Hi I am looking for win2k dedicated server around the above mentioned price
need 100% uptime.

You might want to move this to the Requests fourm. Anyways, no one can offer 100% uptime! Maybe 99.9999 but its impossible to guarantee that the server will NEVER have a problem!

lol

at that price, 100% uptime... thats a funny one

lol

do yourself a favor, call up exodus and see what they charge... for what you want... cuz they'll probably be the closest to 100% uptime there is...

You're better off buying yourself a server and colocating it somewhere at that price. You won't find anything under $200

do yourself a favor, call up exodus and see what they charge... for what you want... cuz they'll probably be the closest to 100% uptime there is...I don't think Exodus has a 100% uptime SLA and I think they are going out of business :(

exodus? their serving solutions offer 100%... and they are not going outa business... they were bought out by c&w... and c&w is THE MOST financially stable telecom company right now... heh

Originally posted by RackMy.com
I don't think Exodus has a 100% uptime SLA and I think they are going out of business :(

www.unitedcolo.com

unitedcolo's uptime ain't all that great

heh

I hear good things about Mr Mike at Rackmy. ^

I saw a very very good price offer (I think) in the offers forum here.

Originally posted by netdude
exodus? their serving solutions offer 100%... and they are not going outa business... they were bought out by c&w... and c&w is THE MOST financially stable telecom company right now... heh



C&W may claim to be one of the most stable in the industry (for whatever that's worth), but they are closing all of their US data centers (this means Exodus!) except ones which support their multi national clients. They are also maintaining their network to support ISPs.

Check out http://webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=88580

There is a link to C&Ws site with the announcement.

just because they are making cutbacks to save money doesn't mean they are not financially stable... just means they aren't stupid like the dotcoms that went under which made the blind assumption: if you spend enough money, you'll make money eventually...

they are just shutting down datacenters that aren't making more than they're costing, right?

just because they are making cutbacks to save money doesn't mean they are not financially stable... Look at their financials, they are making cuts becuase they are not financially stable, the cuts should help.

From what I understand, C&W is closing all US Exodus datacenters.

I don't think Exodus offers a 100% uptimes SLA, but could be wrong. I surfed around on their site and did not see one anywhere.

From what I understand, C&W is closing all US Exodus datacenters.

well... nrsoftware confirmed that the datacenter he is in wasn't being affected... so your information is obviously flaw on that count...
-------------
Look at their financials, they are making cuts becuase they are not financially stable, the cuts should help.

i have looked at their financials... they've turned a PROFIT every year 'cept 2002... but take into consideration, they have been active buying up other companies/etc... this latest slashing of expenses is just to "get rid of the fat"... (thats what i'd figure it to be)... although their shareholder dividends had peaked in 2000, its higher in 2002 than it was in 2001, 1999 and 1998...
-------------
I don't think Exodus offers a 100% uptimes SLA, but could be wrong. I surfed around on their site and did not see one anywhere.
the day google/ebay/overture/yahoo hosts with someone that doesn't give a 100% SLA... i'll laugh my a$$ off... lol... i have one of their contracts sittin' in my mailbox... i'll look at it again, but i could have sword it had a 100% uptime guarantee in it... hmm... even uunet gives a 100% uptime guarantee in their SLA...

i have looked at their financials... they've turned a PROFIT every year 'cept 2002... but take into consideration, they have been active buying up other companies/etc... this latest slashing of expenses is just to "get rid of the fat"... (thats what i'd figure it to be)... although their shareholder dividends had peaked in 2000, its higher in 2002 than it was in 2001, 1999 and 1998... Correct, that is what I am saying. I think it's a smart move. Exodus was a bloated cow :)

the day google/ebay/overture/yahoo hosts with someone that doesn't give a 100% SLA... i'll laugh my a$$ off... lol... i have one of their contracts sittin' in my mailbox... i'll look at it again, but i could have sword it had a 100% uptime guarantee in it... hmm... even uunet gives a 100% uptime guarantee in their SLA...A lot of them do. BTW, Yahoo has servers at Level3 which (I believe) does not offer a 100% uptime SLA (start laughing :))

BTW, I forgot to mention you should call your C&W rep to see which DCs are closing. Please do not take our words for it as I have heard so many rumors.

