Results 1 to 35 of 35
  1. #1

    site5 is thoroughly incompetent

    Okay, I wrote about a month ago about site5's unwarranted suspensions, and the inability of their technical support to provide any relevant data.

    I decided to move to a VPS after our busy season, which ends THIS WEEK. There were no further site suspensions until yesterday. After getting reinstated at 1AM, they've apparently permanently suspended me because my site was "slashdotted" due to media coverage and presently refuse to answer email.

    site5 is technically incompetent, unprofessional, and is currently holding my site, emails, and database hostage.

    Here are very technical examples (beyond those previously posted) of their gross incompetence.

    EXAMPLE 1:

    Site5: As soon as your site was disabled, the load dropped from approx. 7/8 to 2.


    Me:
    22:40:01 9 174 3.32 3.89
    22:50:00 8 185 6.74 5.14
    23:00:00 9 163 3.93 3.89
    23:10:01 11 181 3.39 3.82 <-- site was disabled here
    23:20:00 10 156 2.64 4.16
    23:30:00 8 184 2.06 2.75
    23:40:00 0 220 2.30 2.45
    23:50:03 1 246 4.37 2.74
    23:40:00 0 220 2.30 2.45
    23:50:03 1 246 4.37 2.74

    Site5: Sir, insinuating that I am making things up or feeding you lines is erroneous.

    [ For those who don't know, this is a sar -q output which shows historic logs. The 1st column is time, the 4th column is load over 1 min, the 5th column is load over 5 minutes ]

    Site5 is wrong, because 3.39 is not between 7 and 8.

    EXAMPLE 2:

    Site5 does not understand what an active connection is:

    Site5: At the moment your Site5 hosting account, XXXXX.com, has over 485 concurrent apache connections.

    Me: What is the threshhold for a reasonable number of apache connections?

    Site5: A reasonable number of concurrent apache connections is under 50 for a shared hosting account.

    Me: Okay, if there are apache connection issues, can you please provide a "netstat" output so I can understand if there are one/many people hitting the site? It seems to me that there aren't enough people hitting the site, unless there are a few rogue attacks.

    Site5: [email protected] [~]# netstat -nap | grep XXX.XX.XXX.XXX | sort
    tcp 0 0 XXX.XX.XXX.XXX:22 YY.YYY.YY.Y:53927 ESTABLISHED 5180/sshd: xxxx[p
    tcp 0 0 XXX.XX.XXX.XXX:80 YY.YYY.YY.Y:31080 TIME_WAIT -
    tcp 0 0 XXX.XX.XXX.XXX:80 YY.YYY.YY.Y:31112 TIME_WAIT -
    tcp 0 0 XXX.XX.XXX.XXX:80 YY.YYY.YY.Y:31120 TIME_WAIT -
    tcp 0 0 XXX.XX.XXX.XXX:80 YY.YYY.YY.Y:31121 TIME_WAIT -
    tcp 0 0 XXX.XX.XXX.XXX:80 YY.YYY.YY.Y:2093 TIME_WAIT -
    tcp 0 0 XXX.XX.XXX.XXX:80 YY.YYY.YY.Y:2100 TIME_WAIT -
    tcp 0 0 XXX.XX.XXX.XXX:80 YY.YYY.YY.Y:2103 TIME_WAIT


    Me:
    Just so I understand -- when you say there are "over 485 connections", are you including all of the sockets listed here, including TIME_WAIT and CLOSING ?

    Site5 does not answer, because they are wrong. TIME_WAIT and CLOSING are not active connections.



    My conclusion: site5 plainly does not deserve its reputation. Their technical staff is unable to make accurate statements. They blatantly refuse to answer questions, and hold your site's data (database, mail, content) hostage. If you value your site, and your site being available, you should not use site5.
      0 Not allowed!

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    9,852

    Re: site5 is thoroughly incompetent

    Originally posted by sincewednesday
    site5 is technically incompetent, unprofessional, and is currently holding my site, emails, and database hostage.

    Do you think this post is going to help you get your site, emails, and database back?
      0 Not allowed!

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    419

    Re: Re: site5 is thoroughly incompetent

    Originally posted by blue27
    Do you think this post is going to help you get your site, emails, and database back?
    Probably not, but it sure helps others get an idea of weather or not people should be hosted w/ Site5.


    I am sorry sincewednesday, I hope everything works for the best.
      0 Not allowed!

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    1,128
    I'm sure they'll be here soon to clarify this matter up, and we can hear their side of the story!
    Daily Updated Web Hosting News Blog
    Including an RSS feed that you can syndicate!
    Daily Updated Web Hosting News Blog
    Unlimited vs. Unmetered bandwidth
      0 Not allowed!

