Results 1 to 23 of 23
Thread: Managed.com Or bad clients?!
-
04-18-2004, 03:15 AM #1Disabled
- Join Date
- Sep 2003
- Posts
- 8
Managed.com Or bad clients?!
Hey all how you doing.. It is me again, time for another explanation and a recap of things here :-) Over the last couple of months I have heard and read a numerous amount of bad remarks towards managed.com. Sure they have had their downtime but WHAT datacenter hasn't!? Well to be honest im tired of hearing it. Throughout the time that I have dealt with managed.com I have no had any issues with this company. So why does everyone continue to cry about it? My theory; Some whiney client had a bad experience and just decided to spread rumors about this company. So what is the real truth here? Is it just that one person jumped off the cliff and the others followed? I personally do not think that managed.com has any real issues. I am starting to believe that its more of the clients that are the issue proned, but that is me.. Whats your opinion?!
Jon0
-
04-18-2004, 03:39 AM #2Web Hosting Guru
- Join Date
- Oct 2003
- Posts
- 293
i can prove their network is sometimes faster than other DCs, but sometimes is very slow. their ping has been 800+ for the past 2 days already, see:
Ping statistics for 66.79.160.10:
packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 844ms, Maximum = 890ms, Average = 859ms
it's a big laggy. simple html page will take a long time to load. so
think again.
i do use them, managed is good for the price0
-
04-18-2004, 03:46 AM #3Aspiring Evangelist
- Join Date
- Aug 2003
- Posts
- 360
are you sure it is not you?
Ping statistics for 66.79.160.10:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 65ms, Maximum = 66ms, Average = 65msRobin Alex
At your service....0
-
04-18-2004, 03:57 AM #4Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Jun 2003
- Location
- Los Angeles, CA
- Posts
- 1,686
Yup, thats true all DC has their problems regardless of how big or small they are. Just that they are a new company so all eyes are on them now. Just like FDCservers there use to be tons of horrible reviews on them but look at it now hardly any reviews at all.
Psychz Networks - Dedicated Servers, Co-location | PhotonVPS - SSD Cloud | YardVPS - Storage VPS
True Layer 7 DDoS Mitigation | BGP Optimized by Noction Intelligent Routing | Asia-Pacific Low Latency Routes
6 Continents - 14 Cities - LAX, DAL, CHI, ASH, LON, AMS, JNB, TPE, TKY, BOM, GRU, BCN, SIN, SYD, ICN, MOS0
-
04-18-2004, 04:00 AM #5Aspiring Evangelist
- Join Date
- Aug 2003
- Posts
- 360
how is fdc btw now...they seemed to be sold out to the 15th...but haven't updated the site again :-X
Robin Alex
At your service....0
-
04-18-2004, 04:11 AM #6Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Jul 2003
- Posts
- 612
FDC has been up and down - manage some servers there. People just dont really care anymore LOL. It not really down but it laggy ect. People just get annoy of posting the same topic week to week so they stop lol.
0
-
04-18-2004, 04:29 AM #7WHT Addict
- Join Date
- Apr 2004
- Location
- Texas
- Posts
- 163
Im using managed.com for the price its a great deal only been there a month so dont ask me about downtime (havent had any yet...) but the servers serve thier purpose ... when you go through them just realize support = 0 for anything out side of hardware issues you must know what your doing newbes must look elsewhere or spend many restless night trying to figure out how to run your company ...
0
-
04-18-2004, 05:24 AM #8Web Hosting Guru
- Join Date
- Oct 2003
- Posts
- 293
Originally posted by adidasrta
are you sure it is not you?
Ping statistics for 66.79.160.10:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 65ms, Maximum = 66ms, Average = 65ms
i tried to traceroute and ping from dnsstuff.com, got similiar thing.
traceroute don't even work yesterday.0
-
04-18-2004, 07:23 AM #9Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Feb 2004
- Posts
- 2,197
We have been using managed.com for a few weeks now, at the beginning we had horrible network issues, outages of hours long, and slow connections. They have improved slightly, although we do not suggest using them if you have a site which needs to be up all the time. We use them for our backup servers.
crucialparadigm - Affordable, Reliable, Professional :
Web Hosting
• 24/7 Support • Web Hosting • Reseller Hosting • Cloud/VPS Plans • Dedicated Servers •0
-
04-18-2004, 09:21 AM #10Junior Guru
- Join Date
- Apr 2004
- Posts
- 186
I had read all the comments here and on other webhosting forums about managed.com, and finally decided to give them a try anyway. Because of one thing i've noticed.
A lot of those negative remarks are about managed.com's lack of support which in my opinion is more because some of the whiners don't have the knowledge to setup a server and expect to be helped.
