Results 1 to 14 of 14
  1. #1

    VPS.net - A lot of Recent Downtime

    I have been with VPS.net for half a year. I have had to put in a number of support tickets throughout the time I have been with them. The last 2 weeks though have been a nightmare. My server has gone down 4 times, and each time it has stayed down for hours and hours. I have a number of customer accounts, needless to say they are furious (at me!) I will be surprised if I keep their business much longer! Last night saw my most recent outage, as a result just this morning I was notified that I would be moved to the "new" SAN. My server is on the Atlanta D zone.

    I cannot have another outage, especially in the next few weeks. I am wondering if I should bite the bullet and change providers. Can I trust this "new" SAN will make a difference? The stakes are high for me. Does any one have other recommendations. I am need CentOS with Cpanel/WHM.

    Thanks,

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    150
    I would suggest reading reviews on WHT and making your own decision from there. I have read a lot of threads about outages so you are not alone. But granted they run a pretty huge infrastructure and as the old saying goes, happy clients are likely not to post reviews and angry clients are more than likely to.

    Any reason why your applications require a cloud? Why not try out a VPS?
    Brian Oliver - COO
    XFuse Solutions, LLC
    Fusing Superior Support with Superior Web Solutions
    http://www.xfusesolutions.com

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    30
    I would go with another provider before your reputation turns into a bad one. Try LeaseWeb, Their rather good when it comes to VPS's.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    653
    VPS.net have been growing very rapidly, unfortunately a natural side effect is slow ticket responses until they can balance out again with staff vs. customers. Generally or cost reasons most businesses get the customers prior to the additional staff.

    In your situation though it doesn't seem like you can afford to wait for that to happen, as the above posts have mentioned I might consider looking for other providers at least until VPS.net can stabilize again. They've had some great reviews in the past, I don't have any personal experience with them but I can't help but think they have something good going on.

    Stray away at least for a bit, don't lose that reputation of yours!
    www.BigScoots.com - Experience the Difference, Ride With Us
    Specializing in Premium Shared, Reseller, VPS, Hybrid and Dedicated Hosting
    Fully Managed | 100% Positive Approval Rating! | Server Migrations
    REAL 24/7/365 US Based ~5 Minute Response Times | 100% Network Uptime

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Rotherham, UK
    Posts
    1,539
    Cut your losses
    Virtual6 - UK Dedicated Servers, Colocation and VPS.
    UK Supermicro Xeon E3-1240v3 Dedicated servers, up to 4x drives, 8GB - 32GB RAM.
    European KVM VPS with guaranteed vCPU, Auto DDoS detection & mitigation, Proxmox VE 3.x control panel.

  6. #6
    ther requirements you are asking for should be very easy for any host to fill.
    www.Hostd8.com "Where the client comes first!"
    Ultra Fast Unmetered Dedicated Servers
    Ultra Fast VPS's
    Budget Line Shared Hosting

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    249
    I must say, I sent a ticket in today and had a reply in 3 minutes and a resolution in 15. My cloud server in Atlanta has had 100% uptime since I purchased it two months ago

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    8,299
    Quote Originally Posted by streamln View Post
    I have been with VPS.net for half a year. I have had to put in a number of support tickets throughout the time I have been with them. The last 2 weeks though have been a nightmare. My server has gone down 4 times, and each time it has stayed down for hours and hours. I have a number of customer accounts, needless to say they are furious (at me!) I will be surprised if I keep their business much longer! Last night saw my most recent outage, as a result just this morning I was notified that I would be moved to the "new" SAN. My server is on the Atlanta D zone.

    I cannot have another outage, especially in the next few weeks. I am wondering if I should bite the bullet and change providers. Can I trust this "new" SAN will make a difference? The stakes are high for me. Does any one have other recommendations. I am need CentOS with Cpanel/WHM.

    Thanks,
    Sorry - we're having some trouble with a legacy SAN unit that is experiencing some problems. It's performance is poor, at best, but unfortunately due to some software on it we're not really able to diagnose and troubleshoot the issues. We had plans to migrate everyone from this SAN already, but the problems experienced this week have caused us to move them up. Once moved to the new SANs you'll see a dramatic improvement in speed and reliability. Please feel free to contact me at terry(at)vps.net and we'd be happy to compensate you for the problems experienced.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    PA, USA
    Posts
    5,137
    Quote Originally Posted by Pheonix VPS View Post
    Personally I do not feel cloud is mature yet.
    The issue is with VPS.net, and not cloud in general. At least, nothing wrong with our cloud. It is as mature, and even more redundant, than our VPS nodes.

    We also have the same exact SAN issue when we tried them. It seems the SAN issue was not only limited to SLC-F ...
    Fluid Hosting, LLC - HSphere Shared and Reseller hosting - Now with HIGH AVAILABILITY
    Fluid VPS - Linux and Windows Virtuozzo VPS - Enterprise VPS with up to 2 GB guaranteed memory!
    Get your N+1 High Availability Enterprise Cloud
    Equinix Secaucus NY2 (NYC Metro)

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    8,299
    Quote Originally Posted by FHDave View Post
    The issue is with VPS.net, and not cloud in general. At least, nothing wrong with our cloud. It is as mature, and even more redundant, than our VPS nodes.

    We also have the same exact SAN issue when we tried them. It seems the SAN issue was not only limited to SLC-F ...
    Two separate issues. SLC-F was due to a SAN crash and the RAID card having difficulty during the re-sync period. This problem is more software.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    /bin/sh
    Posts
    814
    Quote Originally Posted by IGobyTerry View Post
    This problem is more software.
    problem with onapp or san or both ? what do you use for san, nexenta ?