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    749
      0 Not allowed!

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,271
    Originally posted by InfexionKen
    Yep, always seems like two very very different sides to every hosting story...
    Always ....

    sincewednesday,

    I hope you had backups just in case?
      0 Not allowed!

  7. #7
    whatever be both sides of the story I think the best managed host should settle matters via tickets/own forums/whatever and ensure in every possible way that a customer do not have to carry it to a public board .......

    with site5 offering tremendous amount of space and bandwidth, i guess it will be good to know the allotted sys resource usage and allowed max connections and one expects they will allow proportionate amount of resource usage with that amount of space and transfer they are providing,otherwise what is the meaning of offering that amount other than attract-customer policy

    most customers run very wellknown scripts ( and they are part of the autoinstaller ) so scripts shud not be blamed and stats like
    "Our users have posted a total of 5760 articles
    We have 674 registered users
    Most users ever online was 121 on Sun Mar 06, 2005 9:42 pm"

    shud be very easily handled by any account which claims to provide so much space and transfer like theirs

    whatever be the two sides of the story - a customer coming this far is not good personal mng and support and i was a bit disappointed as the name is site5
      0 Not allowed!

  8. #8
    i've stated this before: there really needs to be rants forum under each (web, dedicated, colo, vps, reseller). that way people don't have to read through each rant and can get pertinent info. if someone wants to know about the rants then let them look there...btw, no offense to the OP. he is frustrated, what ever the problem may or may not be...he should be allowed to vent, but this needs to be better organized. that's all.
      0 Not allowed!

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    India
    Posts
    505

    Re: site5 is thoroughly incompetent

    Originally posted by sincewednesday

    Me:
    22:40:01 9 174 3.32 3.89
    22:50:00 8 185 6.74 5.14
    23:00:00 9 163 3.93 3.89
    23:10:01 11 181 3.39 3.82 <-- site was disabled here
    23:20:00 10 156 2.64 4.16
    23:30:00 8 184 2.06 2.75
    23:40:00 0 220 2.30 2.45
    23:50:03 1 246 4.37 2.74
    23:40:00 0 220 2.30 2.45
    23:50:03 1 246 4.37 2.74
    I never thought that a load average of 7 to 8 looked like this At my server I could see it as 7.48 or 7.91 and the like figures. But 3.89!!! This seems to be some thing strange.

    How can they even provide this output in order to support there comments.
      0 Not allowed!

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Duluth MN
    Posts
    3,864
    Personally, I wouldn't let one of my servers stay above a load of 1.0 for an extended period of time. Site5 is overloading their servers if they are consistently at 3-4 (IMO).
      0 Not allowed!

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    881
    Originally posted by amish_geek
    Personally, I wouldn't let one of my servers stay above a load of 1.0 for an extended period of time. Site5 is overloading their servers if they are consistently at 3-4 (IMO).
    That would depend on the reason its so high along with the type and number of processors the machine has. 3-4 might be perfect for some machines and uses.
      0 Not allowed!

  12. #12
    22:40:01 9 174 3.32 3.89
    22:50:00 8 185 6.74 5.14
    23:00:00 9 163 3.93 3.89
    23:10:01 11 181 3.39 3.82
    23:20:00 10 156 2.64 4.16
    23:30:00 8 184 2.06 2.75
    23:40:00 0 220 2.30 2.45
    23:50:03 1 246 4.37 2.74
    23:40:00 0 220 2.30 2.45
    23:50:03 1 246 4.37 2.74
    wow - I hope this was a period of exceptionally high load vs averages over a significant amount of time...
      0 Not allowed!

  13. #13
    Just an opinion, but I've had a bad feeling about Site5 for the short time I've been here; not quite sure why, but something just bothers me about them.
      0 Not allowed!

  14. #14
    After reviewing the information you have posted as well as previous tickets dating back to March of 2005, I feel I have a thorough understanding of the situation surrounding your account. My findings indicate that we have been doing only what has been absolutely necessary to protect the integrity of our systems and ensure that our exceptionally high performance levels are maintained. One of the pangs of success and popularity, such as that which your site seems to be experiencing, is that you will inevitably outgrow a shared hosting solution. The recent slashdotting of your site also caused performance issues as you might imagine.

    Site5 has to have resource usage policies and procedures in place to protect all of our customers in a shared environment. We don't like having to invoke our resource usage limitations, however when situations like yours arise we have little choice. We monitor all servers 24 hours a day, 7 days a week to make sure that our high standards for system performance criteria are met. When a system is not operating within normal parameters (I.E. is experiencing a high load), we will investigate the cause within minutes and take appropriate action.

