Web Hosting Talk : Web Hosting Main Forums : Dedicated Server : rackshack network vs nocster network.. comparison please

[critical]

rackshack network vs nocster network.. comparison please

[eddy2099]

According to Nocster http://www.nocster.com/network.shtml
They are using the following network :-

NOCSTER service plans only utilize the Sprint™, Global Crossing™, Level3™, & Cogent™ backbones on BurstNET's™ current network.

Rackshack http://www.rackshack.net/english/aboutus/networks.asp uses

Time Warner, Verio, Cogent, Williams, Allegiance, MfN, Savvis and ELDS3 lines.

Not sure which is good is which is not but so far both are quite stable.

[vietphp]

I would say rackshack network

[VNPIXEL]

RackShack it is.

[netdude]

rackshack by a mile... make it the circumference of the earth...

[axx]

The RS network is much better, more connections from more isp's. Keep in mind their servers are unmanaged, but you can get a great server for around $140. ( 1.3 ghz, 1gb ram, 2x 60gb hd's )

[WebProx]

Rackshack:
7x 1GBit (MFNET,ALLEGIANCE,VERIO ETC.)
1x OC3 (SAVVIS)
1x DS3 (ELI)

Nocster

Sprint™ (http://www.sprint.com) & AT&T™ (http://www.att.com) OC3 (155mbps) connections, as well as 100MBPS Metro Fast Ethernet drops from Cogent™ (http://www.cogentco.com), Level3™ (http://www.level3.com), & Global Crossing™ (http://www.glbx.com) (Jan 2003).

Looks like all are OC3 (155mbit) or lower


I would definately go for Rackshack

[eddy2099]

Not sure if this means anything but when comparing bandwidth pipes, is it important to compare the number of servers utilizing them too ?

I am pretty sure that Rackshack is considered a giant compared to Nocster. Wouldn't one running tons more servers use more bandwidth so overall the allocated bandwidth to one server might be different.

Should you compare bandwidth per server rather than just bulk bandwidth ?

For example, if you get one running 10,000 servers which shares the gigabits connections and the other running 1000 servers which shares a smaller overall connections. Would the one having the larger connection be better irregardless of the number of machines sharing the connection as compared to one which is smaller but sharing with less servers ?

[netdude]

but i mean... assuming the servers have all the bandwidth they need available... u would make the primary consideration the quality of the bandwidth providers... and the variety... and then come to the conclusion that rackshack blows pretty much all the budget providers outa the water... ... ...

[twrs]

Is there anyone with a server at Rackshack and Nocster that can provide some files for testing the download speed? The last time I tested last year, I got better download speed from Nocster. However since Rackshack has recently added some new Gig-E lines, I bet the result would be different now.

[eddy2099]

In the past, I had a Cobalt RaQ 4i on Rackshack and it was doing an average of about 40kbps and now I got a Nocster 1ghz Celeron and it is doing about 150kbps. I guess there is no comparison since the Cobalt is a slower machine.

[RackMy.com]

Should you compare bandwidth per server rather than just bulk bandwidth ?

Yes unless the provider shows you the utilization which RS does.

[panopticon]

From my RackShack.net server to a 233 mhz server at linuxwebnet.com I got 5311.4 kb/s today with a huge 1.7 GB backup file

I would vote for RackShack's network over Nocsters at the present time. I have been very happy with RackShack's network over the past 7 months and am not aware of any network downtime on my subnet during that time.

[phactor]

hello,

I have servers on both companies. Atm, nocster network is faster for me ( better pings / faster workin via ssh .. etc.. ). So, i would say nocster is better.

just my experience

regards

[BurstNET]

<not a forum for annoucements and pre-offers, not required snipped>