How are they currently?
Their bandwidth is kinda cheap. Looking for colo solution here.
How's their uptime like? Are they still on Cogent?
Thanks in advance

have you tried calling their sales department?

i'm pretty sure there are ALOT of posts about united colo, search around.

i read on a post the other day that they are using HE.net bandwidth, which is a mix of a few good providers (which includes cogent).

someone also stated they are getting much better after their shaky start (they definitely bit off more than they could chew when they started their offer).

brian-WHT, nevertheless, it's better to hear comments from customers who have servers with them :)

i suppose this is true..
traceroute shows signs of HE.net's network anyways..

search will give you there customer opinion, heard a mixture of things about them on this forum.

They are decent. No reason why you shouldn't go with them.

Watch out with their traffic deals. They'll only put you on a 10Mbps capped switch port.

Carl

What's wrong with a 10Mbps capped switched port? Not sure about the facts, please enlighten me :)

Originally posted by Reference
What's wrong with a 10Mbps capped switched port? Not sure about the facts, please enlighten me :)

For example : we signed up for their so-called 3000GB server, were promised it would be put on a 10/100Mbps switch port.

It came on a 10Mbps port (after some discussion they told me they don't allow 100Mbps connections anymore), meaning you could by no means push 3000GB per month. Even 2000GB would be quite difficult.

Carl

hi.. sorry to interupt but I still do not know how this 10/100mbps port works.. 10mbps means? allowing a maximum of 10mb of transfer per second?

Correct, 10MegaBITs per second.

Carl

I just sent a mail to UnitedColo, asking about their uptime and such. :)

hehe... i got 100Mbps ports... :P lol... but that might b cuz of the number of servers i got... :) even a VC funded company values potential future business... :D as for the 3000GB issue... well, i have yet to figure out if they are even tracking b/w at all... but... the port you are on (cuz i have a $99/month server on one of 'em) is full duplex... so technically speaking, u could easily push >5000GB/month... (assuming heavy upstream and downstream, which just doesn't happen in the hosting world)... but because its a full duplex feed, don't have to worry about ethernet packet collisions inherent with half-duplex (typical) links... so... could push much closer to the 10Mbps threshold... i've attained 9.6Mbps sustained for 1 hour with that box (i was bored, wanted to see how good the connection was so i transfered between that box n one of my boxes at verio in san jose)... heh...

network wise? its lookin' better every day... just stumbled upon something today... this is off a box setup less than a week ago... take note: its doing ~4Mbps of outbound traffic (somewhat cpu intensive) at the moment... its one of their 10Mbps boxes... :D
--------------------------------
[root@netdude1 tmp]# wget --output-document=/dev/null http://mysql.he.net/Downloads/MySQL-Max-4.0/mysql-max-4.0.4-beta-win.zip
--05:27:45-- http://mysql.he.net/Downloads/MySQL-Max-4.0/mysql-max-4.0.4-beta-win.zip
=> `/dev/null'
Resolving mysql.he.net... done.
Connecting to mysql.he.net[66.220.6.162]:80... connected.
HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK
Length: 19,452,724 [application/zip]

100%[====================================>] 19,452,724 9.17M/s ETA 00:00

05:27:47 (9.17 MB/s) - `/dev/null' saved [19452724/19452724]
--------------------------------
[root@netdude1 tmp]# traceroute mirrors.kernel.org
traceroute to mirrors.kernel.org (204.152.189.120), 30 hops max, 38 byte packets
1 66.111.48.1 (66.111.48.1) 0.208 ms 0.192 ms 0.160 ms
2 66.111.47.2 (66.111.47.2) 0.759 ms 0.557 ms 0.389 ms
3 198.32.175.3 (198.32.175.3) 1.403 ms 1.275 ms 1.404 ms
4 mirrors.kernel.org (204.152.189.120) 1.829 ms 1.936 ms 1.743 ms
--------------------------------
now thats bloody sweet... heh


Originally posted by Mango


For example : we signed up for their so-called 3000GB server, were promised it would be put on a 10/100Mbps switch port.

It came on a 10Mbps port (after some discussion they told me they don't allow 100Mbps connections anymore), meaning you could by no means push 3000GB per month. Even 2000GB would be quite difficult.

Carl

Overall, is it advisible to go with them if I wanna provide web hosting?
I don't mind going with them if I'm hosting my own sites.

05:45:43 (1.12 MB/s) - `/dev/null' saved [19452724/19452724]

My UnitedColo Box which was sold as 100Mbit port and then (without any notification has now been rate limited to 10Mbit)

Still, overall they have improved signifacantly in the last month or so and appear to have a good product at a good price.

Their "take it or leave it" approach to customer service could be described as arrogant, I guess that's the benefit of having a very well priced service.

Matt

how's their uptime like?

Reference, see that button labeled "Search"? Push it :eek: :)

is it still capped to 10mbits ? thats just not on.

Originally posted by mattonline
05:45:43 (1.12 MB/s) - `/dev/null' saved [19452724/19452724]

My UnitedColo Box which was sold as 100Mbit port and then (without any notification has now been rate limited to 10Mbit)

Still, overall they have improved signifacantly in the last month or so and appear to have a good product at a good price.

Their "take it or leave it" approach to customer service could be described as arrogant, I guess that's the benefit of having a very well priced service.

Matt

why shouldn't you be able to push 3TB on a ethernet link?
because of overhead or what?

best regards,

on half duplex... not because of overhead, but because of packet collisions between inbound and outbound packets... it happens more often than one would think... effectively reducing the capacity of a half duplex 10Mbps to ~9Mbps (being pushed heavily in a hosting environment (mostly unidirectional traffic aside from http get requests/etc)...)... but at those levels, latency gets bad... on full duplex, it isn't much of a problem

Why do people complain about the 10Mbit limit when that's what RackShack gives you? Actually the max I've been hit on RackShack is about 9.2Mbit.

Originally posted by mushrew
Why do people complain about the 10Mbit limit when that's what RackShack gives you? Actually the max I've been hit on RackShack is about 9.2Mbit.

Mushrew,

The problem I have is with their advertising.

RackShacks sells a '10Mbps unmetered server', so you know you will be getting such a port and will be able to push around 1500GB per month.

But UC sells '3000GB' of traffic. Then I assume I will be able to transfer those 3TB's (especially since they advertise a 10/100Mbps link, which can handle that). But that's simply impossible on a 10Mbps link.

Carl

Originally posted by BiGWill
why shouldn't you be able to push 3TB on a ethernet link?
because of overhead or what?

best regards,

You can never push 3000GB on a 10Mbps link because of the pattern of your traffic. You will need to deal with peak times (up to 3x as much traffic than normally), so you need to reserve a buffer. If you don't, your link will become extremely saturated and everything pushed from the server will be terribly slow or timing out.

Carl

I thought they did the 10mbit cap only bandwidth packages of 1500GB an under.

Originally posted by mushrew
I thought they did the 10mbit cap only bandwidth packages of 1500GB an under.

No, I experienced it on their 3000GB package. They stated they didn't allow 100Mbps burstability on any of their servers anymore.

Carl