A lot of them do. BTW, Yahoo has servers at Level3 which (I believe) does not offer a 100% uptime SLA (start laughing :))

lol... dude... that is exodus' distributed hosting product... lol... i know what ur talking about... i laughed at my exodus rep regarding that n he laughed back... distributed hosting = serves pages from the closest available edge server like akamai's edgesuite technology...

http://www1.cw.com/template_03.jsp?ID=us_16_05_01 ... in the event of yahoo's servers hosted on level3 (by exodus) goes down, traffic would automatically be redirected to another server... on another network if need be... all transparently... :P

I don't know of ANY ISP who offers 100% network uptime, this is why hosting companies have multiple providers. Heck, if I could get 100% uptime with only 1 provider, our costs would decrease tremendously!

The reason we have had such good results with our network uptime is we have redundant connections from two different top tier 1 providers. This would not be possible with either of them alone.

I agree, 100% uptime is not possible with only one provider.

100% uptime is impossible - as any provider would go down -

$100-120 for a win2k server - its going to be rough. you may want to colocate.

well the network uptime 99.00% is Ok,
concerning about the HDD and the Memory. well i need at least 80GB.

I could be wrong, but I think Yahoo bailed on Exodus. You may want to double check that, but I am pretty sure.

Originally posted by RackMy.com
I could be wrong, but I think Yahoo bailed on Exodus. You may want to double check that, but I am pretty sure.

yup, you're wrong... heh... 64.58.76.178 (for me, it changes for ppl dependant on where they are/etc i think, thats just exodus' distributed content caching kicking in... heh)... thats yahoo's ip... when i do a traceroute to it... shows up all c&w/exodus to me... heh... but yahoo did add a lotta private peering in santa clara... heh... my ISP being one of their direct peers... heh... so its kinda odd that i go to a server hosted by exodus on the east coast when i go to www.yahoo.com... heh... but if i go to say chat.yahoo.com, it goes to their own private network... seems yahoo is keeping their main (and most important) site on exodus... heh... while bringing the hosting of services such as chat, all in-house...

"100% uptime is impossible" ... no its not... professional datacenters owned/operated by true tier-1 networks... unless theres another 9/11-type scenario, there are some that'd never go down... ... ... simply due to the amount of fiber/alternative routes available to a client/server... :P

99.00% is pretty poor uptime

if thats all u need, i'd say unitedcolo (they'll do a win2k install 4 u if u provide a key)...

Originally posted by 123x
well the network uptime 99.00% is Ok,
concerning about the HDD and the Memory. well i need at least 80GB.

doesn't UUNet say 100% uptime guarantee in their SLA (when i had a feed from 'em they did, did it change?)? (leaving the only probable point of failure being the local loop/routing equip on client side)... pick a true tier-1 provider (not cogent or some other bullsh*t company)... and then get into one of their own "premier" (as verio would put it) datacenters... with all the alternative routes/etc, u'd b set.... i mean... aside from paying out the @$$ for rackspace, it b all good... :D

Originally posted by Brad@RackMy
I don't know of ANY ISP who offers 100% network uptime, this is why hosting companies have multiple providers. Heck, if I could get 100% uptime with only 1 provider, our costs would decrease tremendously!

The reason we have had such good results with our network uptime is we have redundant connections from two different top tier 1 providers. This would not be possible with either of them alone.

I agree, 100% uptime is not possible with only one provider.

