

Adding logo's of other well-known companies to your Web site helps add credibility to your service, signaling they're your clients, partners, advisors or investors.

A bit sneaky and dishonest practice, if you don't actually have any relationship with them afterall.

Originally posted by JDMundo


.. Misleading -- posting logo's on your Web site usually means a relationship beyond "we're trying to have them colocate with us".

Adding logo's of other well-known companies to your Web site helps add credibility to your service, signaling they're your clients, partners, advisors or investors.

A bit sneaky and dishonest practice, if you don't actually have any relationship with them afterall.

Yes, and they can also be sued for using company logos on their site who they have no relationship with.

Let's just say it... UCG is dishonest!.

Originally posted by netdude
clarification... straight BGP does not look at hops... it looks at how many ASNs the data has to transverse... :) for networks like worldcom and at&t, there can be 3-4 hops per city, 2-3 intermediary cities before the destination... but still only 1 ASN... :)

companies like c&w and level3, they have so much fiber laid that routes between major cities... direct fiber between each, don't need to bounce around... :) not to forget their direct fiber overseas from a lot of major cities too... :) worldcom has that too, but they have so many hops per city it hurts... :( too many customers/routers i guess... heh




netdude, you are incorrect about how bgp works, and you underestimate how well it can work....

let us say you have 3 routers....

rtr-a is on west coast
rtr-b is in chicago
rtr-c is on east coast

rtr-a is connected to rtr-c via a ds3
rtr-a is connected to rtr-b via a oc3
rtr-b is connected to rtr-c via a oc3

[rtr-a] -------------(DS3)------------ [rtr-c]
| |
`-------(OC3)--- [rtr-b] ---------------'


anyways, rtr-c is peered with rtr-a and rtr-b and announcing a netblock of 192.168.1.0/24....... rtr-b is also peered with rtr-a and advertising that same netblock to rtr-a....

by default, rtr-a would see two entries in its routing table for 192.168.1.0/24, directly connected on one interface, which would be by default the best path, or 192.168.1.0 via rtr-b, with a default weight...

that is called AS_PATH selection.... the number of hops does in face count.....

when lines are installed, thye don't have default latency's or anything like that....so lets say the ping from rtr-a to rtr-c over the ds3 is 10 ms... and the ping from rtr-a to rtr-b is 5 ms..... and the ping from rtr-b to rtr-c is 40 ms.... if you know this in advance, you can configure the router to take this into consideration in the form of a multi exit discriminator or weighting neighbors in the bgp subset...

you can also choose to ignore as_path, or reduce its weight in the equation and use multi exit discriminators, which is what internap uses, their network is running bgp, but a very very fine tuned configuration...

you can also set things like maximum number of hops in as_path selection, compare router names, use confederations, and sub as's and filtering, and acid routes, there is all sorts of stuff you can do to make a network fly... and just because you don't see lots of hops on a traceroute, doesn't mean they are not there, you only see them if they change networks.... one of internaps tricks for their one hop deal, is all their routers exist on a private subnet... so its one hop on the traceroute.... plus it doesn't eat up ip's....

my point is this.... bgp is very powerful, and in the hands of someone who knows what the hell they are doing, like internap, you can't really say what it can and can't do...

the fact that something goes out cogen doesn't matter, unless they are forcing it that way (which they are not, looking at a sh ip bgp command on their ip block), then they are not doing anything but trying to find the best way out... don't always assume that internap will be the best....and i know people at that carrier hotel in san francisco, and trust me, they have their act together...

as for the false advertising ****, no, i don't think it is... they buy bandwidth from blue telegraph because of cost savings for alot of reasons.... and what is not to say blue telegraph gave them a line of ****.... and what about how much work it takes to explain a network configuration, they are in a major carrier hotel, all those providers reside in that building and have connectivity to them, but they are doing a form of LCR (lowest cost routing)....

you guys give them ****, but they are being very smart, staff wise, if you buy gigabit bandwidth from someone else, you dont need a full time network guru on staff, all you need is customer service people, which are usually cheap, and a couple hardware gurus and administrative staff, if you expect a company like ucg to keep offering these prices, you have to at least have some taste in your griping sessions....

anyways.... that is my rant, it is long winded, probably not vey well composed, but it is 5:30 am est and i couldn't sleep....

haxorboi

netdude said straight BGP I assume by that he means default. What your talking about its not straight/default BGP in my book, not when you get in to weighting neighbors.