Well. for that price i never expected any help. Managed.com gives you a completely fresh, standard debian install (if you chose that) and you have to set it up yourself. If you can't, go buy a control panel. You know what the deal was before you made it, so dont' whine about it afterwards. It took me a week to setup my server and I had read all I can read about it and I it's only for the best.
I've compared my setup to one of Plesk's (i have a ev1server's server somewhere) and setting EVERYTHING up yourself means you have the power to get the settings perfect.
But there are some things I couldn't do (like get a new partition scheme). I didn't expect managed.com to help me, but i sent them an email anyway and they did it within a few minutes, so you can't say they don't give support.
And about reboots.. If you've set your linuxserver up correctly, it shouldn't need a reboot at all. My linuxserver at home is now running for 3 years now without rebooting.
For the few weeks that i've been with them, the server is running smoothly and the speed and bandwidth is great. There were some hiccups in the connection though. 2-3 times their network was not available, but it came back within 5 minutes.
For such a low price per month, they're worth each penny. Just hope they'll keep this price...0
-
04-18-2004, 09:23 AM #11Junior Guru
- Join Date
- Apr 2004
- Posts
- 186
Forgot to add. THey're trying hard to improve, and I hope they do. There are some things that I miss.
1: they don't have a support forum. Doesn't even matter if they're on it themselves, users can help users anyway.
2: they don't have bandwith usage statistics tools, only gives you mrtg.0
-
04-18-2004, 09:40 AM #12Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Feb 2004
- Posts
- 2,197
I do think that managed.com has a lot of room to improve, and hopefully they will. I don't think you can ever ask for a huge about of reliability and support with the prices they are offering.
crucialparadigm - Affordable, Reliable, Professional :
Web Hosting
• 24/7 Support • Web Hosting • Reseller Hosting • Cloud/VPS Plans • Dedicated Servers •0
-
04-18-2004, 09:48 AM #13Newbie
- Join Date
- Apr 2004
- Location
- Israel
- Posts
- 17
I never need to talk to their support, but it is their peering that does some bad tricks. I observe periodical lag, packet loss, bandwidth bottlenecks and now the issue in another thread where packets from managed.com box get routed to a PPP user in .fr instead of a machine in the Middle East.
Basically, all that managed.com has is hardware and connectivity. Apparently connectivity has major issues. Everything else (like mail, DNS, web hosting etc) is our (as in customers') problem.0
-
04-18-2004, 10:44 AM #14Build It Better!
- Join Date
- Dec 2002
- Posts
- 5,448
Here is a question for those happy with managed.com. Would you still be happy if you were paying $100 more per month for the server you have with them?
My guess would be that you would not be happy. The simple answer is that they have had many issues with their network, support and billing departments. They could not implement XO correctly and bailed from it, they have had billing issues where they sent client's credit card information to strangers, they have zero support on the week-end and let's not forget all the shills spamming for them here at WHT. I could easily add a few dozen more issues to this list just from reading the posts made here at WHT but I think the point has been made.
These are the types of issues you simply do not have with more experienced, reputable providers.
So here are just a couple more questions to ask yourself.
Is it good enough for the people who really depend on their web sites?
Would you put a client on one of their servers where the client takes in $10,000 a month from the E-Commerce generated from their site?
Now is managed.com good enough for some? I'm sure it could be for the people who don't mind some or all of the issues I just mentioned. I'm sure it's also pretty good for Resellers since their pricing is so low. On the other hand just from seeing the hundreds of negative issues posted from so many different people I don't know how anyone could answer yes to the questions I've asked...0
-
04-18-2004, 10:54 AM #15Newbie
- Join Date
- Apr 2004
- Location
- Israel
- Posts
- 17
I can not possibly think of a reason to pay $150 to the service of managed.com level. I simply don't need their support, I don't need any value added service (not that they have any), and all they can really do for me is delegate me rDNS and reboot my machine if it fails (which never happens on my machines anyway). I need a box and a pipe. Your question per se is invalid - there's no another hosting that I'd be happy to pay $150+ for just a box and a pipe. It simply doesn't make sense. The price is adequate to the service they give. Whether the quality of service they give is adequate to the price and the service level they advertice is an entirely different question. I'm a relatively new customer there, so I cant say I had or hadn't any billing and other issues. What I can say however is that above.net seems to be a major cause for their troubles. And the way I imagine it, there's not much they can do about it either.
In its current condition, managed.com is ideal for backends and backup servers. I see no reason to think that the situation isn't going to improve (because, after all, if XO/above.net/Level3 story isn't going to be resolved any soon their business will go tits up in no time).
