You may have noticed a new “powered by” logo at the top of WHT. It’s true. Well, almost.

We are in the process of transitioning our hosting infrastructure to Liquid Web. We expect to be fully transitioned by the end of the month.

Rackspace has been a great partner of WHT for many years. They have provided splendid service in both good times and bad. Although we couldn't come to an agreement on contract renewal, we're looking forward to Rackspace's continued association with WHT and iNET.

Congrats on the move :D

Already moved or going to by the end of the month?

Nice :-) confirmed domain thanks for reporting it thanks for your review.





P.s Someone is going to that serious :eek:

Already moved or going to by the end of the month?
By the end of the month.

Looking forward to the smooth transition from RackSpace to LiquidWeb

I was going to just post a thread about this, beat me to it :)

Uh oh is that why WHT is laggy lately? lol

Oh well closer to me I guess :P

Hope the move goes well for you guys.

Interesting, will be nice to see how things go.

That is interesting news, I REALLY wish I'd known you were considering moving.

This should be better as all eyes would be on, And as always expectations will be high We will wait until the transition is all complete.

Ajesh Binoy

That is interesting news, I REALLY wish I'd known you were considering moving.
Why? Wanted to jump in and make a competitive offer? lol

Great to hear, Liquid Web is a wonderful company. Makes me wonder if RackSpace is making the forum lag on purpose :think:

I'm sure that LiquidWeb can be a good home for WHT. Worst case scenario, there's always Rackspace. :)

Like Mike asked, how did you get to select them anyways? Not that they aren't a great provider, but just curious why and how you got to them.

Uh oh is that why WHT is laggy lately? lol

Not so much. (http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showpost.php?p=6779244&postcount=5)

Sirius

Like Mike asked, how did you get to select them anyways? Not that they aren't a great provider, but just curious why and how you got to them.There are a lot of great hosting companies out there. Unfortunately, we can’t do business with all of them. We have had a portion of our operation at Liquid Web for years, and they’ve done a great job. It was the natural choice.

There are a lot of great hosting companies out there. Unfortunately, we can’t do business with all of them. We have had a portion of our operation at Liquid Web for years, and they’ve done a great job. It was the natural choice.
Actually I was asking why the person said "I wish you would have let us know this sooner..." as though they would have done something to change the outcome. If you look at my last post and the post I quoted you'll understand :)

I am sure LiquidWeb will work out :)

I'm surprised MikeDVB hasn't talked about how WHT should be hosted by Softlayer yet.

I'm surprised MikeDVB hasn't talked about how WHT should be hosted by Softlayer yet.
There's only one thing that keeps me from suggesting that and it's that SoftLayer is an unmanaged provider. I can only assume iNet used RackSpace due to the management...

From the issues that were had in the past WHT always talked about how RackSpace was working on this or that and listed certain techs at RS... I can assume that RS wanted to increase pricing from ridiculous to atrocious on the newest contract renewal at which point iNet started looking at alternative fully managed providers that could set up and maintain their solution while saving some money and LiquidWeb is a logical choice at that point...

So beyond all of that - I think SoftLayer would make a good solution ... if WHT had their own in-house administrators to maintain the hardware/software/cluster/etc.

In reality, they could have gone with an unmanaged provider like Gigenet or Softlayer and then used a managed service like Rack911. They would have been better off that way.

In reality, they could have gone with an unmanaged provider like Gigenet or Softlayer and then used a managed service like Rack911. They would have been better off that way.
Maybe or maybe not, ultimately the decision was up to them as to what they chose to do and I can see why they would make such a decision wanting the management to be in-house due to how custom their setup likely is.

As I stated, there are a lot of great hosting companies out there. Unfortunately, we can’t do business with all of them. We have had a portion of our operation at Liquid Web for years, and they’ve done a great job. It was the natural choice.

Considering our relationship with Liquid Web at the time, there really wasn't need to look elsewhere. While "managed" was definitely one of the criteria, I think our relationship experience with Liquid Web was a larger factor.

In reality, they could have gone with an unmanaged provider like Gigenet or Softlayer and then used a managed service like Rack911. They would have been better off that way.

I doubt it. As they probably need more than someone off site could provide. I'm sure they need techs who know what their doing on site.

Kind surprised Wiredtree wasn't used. But if Inet already used liquid I'm not really too shocked.

Well congrats and good luck

Hope this will even improve the quality. Even till date i don't find any problem as the forum loads awesomely and would love to hear about Liquidhosting reviews from you...

There's only one thing that keeps me from suggesting that and it's that SoftLayer is an unmanaged provider. I can only assume iNet used RackSpace due to the management...

From the issues that were had in the past WHT always talked about how RackSpace was working on this or that and listed certain techs at RS... I can assume that RS wanted to increase pricing from ridiculous to atrocious on the newest contract renewal at which point iNet started looking at alternative fully managed providers that could set up and maintain their solution while saving some money and LiquidWeb is a logical choice at that point...

So beyond all of that - I think SoftLayer would make a good solution ... if WHT had their own in-house administrators to maintain the hardware/software/cluster/etc.

WHT has used SoftLayer on multiple occasions for hosting. :P

I have heard lot of good things about liquidweb. Hope the transfer will go well without any problem. WHT has huge database.

Just curious, didn't rackspace try to do something extra to keep WHT with them?

I'm not sure it would be appropriate to discuss the details of either negotiation. ;)

So whats the WHT infrastructure details? ;)

Good question! I'll see if we can get Mat in here to say something. :)

If I remember he had an excellent Power Point on it (I wish I took notes). ;)

So beyond all of that - I think SoftLayer would make a good solution ... if WHT had their own in-house administrators to maintain the hardware/software/cluster/etc.

wink wink! ;)

Lmao.

Hmmmm I was shocked why iNET chose LW :-)

Oh well, their choice. Good luck!

Hmmmm I was shocked why iNET chose LW :-)

Oh well, their choice. Good luck!

Nominate JoneSolutions just in case Liquid Web screws up.

Somebody needs to tell iNET to be wise with the ads, I get the message you're hosted by Liquid Web about 5-6 times over. Why so many heroes.

There's only one thing that keeps me from suggesting that and it's that SoftLayer is an unmanaged provider. I can only assume iNet used RackSpace due to the management...

From the issues that were had in the past WHT always talked about how RackSpace was working on this or that and listed certain techs at RS... I can assume that RS wanted to increase pricing from ridiculous to atrocious on the newest contract renewal at which point iNet started looking at alternative fully managed providers that could set up and maintain their solution while saving some money and LiquidWeb is a logical choice at that point...

So beyond all of that - I think SoftLayer would make a good solution ... if WHT had their own in-house administrators to maintain the hardware/software/cluster/etc.

I thought Rackspace would have hosted WHT for nothing give the amount of publicity they got from it...

I thought Rackspace would have hosted WHT for nothing give the amount of publicity they got from it...If you knew how large the iNet server infrastructure was, you'd understand why this doesn't necessary work out ;)

I'm not sure just how large it is now, and I'm not sure iNet would want to broadcast specifics, but suffice it to say, we're not just talking about a server or two!

Why? Wanted to jump in and make a competitive offer? lol

Yes, actually I would have.

Yes, actually I would have.

:) I nominate this reply as Reply of the Day!

heh, well this explains the slowness. :mad:

Juuuust kidding. Congrats to LW. :agree:

Since you guys are still on the Rackspace network, isn't it misleading to put up powered by ads a month ahead of time?

I'm surprised MikeDVB hasn't talked about how WHT should be hosted by Softlayer yet.
They have been in the past. Since things went back to RS, one can only assume they didn't work out.
Since you guys are still on the Rackspace network, isn't it misleading to put up powered by ads a month ahead of time?
Misleading? Maybe not, but that ad most definitely looks TACKY. Come on, something that blends in with the theme is not THAT hard to come up with.

