Results 1 to 20 of 20
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    4,685

    Back at Rackspace?

    Seems like WHT is back at Rackspace again! :O
    Last edited by JFSG; 10-15-2009 at 10:52 AM.

  2. #2
    Yup. Its been that way for a few weeks now I believe.


    Alex

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    4,685
    Cool. But I wonder, why don't WHT just stay at SoftLayer?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Dayton, Ohio
    Posts
    4,977
    Quote Originally Posted by LaptopFreak View Post
    Cool. But I wonder, why don't WHT just stay at SoftLayer?
    All of our servers have been at Rackspace; we only moved to SoftLayer to isolate WHT after the hack. SL could get the servers online quickly so I picked up the four servers from them. Once the compromised servers were rebuilt at RS and we were confident that WHT had been secured we took the steps to move the site back over to RS.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    4,685
    Quote Originally Posted by The Prohacker View Post
    All of our servers have been at Rackspace; we only moved to SoftLayer to isolate WHT after the hack. SL could get the servers online quickly so I picked up the four servers from them. Once the compromised servers were rebuilt at RS and we were confident that WHT had been secured we took the steps to move the site back over to RS.
    So the servers are colocated at RS? It has been half a year since the WHT hack. It sure took quite some time...

  6. #6
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Dayton, Ohio
    Posts
    4,977
    Quote Originally Posted by LaptopFreak View Post
    So the servers are colocated at RS? It has been half a year since the WHT hack. It sure took quite some time...
    We lease/rent servers from Rackspace. The move back to Rackspace happened a couple of weeks ago; things were running well at SoftLayer so I just wasn't in a great hurry to move things around once again. The additional cost of hosting off site wasn't terribly high so a quick move out and back in wasn't really necessary. Besides we had a lot of other irons in the fire at iNET so the priority wasn't moving back in.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    9,064
    Quote Originally Posted by The Prohacker View Post
    We lease/rent servers from Rackspace. The move back to Rackspace happened a couple of weeks ago; things were running well at SoftLayer so I just wasn't in a great hurry to move things around once again. The additional cost of hosting off site wasn't terribly high so a quick move out and back in wasn't really necessary. Besides we had a lot of other irons in the fire at iNET so the priority wasn't moving back in.
    Very cool information. Any hints about what Web Hosting Talk monthly bandwidth usage might be, Prohacker?

    -mike
    Mike G. - Limestone Networks - Account Specialist
    Cloud - Dedicated - Colocation - Premium Network - Passionate Support
    DDoS Protection Available - Reseller Program @LimestoneInc - 877.586.0555

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    4,568
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike - Limestone View Post
    Very cool information. Any hints about what Web Hosting Talk monthly bandwidth usage might be, Prohacker?

    -mike
    WHT never says that, but I am really curious also.


    *subs*

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Posts
    374
    I'd bet it's less than you think. 80% gzip compression on this pageview

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    9,064
    Quote Originally Posted by JG View Post
    I'd bet it's less than you think. 80% gzip compression on this pageview
    Nice catch there. I had not realized that WHT utilized gzip compression, but it makes sense.

    -mike

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    4,568
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike - Limestone View Post
    Nice catch there. I had not realized that WHT utilized gzip compression, but it makes sense.

    -mike
    http://webhostingtalk.com is gzipped
    Original Size: 99.34 KB
    Gzipped Size: 18.03 KB
    Data Savings: 81.85%


    That's pretty amazing, an 81.85% compression :O

  12. #12
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Dayton, Ohio
    Posts
    4,977
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike - Limestone View Post
    Very cool information. Any hints about what Web Hosting Talk monthly bandwidth usage might be, Prohacker?

    -mike
    Well it's complicated to get a handle on exactly how much just WHT consumes per month since we have so much gear. But when we were on just SoftLayer the two front facing web servers used about 460GB of transfer a month each. Plus we are using a CDN for images and I would assume about 100GB there.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Jax, FL
    Posts
    2,707
    Wow! That is quite interesting

    I would have suspected more but with the high level of compression it just goes to show even the biggest sites don't need that much bandwidth!
    Daniel | Server Complete, LLC
    INSTANTLY DEPLOYED Bare Metal Servers
    Wholly owned hardware and self operated network (AS19531) in Jacksonville, FL

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    4,568
    Quote Originally Posted by The Prohacker View Post
    Well it's complicated to get a handle on exactly how much just WHT consumes per month since we have so much gear. But when we were on just SoftLayer the two front facing web servers used about 460GB of transfer a month each. Plus we are using a CDN for images and I would assume about 100GB there.
    Wow that's amazing!

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    St. John's, NL
    Posts
    2,201
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike - Limestone View Post
    Nice catch there. I had not realized that WHT utilized gzip compression, but it makes sense.

    -mike
    It is very smart of them to do so. gzip compression takes very little CPU time and can cut bandwidth bills considerably. We use it for our shared hosting servers and clients love it.
    Cpanel/WHM • PHP • Perl • Ruby • Full Time Support
    LCWSoft - Canada web hosting (based in Newfoundland) since 2007
    Servers based in the US and Canada (Uptime Report)

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    4,685
    Quote Originally Posted by SC-Daniel View Post
    Wow! That is quite interesting

    I would have suspected more but with the high level of compression it just goes to show even the biggest sites don't need that much bandwidth!
    In some other threads, many suspected WHT is consuming more than 10TB of bandwidth!

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    1,435
    Quote Originally Posted by LaptopFreak View Post
    In some other threads, many suspected WHT is consuming more than 10TB of bandwidth!
    10 TB+ traffic for normal page view sites... Alexa ranking would be less than 500. WHT, the last time I checked was 28k~. Not a very big site... but WHT's traffic is very target oriented, hence all the activity.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Dayton, Ohio
    Posts
    4,977
    Quote Originally Posted by ganesh-rao View Post
    10 TB+ traffic for normal page view sites... Alexa ranking would be less than 500. WHT, the last time I checked was 28k~. Not a very big site... but WHT's traffic is very target oriented, hence all the activity.
    WHT's Alexa rank is 1,950


    If you look at all of our sites we push around 4TB a month before moving several large sites to a CDN. I don't normally check our bandwidth usage so I haven't checked post migration.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Moji
    Posts
    2,107
    Also WHT keeps the images at the minimum. i.e. no avatars, signature banners, images directly viewed at the post body etc. That should save quite a bit of BW.
    DigiPun.ch
    An Awesome Digital Punch Clock
    Release date: October 1st

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    9,064
    Quote Originally Posted by BurakUeda View Post
    Also WHT keeps the images at the minimum. i.e. no avatars, signature banners, images directly viewed at the post body etc. That should save quite a bit of BW.
    You're right. The banner ads likely use a fair bit of bandwidth, but then again, those also surely bring in a lot of revenue to more than make up for it.

    -mike
    Mike G. - Limestone Networks - Account Specialist
    Cloud - Dedicated - Colocation - Premium Network - Passionate Support
    DDoS Protection Available - Reseller Program @LimestoneInc - 877.586.0555

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-22-2009, 06:47 PM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-15-2009, 06:42 PM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-08-2009, 06:40 PM
  4. Supermico Minis Back to Back?
    By KyleLC23 in forum Colocation, Data Centers, IP Space and Networks
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 06-22-2007, 02:19 PM
  5. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 11-29-2003, 12:31 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •