Results 76 to 100 of 453
-
12-12-2010, 10:02 AM #76Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Feb 2003
- Location
- Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
- Posts
- 4,980
0
-
12-12-2010, 10:03 AM #77Aspiring Evangelist
- Join Date
- Dec 2006
- Posts
- 398
Well, if you were in fact pushed off the network for bandwidth use, then you won't be the last. That's not much of a consolation prize for you, but as I said earlier, I never thought that 100TB, in 2010, would be profitable (and still don't). Especially for the Softlayer network which they sell as a "premium network". They probably estimated a far lower number of customers actually pushing the full amount of bandwidth and now they have to find ways to pull that back.
0
-
12-12-2010, 10:55 AM #78Always there
- Join Date
- Jun 2004
- Location
- Europe
- Posts
- 3,822
Seattle, Dallas and WDC together have total 240 gigabit of bandwidth. 31 gbps is quite a large portion of that total capacity.
Well people, this is then the result of the market demand for month to month agreements. Not only clients can cancel agreements on a month to month basis, providers can do that as well. Like you see, this has some serious drawbacks.
To SimpleCDN i can only advice: if you restart your business elsewhere, make sure to sign a solid agreement long term. This benefits all parties. Carriers for example, will never sign month to month, always a year or even years. The same goes for racks of colocation space. If you did 31 gbps of traffic, then you simply were becoming an increasing risk if you guys were on a month to month agreement.
General advice to all webhostingtalk people: never build your business around the cheapest offer available in the market. If you have a business model, always try to assume that you have to pay average market price to rent the resources - then you can profit from the savings of cheaper offers but your business is not in danger if you have to shift to suppliers charging average market price (for whatever reason).
There you have it, they have too many different uplink providers to spread the commitment too. 100TB deals can be done profitable if you send the traffic to 1 or 2 transits and rest peer of the traffic when possible.
But peering cannot be done one sided, it should be balanced (unless you peer directly with access/eyeball providers).
Peering nowadays is actually more expensive then a mix of two/three transit providers with large commitments. Because most larger networks will not peer with you if you are on one peering exchange - or even if you are on multiple peering exchange on one continent - they only will peer with those having multiple peering points on multiple continents.
Thats were transport kicks in: and long range transport is currently more expensive then decent transit.
Can 100TB be done profitable in 2010: yes! can 100TB be done profitable in a network with many transit providers: probably not, unless you restrict the 100TB deal to only one or two transit providers - ie: not give them access to the full mix of transit providers. Now take a look at the Softlayer locations were they offer 100TB deals.... they cannot do that - since they have a mix of multiple providers in every location and have 1 x 10 gigabit to every transit provider with the exception of Internap that is 2 x 10 gbps on two of those locations.
----
I bet some of those 10 gbps came close to maximum lately and they already had to do some routing magic to balance the traffic over the wide array of transits available.Last edited by swiftnoc; 12-12-2010 at 11:06 AM.
█ Swiftway.net Your Business deserves our Quality - Experts on Hand since 2005. Europe & US locations, we operate our own network AS35017 Support response time <15 minutes 24/7
█ Introducing our new Entry level server line ! Support response time <15 minutes 24/7. Technology Fast 50 & Fast 500 award winning for multiple years, Your Business deserves Swiftway Quality.0
-
12-12-2010, 11:45 AM #79Newbie
- Join Date
- Aug 2010
- Posts
- 8
There is a large thread going at SL forum (since last two months or so) about WDC network problems and packet drops. This network is now stabilized as soon as they kicked out SimpleCDN (sorry I'm not happy about it either your situation). I think these two events are related to each other.
BTW, UK2 drops customers and this is not new. They shutdown Akamai cdn reselling account (0.10/per GB) with just 7 days notice. I wonder if they are stable enough (in terms of cash) to run business. When I contacted Akamai,they told me that there was some sort of dispute (but they refused to provide me exact details). Akamai later quoted us $0.75/GB with yearly contract. I will never use anything that is related to UK2 group, ever again.0
-
12-12-2010, 11:46 AM #80Web Hosting Guru
- Join Date
- Sep 2010
- Location
- Amsterdam
- Posts
- 280
Well 240 gbit doesn't sound like a lot of BW considering the deals they offer (with they I mean 100tb).
I bet some of those 10 gbps came close to maximum lately and they already had to do some routing magic to balance the traffic over the wide array of transits available.Java, C, PHP, AJAX development from the Netherlands
Also offering quality proactive server management
Need a quote? E-mail daniel at dg-services.nl0
-
12-12-2010, 11:50 AM #81Aspiring Evangelist
- Join Date
- Dec 2006
- Posts
- 398
What you neglected to add was that they (VPS.net) started with EdgeCast CDN, ended that and moved to Highwinds only, later added Akamai as a secondary CDN with whatever low price they had, and then converted all Akamai to Level 3. Something is a little odd there as well.
0
-
12-12-2010, 12:08 PM #82Streaming Specialist
- Join Date
- May 2003
- Location
- Moon
- Posts
- 1,177
I do not understand why uk2 not post any thing here yet I like to see their site story
█ Comcities.com| provide hosting solutions – Since 2002
█ Icecast Hosting | Shoutcast Hosting | Mobile Streaming | Live TV Streaming | Live Radio Streaming
█ CPanel Hosting Solutions | Dedicated Servers | Wowza Media Dedicated Servers | CDN Solutions0
-
12-12-2010, 12:26 PM #83Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Mar 2003
- Location
- Canada
- Posts
- 9,072
0
-
12-12-2010, 12:31 PM #84Streaming Specialist
- Join Date
- May 2003
- Location
- Moon
- Posts
- 1,177
simplecdn trying to blame softlayer / uk2 side but simplecdn also have some part of issues with their CDN infrastructure building
before this happen I think simplecdn maintain their own network█ Comcities.com| provide hosting solutions – Since 2002
█ Icecast Hosting | Shoutcast Hosting | Mobile Streaming | Live TV Streaming | Live Radio Streaming
█ CPanel Hosting Solutions | Dedicated Servers | Wowza Media Dedicated Servers | CDN Solutions0
-
12-12-2010, 12:47 PM #85Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Jul 2008
- Posts
- 972
I assume UK2 had an agreement with Softlayer where they'd have x capacity assigned to them, then UK2 sold on that capacity under the assumption only x% of customers would ever use it, however this specific customer has over reached on their "limit" (the one that UK2 must maintain to be profitable) and have therefore been kicked off.
It makes no sense whatsoever for this to be at the feet of Softlayer. If UK2 signed a contract stating "We won't allow CDN usage on this capacity" and then they did and Softlayer said "alright you've got to cut that out" doesn't that still make it UK2s responsibility as they broke their contract, not Softlayer? I just can't see Softlayer being the ones overselling here as they're not the ones selling that capacity on to customers so they surely can't say "well only x% will ever use that amount so we're okay!".0
-
12-12-2010, 12:50 PM #86Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Oct 2007
- Location
- United States
- Posts
- 1,182
If its not CDN then it will be something else. If you are maxing out your 100tb with multiple servers then you can apparently expect a new clause in their tos to kick you.
0
-
12-12-2010, 12:53 PM #87Junior Guru
- Join Date
- Aug 2009
- Location
- England
- Posts
- 198
This is a shame as SimpleCDN did mean I was able to provide large downloads faster to visitors of some of my sites.
I find it weird that UK2 didn't state they needed to charge more due to increased hosting costs as thats usually what happens, certainly a few years ago this happened to me on two different providers.Kind Regards
Christopher Smith0
-
12-12-2010, 12:54 PM #88Aspiring Evangelist
- Join Date
- Dec 2006
- Posts
- 398
That's absolutely correct. All of this is assumption until all of the facts come out. I don't think anyone is saying this is solely Softlayer's fault, but that also doesn't mean they didn't have a part in it. Either way, until both sides are heard, this is all pretty much speculation. Either way, it's a fascinating, and scary, story.