And I hope that you don't take this as an insult, but I'd be very careful to say something about shills if I had another hosting company's URLs in my signature and nickname.0
-
04-18-2004, 11:19 AM #16Build It Better!
- Join Date
- Dec 2002
- Posts
- 5,448
Originally posted by MiSV
And I hope that you don't take this as an insult, but I'd be very careful to say something about shills if I had another hosting company's URLs in my signature and nickname.0
-
04-18-2004, 11:40 AM #17Junior Guru
- Join Date
- Apr 2004
- Posts
- 186
Originally posted by Watcher_TVI
Here is a question for those happy with managed.com. Would you still be happy if you were paying $100 more per month for the server you have with them?
My guess would be that you would not be happy. The simple answer is that they have had many issues with their network, support and billing departments. They could not implement XO correctly and bailed from it, they have had billing issues where they sent client's credit card information to strangers, they have zero support on the week-end and let's not forget all the shills spamming for them here at WHT. I could easily add a few dozen more issues to this list just from reading the posts made here at WHT but I think the point has been made.
These are the types of issues you simply do not have with more experienced, reputable providers.
So here are just a couple more questions to ask yourself.
Is it good enough for the people who really depend on their web sites?
Would you put a client on one of their servers where the client takes in $10,000 a month from the E-Commerce generated from their site?
Now is managed.com good enough for some? I'm sure it could be for the people who don't mind some or all of the issues I just mentioned. I'm sure it's also pretty good for Resellers since their pricing is so low. On the other hand just from seeing the hundreds of negative issues posted from so many different people I don't know how anyone could answer yes to the questions I've asked...
For 100 dolar for the same piece of hardware and traffic i'd expect more service, but what kind of service then? 24/7/365 reboots?
If the server is up and running, configured correctly, then it won't need reboots, that's why you're using linux or debian.
24/7 helpdesk? For what? configuratingproblems? I can figure that out myself.
Support when their network is down? I don't think a phonecall would speed them up repairing it. And although there are no one available for customersupport, i think they have some one sitting there surfing at pornsites, just in case something fails.
I don't want to pay 40 bucks a month extra just for a reboot ticket after workinghours once in the 3 months. And I need something to be done, when I notice it (i'm a wake) then it's office hours over there at managed anyway.
And the billing issues, deleting servers, bad network, etc problems. I still give managed the benefit of the doubt for now, at least the network seems to be stable.0
-
04-18-2004, 12:04 PM #18Web Hosting Evangelist
- Join Date
- Jul 2003
- Posts
- 461
Originally posted by Watcher_TVI
Here is a question for those happy with managed.com. Would you still be happy if you were paying $100 more per month for the server you have with them?
Shawn Ho
Singapore Web Hosting Talk - http://www.sgwebhostingtalk.com
Singapore Soccer - http://www.singaporesoccer.com
EMAIL - shawnho@sgwebhostingtalk.com0
-
04-18-2004, 12:18 PM #19Newbie
- Join Date
- Apr 2004
- Location
- Israel
- Posts
- 17
The entire point of dedicated hosting is that you run your machine. If the service provider runs its network smoothly (not exactly the case with managed.com) then there's simply never a situation when you would need to talk to their support. Which is why managed.com doesn't have any.
I do believe that the problems with managed.com WAN are more of engineering nature and not of organizational one, which means that they will be eventually solved.
That is not to say I don't want them to have had been solved yesterday.0
-
04-18-2004, 12:30 PM #20learning is in the doing
- Join Date
- Sep 2000
- Location
- Alberta, Canada
- Posts
- 3,146
There is no good Data Center, only the Data Center that good for you.
In other words, Managed.com probably has excellent Servers/Support depending upon the requirements and usage type, of the Server. At this point, hosting a production Server for Web Hosting Clients does not seem like a good idea. Lots of other uses though, for a Server.• PotentProducts.com - for all your Hosting needs
• Helping people Host, Create and Maintain their Web Site
• ServerAdmin Services also available0
-
04-18-2004, 12:36 PM #21Newbie
- Join Date
- Apr 2004
- Location
- Israel
- Posts
- 17
Yeah, pretty much my point, but notice "at the moment".
0
-
04-18-2004, 12:48 PM #22Junior Guru Wannabe
- Join Date
- Jan 2004
- Posts
- 98
That's a great idea about using them as backup. Sounds good I might do that.
0
-
04-18-2004, 01:12 PM #23Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Apr 2001
- Location
- UK - Wales
- Posts
- 2,170
Thread locked, seems to have gone a little over the top
www.microsolder.uk - Microsoldering Services in the UK™0