Yeah sure what your saying can be done but is it perffered, I would think not, but many people have to do it for performace and costs.

plain and simple: ucg lied. even their plan specifically noted internap. If they are offering ANYTHING in there other than internap, they lied. No matter what the weighting be. And as others have pointed out, they even mislead customers further by starting off with internap then moving the clients onto cogent (or atleast a much stronger mixture of cogent, with internap and other cheaper providers) without notifying them.

Originally posted by chrisb


Yes, and they can also be sued for using company logos on their site who they have no relationship with.

Let's just say it... UCG is dishonest!.

Imagine what I thought when the dude said that? I really was surprised that he said that.... I really hope the company works out... but I don't know what to think of them!

I hope UCG will post an answer re. this.

You know what? Ive been having good communications with them over the past few days. Email replies usually within a few minutes and latest maybe an hour or two.

Today, after reading this thread, I emailed them asking about their bandwidth providers and hussshhhh...not a peep. Guess they all have an allergy to the words "Bandwidth Providers"

I was considering a second server, but now I think Ill wait and see how things work out!

No problems with my server so far though!

I am sorry but I just don't get it... :rolleyes:

From a business stand point it just doesn’t make since. Lets say their cost for a server is low at $300 and they lease 500 of them in the first month. So now they have spent $150,000 on servers an they keep getting orders of say 300 more servers a month from the next 5 months. After six months they have spent $600,000.00 on hardware alone and have taken in only $366.700.00 that is a loss of $233,000.00.

When you add in the cost of employees, data center space, and bandwidth the loss has to close to $500,000.00 in 6 months of operation:

Income from servers:
Month 1 $24,000.00 500 servers
Month 2 $39,200.00 800 servers
Month 3 $53,900.00 1100 servers
Month 4 $68,600.00 1400 servers
Month 5 $83,000.00 1700 servers
Month 6 $98,000.00 2000 servers

Total Income: $366,700.00
Server cost: $600,000.00
Loss: $233,000.00

you can't really post figures like that with no idea of their buisness... pretty lame

lets just see how people get on with their servers... and if they stay in business.... all I see is people bagging on UCG .. give them a chance at least :)

Don't know about you tapster, but all I SEE is people complaining about them mis leading :)

Sitekeeper, rackshack runs on the same policy, the only thing their doing different is shifting money over from EV1 to cover their losses on all of their dedicated sales.

UGC is most likley doing the same thing, I think they mentioned in one thread that they had a lot of $ in the bank, and in that case it is better to spend it rather than have it sit, at least then you have the $ in hardware rather than $ which makes your business look larger.

My guess is their doing this to get rid of $ and cut down on taxes heh.

Originally posted by DanielP

UGC is most likley doing the same thing, I think they mentioned in one thread that they had a lot of $ in the bank, and in that case it is better to spend it rather than have it sit, at least then you have the $ in hardware rather than $ which makes your business look larger.

My guess is their doing this to get rid of $ and cut down on taxes heh.

In reality it's Bill Gates who's the owner of that company and who's just trying to burn a few millions to pay less taxes :)

Originally posted by clocker1996
Don't know about you tapster, but all I SEE is people complaining about them mis leading :)

well, Im just saying give them a chance... for $49 it's a killer deal... we can all make our own decisions - we're all adults (well some of us :D), just give them a chance at least. If you perceive them as liers and cheats, then go somewhere else, thats the beauty of a free market

They only started last week and now we have people guessing at how much they are going in the red in six months... :rolleyes:

They just replied to my email and this is their response regarding bandwidth

"Internap and Cogent (5% -- 6% of outbound traffic)."

Comments? :D

yes..

they only admit it after dozens of peopel complain about it

if nobody would of said anything, they would of not said anything at all..... about cogent. and continued would of continued to mislead people

My guess is their doing this to get rid of $ and cut down on taxes heh.Unless they are leasing it, they will still have to pay taxes on it and depreciate it.

Originally posted by WebHozt
"Internap and Cogent (5% -- 6% of outbound traffic)."