0
-
12-12-2010, 12:58 PM #89Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Jul 2008
- Posts
- 972
0
-
12-12-2010, 01:00 PM #90Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Mar 2010
- Posts
- 4,533
I guess this means 100tb claiming that this deal is profitable for them and softlayer is not true at all
For now on I will be calling 100tb.com 1tb.com and softlayer lowlayer. Changing the TOS just to kick a client out is crap. If they were having issues they should have not allowed simplecdn to order more servers instead of completely ruining there business.0
-
12-12-2010, 01:41 PM #91Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Oct 2001
- Location
- Ohio
- Posts
- 8,535
0
-
12-12-2010, 02:31 PM #92WHT Addict
- Join Date
- Mar 2007
- Location
- /home/Boston
- Posts
- 174
I was wondering how long that was going to take. I'm surprised it lasted as long as it did in the first place. They're extremely selective about who they have on their network and the UK2 group is *not* their target audience.
I'm interested to see where this goes. It's funny to see D and many others claiming up and down the interent that they're profitable @ 100% usage per machine then to see something like this happen.
I doubt we'll ever really know since anything that UK2 says is going to be used against them.
It wouldn't shock me if SimpleCDN had 200 other DMCAs they they never even knew about. Getting information through the UK2 Group machine is impossible, at best. We had the same thing happen to us, though it was only one server vs several hundred.0
-
12-12-2010, 02:38 PM #93Junior Guru
- Join Date
- Jan 2006
- Posts
- 245
It would not surprise me in the least if 100TB terminated them over bandwidth.
My server on the softlayer manage page (which 100TB actually let me have access to) only shows 30TB monthly transfer allocated to it. So I guess they increase the maximum bandwidth based on usage every month to save money.
The sort of situation that the OP is experiencing is just bad in general however. They should have at least given him a full months notice before cancelling so that he could transfer over to another provider.
I hope UK2 will let us know their side of the story or else they might lose a lot of potential customers (IMHO).0
-
12-12-2010, 03:15 PM #94Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Mar 2009
- Posts
- 3,816
0
-
12-12-2010, 04:26 PM #95Junior Guru Wannabe
- Join Date
- Dec 2010
- Posts
- 32
Again everyone here at SimpleCDN wants to thank the community for support, and again we want to apologize to our customers who really are the hardest hit.
Even with multiple emails, postings, twitter and /. - many customers this morning had no idea about the situation when they started up their live streams.
We've been helping them get back up, even setting up livestream accounts for them so they can get something out there until a permanent solution is found.
I can also report that FTP access has been restored, but we're maxing out our backup servers right now. I apologize that for those with huge videos the content is going to take many hours to download - but please stick with it, and we'll ensure continued access for as long as possible.0
-
12-12-2010, 05:26 PM #96Disabled
- Join Date
- Jun 2005
- Posts
- 3,455
I can assure all of you that the UK2 is reading this. They have send me a PM with a message that they are trying to understand my post about VPS.NET which means they have read this but have no answer to this which just means SimpleCDN is probably right.
They where cut off without a valid and legal reason. If I was SimpleCDN I would prepare a lawsuit. All this could be avoided if oversellers with unlimited hosting and fraudsters that offer 100TB are banned or are threated as illegal. Im sure eventually when governments and consumers understand the Internet better offers like this will be illegal if they are not sustainable (Maybe in 10 year) just like Cell carriers where put a stop in the EU this year. Because if someone is advertising something they cannot deliver its fraud to me. SimpleCDN has pointed they have received only 2 DMCA which is a joke. I received like 5 when I was in SL in less than 6 months.
The poster that said if other customers with DMCA using less bandwidth are shut down has a very valid point. To be honest I think the only reason why SimpleCDN was shutdown is because they where using "to much" or to say it on other words, what was advertised on 100TB.
This is not a SL issue to be honest, if U2K group was buying from SL and selling for less money for what they bought they where in trouble with SimpleCDN so they just added a clause to their TOS to disallow CDN which leads to my next question. How on earth are CDN services illegal on a dedicated server provider?
If it was the next youtube they would just add a clause that they dont allow video websites?
This is joke, why would the provider care if you use your servers for porn or a CND? If you are using it legally and paying for the bandwidth there should be 0 issues. But this smells like **** to be honest. I think SimpleCDN was shutdown for high traffic and if this was the case I hope the UK2 group burns down for this because you cannot keep doing fraud on the Internet and expect to get away with this. And to the UK2 group which is reading is, YES you are FRAUD, because it seems you could not deliver what you advertise. Most of your customers are not using 100TB but the ones that do are shutdown?
I hope SimppleCDN sues them for every penny they have. Otherwise why in the world do you are in sending me a PM but not replying to this? Maybe you dont have a answer...
To SimpleCDN my condolences and as well my critique that they are extremely stupid to have believed the 100TB offers. I was SimpleCDN I would have requested this on written. Of course im sure 100TB CANNOT give this on written to their customers because its a big fat advertising lie.
To inogenius that said "That's all that I can say regarding that issue per advice from our legal team"
I can reply this. Those who fear nothing dont hide anything. The people that say this know they did wrong, this is why they prefer to say "no comment". Im sorry Terry but you obviously work for crooks, which have shutdown SimpleCDN because they lied about their 100TB offerings. If this is not the case I expect the legal team to post a reply to all the customers of SimpleCDN, 100TB customers and to the community of WHT and the Internet in general. Why? Because if you are selling on the Internet and advertising here on WHT you are also responsible to give an answer when things go bad, not just when you want to sell something.
If im being to hard with my words I apologize myself but I do feel something was done wrong here and allot of damage was caused to another company that depends on your services.Last edited by nibb; 12-12-2010 at 05:36 PM.
0
-
12-12-2010, 05:43 PM #97Disabled
- Join Date
- Nov 2003
- Location
- Amidst several dimensions
- Posts
- 4,324
What im wanting to know, is where softlayer/theplanet stands on this issue.
Do they have ANYthing to do with this ?
I want to know, whether the server i have with them, will be giving me what bandwidth i am paying for, without any conditions or excuses.0
-
12-12-2010, 05:45 PM #98Marketing Maestro
- Join Date
- Dec 2007
- Location
- Isle of Man
- Posts
- 3,068
0
-
12-12-2010, 05:48 PM #99Newbie
- Join Date
- Jun 2010
- Posts
- 19
Well the facts are pretty simple with SoftLayer, they do not want CDN's on their network any longer, i know this as we are setting up a CDN and SL would not accept our order for 32 machines.
My thoughts on the 100tb deal is if you can not deliver what is promised DON'T deliver it period!
I was very skeptical to believe what happend to SimpleCDN, but as I looked and looked I am going to have to say they did in fact get it shoved up their A**.
Bottom line is this, SimpleCDN offered a good service at an unbeatable price. Problem is they did it on the backbones of people that were trying to compete with them.
The CDN we are setting up for our one sites has been in the works for months, we have great pricing on BW, but still can not offer services for what SimpleCDN sold it for.
I used to think very Highly of Softlayer, now that the truth is out about what they did to SimpleCDN I think they are scum.
No I am not an advocate, nor do I work for SimpleCDN...0
-
12-12-2010, 05:51 PM #100Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Jul 2008
- Posts
- 972
It's most likely that Softlayers agreement with UK2 for the 100TB bandwidth deal stated that they're not allowed to host CDNs, however 100TB at no point passed this on to customers, therefore when Softlayer noticed SimpleCDN pushes so much bandwidth they investigated and gave UK2 an ultimatum: get this off our network or the deal is off.
Pure speculation of course, but it seems the most logical. It makes no sense for Softlayer to do a u-turn on their side of the deal otherwise wouldn't they be breaking their contracts with UK2?
I really do suggest you wait before passing judgement, especially upon Softlayer.0
Similar Threads
-
HostGator.com Down? [Threads merged]
By Tinkleondabeach in forum Providers and Network Outages and UpdatesReplies: 51Last Post: 05-13-2009, 05:47 PM -
Have any ideas? [Threads Merged]
By rwc-toys in forum Web Design and ContentReplies: 11Last Post: 06-28-2005, 06:42 AM -
Level3 down {Threads Merged}
By JodoHost in forum Providers and Network Outages and UpdatesReplies: 20Last Post: 10-19-2004, 04:31 AM