I don't think so. I think they have moved all of their interests out of Exodus

http://www.carrierhotels.com/news/January2002/yahoo0108.shtml
http://www.level3.com/press/2021.html
http://www.level3.com/press/2019.html

hmm... never noticed ebay leave... hmm... well... as far as the yahoo thing... it is refering to yahoo broadcast+media+finance... yahoo broadcast isn't the main site... is it? i mean... i know for ppl on west coast it loads off level3... but exodus' content delivery service also loads off level3 on west coast (i gotta find URL i had 2 figure that out)...

cuz u gotta remember... yahoo is divided into subsections... just cuz 1 section moves doesn't mean all of 'em do... :P

but east it loads off exodus 4 me... hmm... http://visualroute.visualware.com/ shows it loading off exodus... hmm...

very odd... chat.yahoo.com if u do a traceroute from that visualroute place... it also shows it going over exodus... heh... (from here it was via a direct peer onto the yahoo network)...

and i figure level3 has as much peering to verio as c&w does... heh... cuz when i do a traceroute from my servers on verio in san jose, it goes through level3...

but take note (on visualroute): www.yahoo.com loads from directly within an exodus datacenter (in sterling, va) whereas chat.yahoo.com seems to be in yahoo's facility in santa clara, with data only going over a exodus feed (possibly only a peer)...

i am willing to bet that yahoo's decision to change primary b/w providers (and create a datacenter with its own peering for that matter) was more of a financial one than a network one... heh... :P afterall, they are under the crunch to turn some profits... since the ad market is still pretty darn weak... heh...

cuz i figure making a datacenter and getting peering would be cheaper than paying exodus transit rates... (assuming one would have the brand-name awareness to attract peering partners, which yahoo does have)...

hey
:confused:
I want to get my Server up & runing ASAP........ Not the Yahoo problem:mad: :D

123x, Not sure how we can help. Sorry for hijacking the thread!

Netdude, do you laugh all the time .... hehehe.....

The main reason most placed bailed on Exodus was because it looked as if they were going under. With billions of dollars in the whole, people ran scared.

Originally posted by RackMy.com
Netdude, do you laugh all the time .... hehehe.....[/B]

dude... thats the only way to stay sane in the hosting world... :D too many scams/etc out there (i know ur reputable so i am in no way refering to you)... etc/etc/etc... too many companies that don't keep their promises... etc/etc/etc...

thats true - netdude

Originally posted by netdude
... pick a true tier-1 provider (not cogent or some other bullsh*t company)... and then get into one of their own "premier" (as verio would put it) datacenters... with all the alternative routes/etc, u'd b set.... i mean... aside from paying out the @$$ for rackspace, it b all good... :D



Even if you are in a Worldcom, Verio, etc data center, they typically have connections from other providers for redundancy and back up.

that is true - multi connections

Originally posted by 123x
well the network uptime 99.00% is Ok,
concerning about the HDD and the Memory. well i need at least 80GB.

you hosting warez?

Ohh no I have some big sites to host not Warez

yeah... connections from other providers being the extensive peering i was talking about... when i use a term like "premier" datacenter... i am not refering to just any datacenter owned by the company... but rather one in a hub city like san jose or palo alto or vienna or something like that... where there is a major MAE/NAP... and major private and public peering... (multiple fibers brought in from other carriers directly and from the MAEs and stuff)... :D

even tho i'm only here in van, bc, canada (relatively speaking, not much connectivity)... i had my equipment in the uunet pop here... and around 3 years ago, they had around a dozen OC12s and 3-4 OC48s... and a whole lotta OC3s... all going to other points on the UUnet Network and other carriers (as private peering)... on this side and US side of the border... and each feed would never PEAK above 5% utilization (its cute, they showed me their mrtg graphs on the local monitoring stations in the pop (their actual monitoring happens outa the toronto ontario noc))... so in the event of even a significant number of fibers failing, they had backups... plus... as far as routing equip goes... backup upon backup upon backup... so that wasn't goin' down... heh... (and of course, they charged accordingly.... lol)... and they did have a 100% SLA uptime guarantee...

Originally posted by Brad@RackMy


Even if you are in a Worldcom, Verio, etc data center, they typically have connections from other providers for redundancy and back up.