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    8,299
    Quote Originally Posted by linuxissues View Post
    problem with onapp or san or both ? what do you use for san, nexenta ?
    No, OnApp is great. This is a problem with the SAN software we originally chose to go with to setup redundant SANs. We've since switched to Starwinds and have had an awesome, near flawless, experience.

    We're not using Nexenta on any SANs.

  13. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by IGobyTerry View Post
    No, OnApp is great. This is a problem with the SAN software we originally chose to go with to setup redundant SANs. We've since switched to Starwinds and have had an awesome, near flawless, experience.

    We're not using Nexenta on any SANs.
    Glad to hear you've got this worked out for your new SAN

    For what it's worth, this is why I cringe when I hear the words "cloud" or "SAN". The two thoughts that immediately run through my mind are "expensive", and "unreliable", with "over-hyped" being a third thought that's not far behind.

    Storing data on attached hard disks is a mature technology, inexpensive, fast, and reliable. Storing data on SANs, pretty much the opposite. New technology, very expensive compared to the alternative, with many points of failure. You can engineer out a large number of these points of failure, so they're at least not single-points-of-failure, but there's still a lot more that can go wrong in a SAN than with attached storage.

    People really need to ask themselves, what is more likely? A cpu node failing outright, and them needing to migrate their data and workload to another node, or a SAN failing or misbehaving, and absolutely everyone on that SAN having performance issues. I've certainly heard of more stories of the latter more than the former.

    If a CPU node fails in a typical VPS setup, you can replace the motherboard, cpu, ram, power supply, or *whatever* was failing, and move on with your life. Even an array rebuild is not quite as big of a deal, because it only affects the data of a single set of customers using that one node. On a "cloud" setup, any number of things can go wrong which would take down many of your nodes at the same time: a network failure between the nodes and the SAN (either a soft failure, like some performance issue, or a hard failure, such as a faulty nic, cable, switch, or router), a software issue on the SAN (it's hard to build SAN software that's reliable, which is why the big boys charge so much for their SANs), an unexpected performance ceiling on the SAN (a common thing, and much more difficult to work around than a performance ceiling on a local storage node), or an outright SAN storage node failure (at least as likely as a VPS node failure, since both are just regular servers typically). So to eliminate some of these points of failure, you build a redundant SAN: two SAN servers, two redundant arrays storing all of your data, two SAN networks if possible. If you're thinking this sounds expensive, you're right.

    And what do you actually get for all of this? Well, reduced performance for one. It's not easy pushing a huge amount of storage data over tcp/ip. Secondly, increased cost, which should be obvious. And third, reduced reliability. The only positive is that you can move a VPS from one VPS node to another quite easily in order to work around any CPU or RAM bottlenecks, which makes it easier to scale the CPU and RAM on a given VPS up or down on demand. In reality, it would generally be cheaper to just under-sell a typical VPS node, leaving some CPU and RAM free in the first place to allow people to upgrade as needed. This isn't quite as flexible as cloud, but will generally give customers what they need.

    Oh, the biggest benefit to cloud and SAN storage is that you can call your offering a cloud. Almost forgot about that one.
    Phoenix Dedicated Servers -- IOFLOOD.com
    Email: sales [at] ioflood.com
    Skype: iofloodsales
    Backup Storage VPS -- 1TBVPS.com

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Lake Zurich, IL
    Posts
    282
    Quote Originally Posted by funkywizard View Post
    For what it's worth, this is why I cringe when I hear the words "cloud" or "SAN". The two thoughts that immediately run through my mind are "expensive", and "unreliable", with "over-hyped" being a third thought that's not far behind.
    I'm a little late to respond, but I think the buzz about failing SANs is a tad over-exaggerated. I agree there have been vendors of SANs that have had firmware issues while the units are under high load (something that virtualization and large capacity disks has made more common), but I wouldn't say it's so widespread that every SAN should be considered unreliable and expensive. There are definitely very reliable, high-performance, and scalable SANs out there.

    There are numerous advantages to centralized storage, which is the reason many companies have opted for SANs over local storage. Centralized resource management is the primary benefit along with very unbalanced LUN size and performance delivery for not only physical machines but virtual machines which could be located in varying locations of the data center.

    There are places for local storage as well, but it is typically used for specific applications that don't require the space efficiency and varying performance requirements that a SAN may provide.

    As with everything in IT, it always depends on what you need to accomplish. Just don't consider a SAN as a "bad thing" because of some of the issues that various vendors have created.

    Something I would suggest, like with all equipment and software... don't use the latest and greatest for production environments. Some problem will always bite you. Let the community, or a dev/test environment, test things for a while to be sure to get some of the major problems fixed that will always exist in first generation products.

    Eric
    Genesis Hosting Solutions, LLC
    http://www.genesishosting.com/
    Instant VMware vSphere Cloud Environments
    Unlimited virtual machines within your purchased resources!

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-28-2010, 04:47 PM
  2. Recent Everdns.net Downtime
    By WebCave in forum Domain Names
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 03-30-2009, 01:53 AM
  3. Recent Downtime
    By Hastings in forum WebHostingTalk Subscribers Club
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 09-23-2007, 10:14 AM
  4. Replies: 11
    Last Post: 12-22-2005, 05:21 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
  •