Yes, actually I would have.


iNET isn't willing to pick any company, only companies that they know are in business for many years and have a proven track record.

For example, Web Hosting Talk is not going to pick "Bob's Hosting" to host their infrastructure. There are a limited amount of hosts that are even considered valid for their choices.

iNET isn't willing to pick any company, only companies that they know are in business for many years and have a proven track record.
I think iNet are aware of who JKLIVIN is ;)

Hi Lenny :wavey:

rofl.....all the hoo haa because WHT changed providers.

god speed WHT

owm

iNET isn't willing to pick any company, only companies that they know are in business for many years and have a proven track record.

For example, Web Hosting Talk is not going to pick "Bob's Hosting" to host their infrastructure. There are a limited amount of hosts that are even considered valid for their choices.

That was a joke right ?

@XfactorServers

Why would it be a joke? I agree with what he says it would be silly if WHT Just turned around and picked some random host that only has been online for a year maximum. Anything could happen and I don’t think iNET is that stupid.

@XfactorServers

Why would it be a joke? I agree with what he says it would be silly if WHT Just turned around and picked some random host that only has been online for a year maximum. Anything could happen and I don’t think iNET is that stupid.

He is quoting someone that has been on boards since 01 (pretty much when wht started) and how on earth do you know he isn't a reputable host ?

I think iNet are aware of who JKLIVIN is ;)

Hi Lenny :wavey:

;)

Hello J.. It has been a while.

Regardless, kudos to Liquid Web that was a really nice snag!

He is quoting someone that has been on boards since 01 (pretty much when wht started) and how on earth do you know he isn't a reputable host ?

Just because someone's been "around the boards" since '01 doesn't make 'em reliable, nor does their post count.
I'm sure iNet takes a number of things into consideration when picking new DC's.

Just because someone's been "around the boards" since '01 doesn't make 'em reliable, nor does their post count...Of course it does!

[maybe] :P



*stares at own join date and post count :blush:

*stares at own join date and post count :blush:
We all know you're the exception to the rule ;)

Just because someone's been "around the boards" since '01 doesn't make 'em reliable, nor does their post count.

You're just jealous of us 2001'ers! Sorry that you're nine months too late! :) :stickout:

You're just jealous of us 2001'ers! Sorry that you're nine months too late! :) :stickout:

Nonsense, I'm quite proud of my '02 reg date, and my 6000+ posts, so :P

Just because someone's been "around the boards" since '01 doesn't make 'em reliable, nor does their post count.

I wouldn't know the first thing about hosting, but I am reliable :D Even if I joined in 2000, I still wouldn't know a thing about hosting :blush:

Tracing route to webhostingtalk.com [69.20.126.12]
15 135 ms 121 ms 136 ms RACKSPACE-M.edge1.Washington4.Level3.net [4.53.1
12.46]
16 126 ms 120 ms 133 ms vlan903.core3.iad1.rackspace.com [69.20.1.40]
17 141 ms 136 ms 115 ms aggr102a.iad1.rackspace.com [69.20.3.11]
18 109 ms 110 ms 105 ms 69.20.126.12

Trace complete.

seems it's still hosted @ rackspace?

Regards,

I'm not sure just how large it is now, and I'm not sure iNet would want to broadcast specifics, but suffice it to say, we're not just talking about a server or two!

Seen this posted quite a few times http://www.inetstatus.net xD

Seen this posted quite a few times http://www.inetstatus.net xDYeah...that still doesn't tell you how many servers they have ;) - if you're using that as a basis, I believe you're a little low...

Yeah...that still doesn't tell you how many servers they have ;) - if you're using that as a basis, I believe you're a little low...

Oh ok. :cool:

great stuff, now please dump the sharethis button since it wrecks loading speed and stops loading the rest of the forum until that silly button is loaded, and the sharethis servers are cramping at the moment...

great stuff, now please dump the sharethis button since it wrecks loading speed and stops loading the rest of the forum until that silly button is loaded, and the sharethis servers are cramping at the moment...