How do verify that? I wonder ... they can as well say 1% - 2% :)

Originally posted by netdude
i wanna know who Digital Wire Works is...

cuz i see digitalwire in the internap traceroutes... and this data is from the cogent whois...

network:Org-Name: Digital Wire Works
network:Street-Address: 4960 Almedan Expressway suite:301
network:City: San Jose
network:State: CA
network:Postal-Code: 95113-2007
network:Country-Code: US

i m curious as to who these guys are...

Oh, just seen that post :)

Here you go:
Digital WireWorks Inc.
www.wworks.net
ASN: 26346

Bye,
Gernot

There are just too many strange things going on.

Unitedcolo claims to have Internap as their provider but yet they won't say why cogent is in their route in stead they will get offensive and say if you don't like it go else where.

I kind of agree with sitekeeper his calculations sound verry reasonable we might see another cyberwings within the next couple of months who knows.

On their site they have unrelevant logos such as Fedex, Handspring for no aparent reason.

The major problem with unitedcolo is that they claiming to be running on internap but when they are confronted about it they will get offensive and tell you to go elsewhere. There is no reason why they are hidding their bandwidth provider unless they are running on a top secret network which they are not.

makes ya wonder how true that could be... because i mean... they were telling clients it was 0% cogent b4 (cuz they didn't have a cogent feed)... now after being confronted so harshly, they finally admit to some small figure?

Originally posted by WebHozt
They just replied to my email and this is their response regarding bandwidth

"Internap and Cogent (5% -- 6% of outbound traffic)."

Comments? :D

i mean... theres gotta b ways to keep cogent outa traceroutes but still send a bunch of data thru 'em... heh...

Originally posted by DanielP
Sitekeeper, rackshack runs on the same policy, the only thing their doing different is shifting money over from EV1 to cover their losses on all of their dedicated sales.

DanielP

RackShack charges twice as much and normally has a setup fee too... That is a big difference!

Originally posted by tapster
you can't really post figures like that with no idea of their buisness... pretty lame

lets just see how people get on with their servers... and if they stay in business.... all I see is people bagging on UCG .. give them a chance at least :)

Yes I can post figures like this, I have seen too many people ripped off over the years by hosts looking to make a quick buck. The numbers seem pretty clear to me....

It is clear that they have already mislead people in their posts and the information on their website. What else do you need to know? No one would have logos such as Fedex, Handspring on there site if they were not partnered with them, unless they are trying to mislead people....

sitekeeper: I was pointing out that putting up figures of their projected losses without the slightest knowledge of their business affairs is pretty pointless - thats all. For starters you failed to factor in their higher priced plans and other business revenues that you or I know nothing about.

I can sumise my own opinions from the FACTS, I can see their website and posts here, they replied to my emails and I can examinr the traceroutes from my machine. I just don't see how fairytale figures make a case for anything :confused:

Originally posted by tapster
I just don't see how fairytale figures make a case for anything :confused:
That is the problem isn't it, this whole thread is kind of like a fairytale. I for one just hope it comes true and everyone lives happily ever after! I don’t do want to see anyone coming back to WHT to tell how they got ripped.

Good Luck to everyone who ordered!

I've seen Cogent in several pictures describing Internap's peering. Seeing how as the first few routes are Cogent, this would be a reasonable explanation. Even if this is not the case, I honestly don't see how inter-city transit via Cogent affects pings or traces in any way...the rest of the hops across the nation still go through a major tier-1 provider.

Originally posted by sitekeeper
I am sorry but I just don't get it... :rolleyes:

From a business stand point it just doesn’t make since. Lets say their cost for a server is low at $300 and they lease 500 of them in the first month. So now they have spent $150,000 on servers an they keep getting orders of say 300 more servers a month from the next 5 months. After six months they have spent $600,000.00 on hardware alone and have taken in only $366.700.00 that is a loss of $233,000.00.

When you add in the cost of employees, data center space, and bandwidth the loss has to close to $500,000.00 in 6 months of operation:

Income from servers:
Month 1 $24,000.00 500 servers
Month 2 $39,200.00 800 servers
Month 3 $53,900.00 1100 servers
Month 4 $68,600.00 1400 servers
Month 5 $83,000.00 1700 servers
Month 6 $98,000.00 2000 servers

Total Income: $366,700.00
Server cost: $600,000.00
Loss: $233,000.00

I always love it when people don't do enough math to disprove their argument. Lets run it out another 6 months...