You do know unless the share this button has been pressed it will not load anything? so what you're saying is incorrect :eek: Oh and nothing is wrong with their servers

Ahuh, that's why the whole forum stopped loading and in the status bar it said:

connecting to w.sharethis.com...

How could you say what you've said without first hand experience?

//EDIT

servers seem back to normal again... Must've been a single hick-up in the connection to sharethis.com

Ahuh, that's why the whole forum stopped loading and in the status bar it said:

connecting to w.sharethis.com...

How could you say what you've said without first hand experience?

//EDIT

servers seem back to normal again... Must've been a single hick-up in the connection to sharethis.com

Because I’ve been sitting here for the last 20 minutes refreshing pages, and that has never came up, not even once, it’s only if the button on the post is actually pressed, and their servers have been fine on this end all along, and checked it multiple times after you posted your post above.:agree:

Because I’ve been sitting here for the last 20 minutes refreshing pages, and that has never came up, not even once, it’s only if the button on the post is actually pressed, and their servers have been fine on this end all along, and checked it multiple times after you posted your post above.

where you live? I live in The Netherlands, EU.

where you live? I live in The Netherlands, EU.

At the moment I am in London, United Kingdom, I did try it on one of my dedicated servers though, that’s located there, and same issue as you, but my actual connection (PC) is not having the issue.

Nonetheless though, might be best to disable it anyhow, because it seems it does indeed cause many problems for websites after looking on Google for w.sharethis.com

http://i43.tinypic.com/2mnpqp1.jpg

wow, that's quite worrying.

Thanks for confirming the connection problems on your end as well. Perhaps WHT should use a self-hosted solution for this...?

I stopped using Zopim for the same reason.

Yeah...that still doesn't tell you how many servers they have ;) - if you're using that as a basis, I believe you're a little low...


Yeah, I've been told the real deal. They have a 1and1 vps with multiple ips that's why you see so many

Could it be the connections from Europe to the network from Liquidweb is not so good ? From time to time the forum is slow or u can't even reach it for a period of 10 minutes. It just happened to me again, and now everything is working fine again. I am not having troubles reaching any other sites.



1 6 ms 6 ms 7 ms d5153D001.access.telenet.be
2 13 ms 8 ms 7 ms dD5E0C4A1.access.telenet.be
3 6 ms 7 ms 7 ms dD5E0FD39.access.telenet.be
4 41 ms 47 ms 53 ms dD5E0FD35.access.telenet.be
5 10 ms 11 ms 8 ms te3-2.ar1.NLD1.ANT1.gblx.net [64.215.184.29]
6 113 ms 115 ms 113 ms GIGLINX.TenGigabitEthernet3-1.ar5.CHI2.gblx.net
[208.49.135.162]
7 142 ms 122 ms 121 ms lw-dc2-core3-te9-1.rtr.liquidweb.com [209.59.157
.224]
8 120 ms 121 ms 120 ms lw-dc3-core5-ge1-13.rtr.liquidweb.com [209.59.15
7.105]
9 121 ms 122 ms 120 ms lw-dc3-dist8-po5.rtr.liquidweb.com [69.167.128.1
33]
10 123 ms 122 ms 123 ms 69.167.128.153
11 * * * Time-out bij opdracht.
12 * * * Time-out bij opdracht.
13 * * * Time-out bij opdracht.
14 * * * Time-out bij opdracht.
15 * * * Time-out bij opdracht.
16 * * * Time-out bij opdracht.
17 * * * Time-out bij opdracht.
18 * * * Time-out bij opdracht.
19 * * * Time-out bij opdracht.
20 * * * Time-out bij opdracht.
21 * * * Time-out bij opdracht.
22 * * * Time-out bij opdracht.
23 * * * Time-out bij opdracht.
24 * * * Time-out bij opdracht.
25 * * * Time-out bij opdracht.
26 * * * Time-out bij opdracht.
27 * * * Time-out bij opdracht.
28 * * * Time-out bij opdracht.
29 * * * Time-out bij opdracht.
30 * * * Time-out bij opdracht.