Month 7 $112,700.00 2300 servers
Month 8 $127,400.00 2600 servers
Month 9 $142,100.00 2900 servers
Month 10 $156,800.00 3100 servers
Month 11 $166,600.00 3400 servers
Month 12 $181,300.00 3700 servers

Total Income $1,253,600.00
Server Cost $1,110,000.00

Hey, would you look at that, they've made money. Now lets say they didn't have any orders for a year. The company would then have over $2 million in annual revenues with no expenses outside the other costs you mentioned. Not too shabby a business.

Plus, you forgot to mention that the company owns the hardware assets. So they didn't totally "lose" that money. The computers can always be resold at a later date for some cash.

Hal

Good point Hal. :agree:

Hi all,

Before understood if they have really a backbone just try to find how they network is connected !

Here is view from our backbone from France (2 paths) :

5594 3561 14743 14743 14743 26346 22427
6461 3549 14743 26346 22427

View from GBLX (1 path) :

14743 26346 22427

View from Exodus USA (1 path) :
3561 14743 14743 14743 26346 22427

View from OpenTransit USA (2 paths) :

3549 14743 26346 22427
1 14743 26346 2242

All i can said is that's they IP website (66.111.32.10) is connected to 22427 (their as) and they buy transit to 26346, and 26346 only buy transit to 14743 (Internap Network Services).

They don't buy transit to anybody else except if they don't announce they network for they upstream provide.

They certainely use 26346 for bgp announce and inbound transit and static routing with cogent (we have peering with cogent and don't get they routed in peer route).

They prices are very good and seems they have a stable network. What the problem except they network seems 100% false as many company here how said they have a backbone but they haven't any router or have only static route...

Regards,

Arnaud
Frontier Online
As Macro : AS-FRONTIER, As Number : AS13049 ;)

Someone take the time to translate that please, if they know it's valuable info :)

You guys that are getting mostly Cogent traceroutes I don't understand, 10 tests from within the server showed 1 Cogent, 3 from outside to my server showed no Cogent. Yes, I agree they didn't advertise Cogent as one of their bandwidth providers and they do have Cogent bandwidth, but in order to find 5 Cogent traceroutes you must have had to do at least 30 traceroutes and not report the non-Cogent ones.

Also, about their business plan, hbouma made a very good point, and who said they're not going to up their prices to new customers in the future? On top of this, if they're getting their servers for cheap because they're buying so many, after a year of service if the client leaves they could probably sell the server on Ebay for 75% of what they paid for it. Blue Telegraph prices are an astonishingly low $900 per rack and $35/mbps if you buy 100mbps or more. If they're thinking long term, UCG could become highly profitable. For those of you worried about getting burned, if you pay by credit card you can charge back up to 6 months. I know I paid purposely with Discover because they're very lenient with chargebacks, so if things go sour and UCG is a fly by night, they'll be the ones hurting, not me.

They failed one key test so far. Support emailed at 3:07 am and reboot requested. Still no reboot at this time. If customers were on the machine and it was down I would be pissed. So much for 24/7 support.

you've also seen the clear example of that download from kernel.org from the SAME server... one through internap, one through cogent... and kernel.org (hosted by ISC) has a direct cogent feed... but the cogent transfer speed was roughly HALF that of the internap transfer... and internap does not directly connect with kernel.org... ...

thats the difference... although pings may be similar, throughput is not even comparable...

Originally posted by mushrew
I've seen Cogent in several pictures describing Internap's peering. Seeing how as the first few routes are Cogent, this would be a reasonable explanation. Even if this is not the case, I honestly don't see how inter-city transit via Cogent affects pings or traces in any way...the rest of the hops across the nation still go through a major tier-1 provider.

oh... and if you want to get totally technical about the routing... i am willing to bet theres gotta be ways to remove/minimize cogent from traceroutes themselves but still use the feeds... ... ...

their service plans clearly pointed out internap... any cogent (or any other provider for that matter) is unacceptable. not only did they not mention cogent anywhere on their site, but they did not mention it where they clearly pointed out internap.

i mean, they truly are trying to hide their connectivity to cogent. When you do a trace from within cogent to their main site ip, it goes in via internap. why do that if they are not trying to mislead users into believing true internap bandwidth? why not just admit cogent in that scenario?

as far as hiding data routes. theres gotta be ways... i've seen traceroutes where they were crappy all the way throughout a backbone (via say someone like cogent during 'one of their bad days') but latency being that of a premium network just on the last hop... doesn't make sense... but its happened... and i knew the server was multihomed on a premium provider my ISP peered with... so i'd figure that'd be the only way the latency could get that much better (and the throughput reflected)...

Originally posted by netdude
as far as hiding data routes. theres gotta be ways... i've seen traceroutes where they were crappy all the way throughout a backbone (via say someone like cogent during 'one of their bad days') but latency being that of a premium network just on the last hop... doesn't make sense... but its happened... and i knew the server was multihomed on a premium provider my ISP peered with... so i'd figure that'd be the only way the latency could get that much better (and the throughput reflected)...

Welcome to the world of the Internet. See, the data has to go there and go back to you again when you do a traceroute. The data back to you doesn't necessarily take the same route as it took from you to the server you're tracerouting to. Such a simple explanation :)

Btw, about your kernel.org Cogent thing:
From our network in the same data-center as Unitedcolo taking Cogent:

--16:24:56-- http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.4/linux-2.4.19.tar.gz
=> `linux-2.4.19.tar.gz'
Resolving www.kernel.org... done.
Connecting to www.kernel.org[204.152.189.116]:80... connected.
HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK
Length: 32,219,641 [application/x-gzip]

100%[========================================================================================>] 32,219,641 5.40M/s ETA 00:00

16:25:02 (5.40 MB/s) - `linux-2.4.19.tar.gz' saved [32219641/32219641]

Don't know what you want to see there but 5.40MB/s (note the B stands for Bytes not Bits) is quite good. I don't know what Internap transfer speed you're referring to and I don't really want to dig through all 13 or so pages of that thread to find it but it won't be much better.

The other thing you said is possible. You can theoretically route port 80 traffic differently than UDP or other TCP traffic. All you need is a good routing box.
I'm not saying they're doing this though.

Hi Monte,

We had two engineers working at the data center until 4:00 am (PST) setting up and activating 40 servers. Your servers was rebooted promptly. Full root access was restored to your server and your IP is now pingable and SSH also works as well.

For future reference, please leave a message if there is no response. A lot of customers have caller ID blocked so there's no way for us to know who called.


Best Regards.




Originally posted by Monte
They failed one key test so far. Support emailed at 3:07 am and reboot requested. Still no reboot at this time. If customers were on the machine and it was down I would be pissed. So much for 24/7 support.

I have a few questions...

1) Is their Tech support really good?

my other questions were already answered

clocker1996 and all the others moaing about fals advertising why don't you take it to which ever authority it is in the US and complain to them instead of repeating your self here all time, try and remember the original name of the thread.

Well so far I have pinged and traced every server I can think of and what I see is cognet about 10% of the time.
My traces and pings show really good times and routes. Download test have been impressive so far.

I am still testing the box and netwok but overall this looks like a really good deal.

Not ready to put then into full service yet, but so far so good. Still want to know there is someone there 24/7 or the ablitiy to get APC switches.

Something to download on one of their servers....

<removed>

Big file so you can test the thruput

Originally posted by heath
Something to download on one of their servers....

<removed>

Big file so you can test the thruput

The only real test of throughput is the ability of the server and bandwidth to have multiple file downloads at the same time.:)

Originally posted by heath
Something to download on one of their servers....

<removed>

Big file so you can test the thruput

I got about 75KB/s over my DSL connect. Certainly not what I would call acceptable.

I got about 30kb/s on cable...terrible!

Ouch,

20KB/s on my cable...:(

40-50kb/s here.... on my adsl connection

anyone want to answer me that has been with them, if they have good tech support? i'm thinking about ordering the $99 a month server with them, today...

also, anything bad about them?

don't mention anything with connection speeds, i've read enough about that...