Now i just got some database errors, but they are not related to the other problems.

@target - your traceroute shows that the trace is failing *inside* of LW's datacenter which would lead me to believe it doesn't have anything to do with your location.

@target - your traceroute shows that the trace is failing *inside* of LW's datacenter which would lead me to believe it doesn't have anything to do with your location.


Are other people having the same problems ?

Are other people having the same problems ?

I live in America and I have been having timeouts and slowdowns also so it is not just you.

I don't understand, it's bad advertising for Liquidweb.

I don't understand, it's bad advertising for Liquidweb.

Considering some companies would give their left arm for the chance to host WHT and get the ads LW gets out of this... I don't think it's bad advertising ;)

Considering some companies would give their left arm for the chance to host WHT and get the ads LW gets out of this... I don't think it's bad advertising ;)

I think they were referring to it being bad to advertise that LW hosts the forum and then the forum runs slow or has networking problems.

At least, that's how I understood the post.

For me WHT has been working just fine.

cool

Outlaw Web Master is powered by Budweiser. :)

owm

cool

Outlaw Web Master is powered by Budweiser. :)

owm

ew.

Give me a Red Stripe. Or a Summer Shandy. Or, if it's summer and there's really nothing else available, I'll take a corona.

ew.

Give me a Red Stripe. Or a Summer Shandy. Or, if it's summer and there's really nothing else available, I'll take a corona.

Bleh - Give me Jack Daniels... Enough with the sissy drinks /lol

Bleh - Give me Jack Daniels... Enough with the sissy drinks /lol

OH, if you want to step it up to liquor: I'll take some Jameson. Or, I have a new favorite: Herradura Anejo. Failing that, I guess I'll take some Patron.

LOL ... right now I'm being powered by Dr. Pepper. Congrats to Liquid Web. :D

Bleh - Give me Jack Daniels... Enough with the sissy drinks /lol

Jack and Coke FTW!

OH, if you want to step it up to liquor: I'll take some Jameson. Or, I have a new favorite: Herradura Anejo. Failing that, I guess I'll take some Patron.

I'm not a huge fan of Patron but Jameson isn't bad... I've always enjoyed Jack Daniels though and it's a nice touch that when I visit the wife's mom we're only about an hour away from the Distillery :)

I'm not a huge fan of Patron but Jameson isn't bad... I've always enjoyed Jack Daniels though and it's a nice touch that when I visit the wife's mom we're only about an hour away from the Distillery :)

My mum drinks Jack, and it's definitely not bad. I'd love to go to the distillery. I was trying to figure out what to give ma for christmas this year. Maybe I'll get her a vacation. :D

I think they were referring to it being bad to advertise that LW hosts the forum and then the forum runs slow or has networking problems.

At least, that's how I understood the post.

For me WHT has been working just fine.

Yep, that's what i ment ... i would never go with them after having this problems at least once or twice a week.

Yep, that's what i ment ... i would never go with them after having this problems at least once or twice a week.

I've not had any issues at all and I'm on WHT almost every waking hour :)

I've not had any issues at all and I'm on WHT almost every waking hour :)


Same here :) But I will keep an eye out for anything. I am checking into international connections but from what I have seen from a couple of VPS accounts that are in Europe things are humming along nicely.

With our new configuration; I am still tweaking settings getting things optimal and tonight I plan to restart the DB servers. I have changed a couple of the query caching options and increased the maximum connections allowed (this is the error most people were getting when seeing a DB error).

I've not had any issues at all and I'm on WHT almost every waking hour :)

Maybe because Indiana is close to Michigan :stickout:.

I know I'm not having any issues either for me.

I've not had any issues at all and I'm on WHT almost every waking hour :)

That's why i tought it was some kind of network problem or something ? I am on here twice a day.