I got about 75 KB/s too
even slower than serverbeach haha

I can't get to half of the pages on their web site so maybe they are having network issues..........not very good timing for that to happen considering the abuse they are taking here.

Originally posted by heath
Something to download on one of their servers....

<removed>

Big file so you can test the thruput

Mhh,

14:40:50 (104.74 KB/s) - `utpatch436nodelta.zip' saved [33675800/33675800]
from the same data-center... not too good.
On the second try:
14:42:24 (101.04 KB/s) - `utpatch436nodelta.zip.1' saved [33675800/33675800]

A little poor for Internap bandwidth.

What is UCG's relation with novani.com? Anyone?

Novani, LLC is the consulting and managed services company at 200 Paul Ave. They designed or helped design the network for efreeservers and as it seems, maybe indirectly, also for unitedcolo. Indirectly because UCG said that they took over efreeserver's network and ASN.

i get ~78KB/sec from DSL... ~13KB/sec from fdc

Novani also provides on-site support for many providers who use the data center. They are considered to be excellent as I did a bit of research a time back when I was looking for support in that center.

Any comment from UCG on these download speeds? Is this what people should expect for bandwidth? I'm not saying the results I see are good or bad, because that's all relative, but I'm assuming that as you build your customer base, speeds will only decrease.

Jeez ppl, for $49 what do you expect.

Brandon

For $49 we expect internap bandwidth as was offered! So there!

Brandon, I don't see these posts as complaints; they are just simply observations - no one has openly complained yet. (therefore, there is no "expectation" as you put it).

Peter

Good point ckpeter!

Im happy with mine and most negative comments, if you can call them that, have been from non-customers. And mostly about the nondisclosure of cogent and bandwidth providers.

I'm just curious, so please don't flame me for this question. I haven't seen anywhere that UCG says "100% Internap" From what I see on the tracert's there is an abundance of Internap, but it is mixed with other when that would be the fastest route at the time. Would it be better if it were 100% Internap if it were slower? Is it not really going to Cogent when it should be?

I'm not trying to defend UCG with this post, just trying to understand the argument. They say they offer Internap, and they do. I would like them to answer why these recent dl speeds are so slow, though.

They also said "no cogent" to some people!

Here are my speeds:

To a rackshack box: 402.27 kb/s
3mbps capped cogent only box: 1.07 MB/s (This looks good!)
Home connection: 78.2 kb/s

Originally posted by WebHozt
3mbps capped cogent only box: 1.07 MB/s (This looks good!)


You mind if I see a trace from your UCG server to the cogent and rackshack boxes? I'm just curious to see what they look like...

Thanks :)

Brandon, I don't see these posts as complaints; they are just simply observations - no one has openly complained yet. (therefore, there is no "expectation" as you put it).
Point taken! You're right... But I do think there's a lot of YGWYPF syndrome going on here... come on, 100% Internap for $49 INCLUDING the server? It's not even worth asking about.

By the time you throw in the logos, unquestionably dubious practice of mismarketing their connectivity, and their apparent refusal to acknowledge the questions posed in this forum despite the fact we know they're reading it, seals the deal in my book.

Nothing against them, just hope they straighten up a bit.

Brandon

Agreed! They need to come clean!

Originally posted by cbtrussell

Point taken! You're right... But I do think there's a lot of YGWYPF syndrome going on here... come on, 100% Internap for $49 INCLUDING the server? It's not even worth asking about.

By the time you throw in the logos, unquestionably dubious practice of mismarketing their connectivity, and their apparent refusal to acknowledge the questions posed in this forum despite the fact we know they're reading it, seals the deal in my book.

Nothing against them, just hope they straighten up a bit.

Brandon

If it's internap bandwidth, they probably bought a chunk and now are overselling the living hell out of it.

I haven't seen internap bandwidth selling for anything under $300 per mbit, and 500gb is well over 1mbit of usage per month.

And if they're lying to customers and it is mostly cogent, well you know... they won't last long either way now.

I just thought I would update. I purchased a server from the company in question. Just a small server. I plan to learn quite a bit first before hosting on it.

But as far as customer service was concerned it was good. And the server was ready within a 24 hour time frame.