My mum drinks Jack, and it's definitely not bad. I'd love to go to the distillery. I was trying to figure out what to give ma for christmas this year. Maybe I'll get her a vacation. :D

How about this potent stuff :) http://www.winechateau.com/vsku1004371_EVERCLEAR-GRAIN-ALCOHOL-190@-750ML

I myself have tried bacardi rum and drunk it plain. Although not bad I do not enjoy any form of beer or alcohol besides watching people who forgot what happened the next day.


On topic: I have not had a slowdown yet today but yesterday it took about 5-10 minutes to view some threads but I was fine everywhere else...

I checked on Pingdom and they caught an outage this morning from 2:22:17AM to 2:29:17AM Eastern and this was related to the DB server running into the maximum amount of allowed connections. I have increased this limit and I will be restarting the DB server tonight for the change to take affect.

I checked on Pingdom and they caught an outage this morning from 2:22:17AM to 2:29:17AM Eastern and this was related to the DB server running into the maximum amount of allowed connections. I have increased this limit and I will be restarting the DB server tonight for the change to take affect.

This explains earlier thanks.
If I ever get a slowdown again I will run a tracert to see whats going on about me and 1-2 others getting slowdowns, if it is us or the server.

This explains earlier thanks.
If I ever get a slowdown again I will run a tracert to see whats going on about me and 1-2 others getting slowdowns, if it is us or the server.

We actually do not allow ICMP in through the firewall at the moment. I am going to allow for traceroutes and ping access but it's not really a requirement so I just haven't had time to get in and allow it.

Also I have dug into the outage a bit more and why all of a sudden this connection limit was hit. In the same time range last night a single IP address 70,000+ requests in less than 20 minutes. No wonder the max connections was reached :)

WHT seems to be running great. Good job Prohacker and Liquid Web.

I checked on Pingdom and they caught an outage this morning from 2:22:17AM to 2:29:17AM Eastern and this was related to the DB server running into the maximum amount of allowed connections. I have increased this limit and I will be restarting the DB server tonight for the change to take affect.

The problems i had (look at the tracert i did) were about 10 to 15 minutes before the database error.

We actually do not allow ICMP in through the firewall at the moment. I am going to allow for traceroutes and ping access but it's not really a requirement so I just haven't had time to get in and allow it.

Also I have dug into the outage a bit more and why all of a sudden this connection limit was hit. In the same time range last night a single IP address 70,000+ requests in less than 20 minutes. No wonder the max connections was reached :)

Ok, maybe this explains it. Weird thing it's not a one time thing.

In the same time range last night a single IP address 70,000+ requests in less than 20 minutes. No wonder the max connections was reached :)

What was there intent? A lame attempt of a DDOS or something else?

A single IP is far from distrubuted. :P

What was there intent? A lame attempt of a DDOS or something else?


Crawling content, either to try and harvest things like email addresses or to steal content and put it online as their own.

Interesting...Thanks for the info.

My browsing at WHT has been great since the move to LiquidWeb, I haven't noticed any slow-downs recently.

Seems to be good. Next contract negotiation you should make it a public bid. We would have traded out for advertising. We have tons and tons of available space/bandwidth at RackSpace right now. Could have kept you where you were :P

Seems to be good. Next contract negotiation you should make it a public bid. We would have traded out for advertising. We have tons and tons of available space/bandwidth at RackSpace right now. Could have kept you where you were :P


I think they dont like RS due to what happened when they were hacked

I think they dont like RS due to what happened when they were hackedThere was only one reason for the move - contract negotiations.

IIRC you did not like the way Rackspace managed the situation when you got hacked

IIRC you did not like the way Rackspace managed the situation when you got hacked

IIRC When they announced the move it was due to contract negotiations ...

cool

Outlaw Web Master is powered by Budweiser. :)

owm

That's one of the best replies to this thread... here we go... biju powered by kingfisher.

Bleh - Give me Jack Daniels

i hear that makes the hair grow on your fanny :)

it's the ultimate big girl drink.....well B*a*'s favourite anyway. :D

and yes....roll on the Kingfisher beer.

owm