I just thought I would leave some feedback. I don't know how everything else will go, but so far the purchase activation, customer service end was fine.

140KBb on the first try... and hour later 157Kb download on the kernal.

Using Sprint DSL

1.07MB/sec is more than 3Mbps... heh... its more like 10Mbps... heh

Originally posted by WebHozt
Here are my speeds:

To a rackshack box: 402.27 kb/s
3mbps capped cogent only box: 1.07 MB/s (This looks good!)
Home connection: 78.2 kb/s

http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=75612

k... now go to that URL and read me the subject... k? now they say internap in there... they say 500GB transfer... why don't they say '(cogent too)'... ? anywhere in the post... they totally implied internap and a bunch of premium providers (which are all on the internap list so i am assuming its not feeds to them directly but rather thru internap)... plain and simple... and they actively hid cogent from their traceroutes to their own site... which is just adding to the lies... if they didn't keep it a secret on their own site, then atleast those that know what they are doing (and care about their bandwidth) would be able to see what they are getting... comprende?

Originally posted by skelley1
I'm just curious, so please don't flame me for this question. I haven't seen anywhere that UCG says "100% Internap" From what I see on the tracert's there is an abundance of Internap, but it is mixed with other when that would be the fastest route at the time. Would it be better if it were 100% Internap if it were slower? Is it not really going to Cogent when it should be?

I'm not trying to defend UCG with this post, just trying to understand the argument. They say they offer Internap, and they do. I would like them to answer why these recent dl speeds are so slow, though.

ohh... and i have a server there now... so i am definately gonna have some fun... :)

lol... 100GB transfer used up in traceroutes... that'd b bloody funny... hahahaha

Its actually a 3 MBps capped connection....slight slip-up! ;)

Originally posted by netdude
1.07MB/sec is more than 3Mbps... heh... its more like 10Mbps... heh

Originally posted by heath
Something to download on one of their servers....

<removed>

Big file so you can test the thruput

I do not appreciate you listing files from my site for speed tests. Would you want to pay for bandwidth being used for this reason? BTW...the site is on a UnitedColo server, but the files are not. Anyone that ran this speed test has received inaccurate results.

You may also want to contact the moderator to remove all references to your URL.

<<MOD NOTE: Link removed>>

Peter

I welcome people to visit my site, so I would like the URL to stay. It's fine for people to download files if they are needed, but just for a speed test is totally rediculous and thoughtless.

Well, self-advertisement in the main forum is not allowed, and if the reference to your URL stays is because you like people to visit your site, that constitute advertisement. The URL should stay if you want to volunteer your site as speed test. But if the only purpose it serves is for advertising, then it should go.

<<MOD NOTE: It is gone>>

Peter

Originally posted by hbouma


I always love it when people don't do enough math to disprove their argument. Lets run it out another 6 months...

Month 7 $112,700.00 2300 servers
Month 8 $127,400.00 2600 servers
Month 9 $142,100.00 2900 servers
Month 10 $156,800.00 3100 servers
Month 11 $166,600.00 3400 servers
Month 12 $181,300.00 3700 servers

Total Income $1,253,600.00
Server Cost $1,110,000.00

Hey, would you look at that, they've made money. Now lets say they didn't have any orders for a year. The company would then have over $2 million in annual revenues with no expenses outside the other costs you mentioned. Not too shabby a business.

Plus, you forgot to mention that the company owns the hardware assets. So they didn't totally "lose" that money. The computers can always be resold at a later date for some cash.

Hal

I guess those figures weren't as fairy tale as I thought :D :laugh: :D

well said Hal :)

They are good for me... I downloaded perl last night at almost 2mb/sec

Heh...downloads to the box is really good! I even got 12+MB/s once. When you're serving web pages, download speeds from the box is what matters more.

Originally posted by Bomber166
They are good for me... I downloaded perl last night at almost 2mb/sec

Do you mean downloads "to" or "from" the box is really good?

Peter

Sorry about that Xenos, I honestly didn't think about that before and only assume maybe 3 or 4 people would actually try the link.

Again, I'm sorry about that...

Who you talking to? :D

I said to the box is good! :)

Originally posted by ckpeter
Do you mean downloads "to" or "from" the box is really good?

Peter