    We do our best to work with customers in order to accommodate their traffic needs. A recent example: following the pope's death, a handful of Catholic websites hosted on our systems experienced incredibly high traffic surges which greatly impaired service to other customers. We immediately identified the sites that were being hit, and promptly (in less than an hour), moved the sites to one of our empty, hot-standby servers free of charge so that the sites could remain online and serving pages quickly while they experienced increased popularity.

    That being said, I am glad you have found a VPS solution for your current and future needs. It seems that your site's popularity is more than a transient phase and a VPS will a hosting environment that is better suited to a site like yours.

    Should you have further questions, you are welcome to contact our management team--we're always interested in hearing about ways in which we can improve! Any information you can provide about the situation (specific ticket numbers, your account number, etc.) will prove useful when we investigate the matter further.

    <<Please set your signature up in your profile>>
    Last edited by anon-e-mouse; 04-19-2005 at 03:42 AM.
      0 Not allowed!

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Above The Clouds
    Posts
    6,999
    I bet such threads make you rue the day you decided to post a million press releases on Hosting Tech.
    Laurence Flynn @ atOmicVPS LTD
    Linux & Windows Cloud Hosting Solutions Powered by OnApp
    Fully Managed [Shared][Reseller][Cloud VPS] [Dedicated]
    Featuring the atOmicSTACK ● Speed ● Performance ● Reliability
      0 Not allowed!

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    India
    Posts
    505
    But it is nice to see site5 over here, placing there point to this. Then again the problem for sincewednesday continues. There was no specific reason for suspending the site. Site5 was explainatory but not very explanatory upon this specific subject. We need to wait till site5 gets this sorted out with there techs.
      0 Not allowed!

  17. #17
    Originally posted by BoardHoster
    Just an opinion, but I've had a bad feeling about Site5 for the short time I've been here; not quite sure why, but something just bothers me about them.
    If you could provide me with any sort of evidence as to why you have this feeling, I would be very interested. We are, of course, always looking to improve. Please do PM me with any info you have, as I am quite curious about the reasons for your feelings about Site5...
    Matt Lightner - http://www.mattlightner.com/
    - First initial to the last name at the mail service provided by the world's largest search engine
    - Founder and CEO (Former) Site5.com, sold in 2008
    - Really honestly wants to be a good WHT citizen but can never remember all the correct etiquette. Mods, sorry in advance
      0 Not allowed!

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    San Francisco, CA
    Posts
    1,905
    Those load averages are very very high. I'd be interested to know at what temp the processors on that machine are running at

    Originally posted by NexDog
    I bet such threads make you rue the day you decided to post a million press releases on Hosting Tech.
    init.me - Build, Share & Embed

    JodoHost.com - Windows VPS Hosting, ASP.NET and SQL Server Hosting
    8th year in Business, 200+ Servers. Microsoft Gold Certified Partner
      0 Not allowed!

  19. #19
    I would implore anyone interested in our position on this matter to review the thread that sincewednesday posted a while back. That thread is linked from his initial post in this thread.

    The circumstances are different in this particular case, and I understand that the poster does not agree with our team's assessment of the situation, but despite those objections, the bottom line is that this user's site is not fit for a shared hosting environment.

    To clear up any speculation about our systems administration practices: we keep an extremely close eye on all of our servers and perform high-frequency monitoring, as well as long-term trend analysis of performance metrics in order to ensure that every single system delivers the fast and reliable service that has come to be expected from Site5.

    Should we have a server that is consistently overloaded (and to answer a previous poster's hypothesis--we absolutely consider regular load averages of 3-4 to be too high), we have no qualms about distributing the load across new systems. This is not something we do as a last-ditch move after a server's performance has been degraded to the point that we're receiving complaints. Rather, our goal is to proactively watch for signals that a server might be headed toward capacity and act before it affects performance. All the systems engineers we've ever hired have been extremely impressed by how responsible and active our server administration policies are relative to other companies they've worked with.

    Just to note: we actually implemented a new internal account suspension system/protocol--largely as a result of this user's previous thread. I'm not sure how this sends a signal to the user that our company is unyielding and unresponsive to feedback.

    To the poster: I understand that you are frustrated, but I don't think this post is a fair portrayal of our company by any means.

    To all thread observers, the events described by the thread poster took place over a short period of time. For instance the allegation that we were holding his files "hostage" was a complete fabrication--the user was granted access to his files long before our team was even made aware of this thread. The user simply did not give us ample time to respond to his request.

    What constitutes "ample time" you're probably wondering? The user sent a request for SSH access in order to access files at 12:06 PM today, and one of our engineers responded at 12:16 PM. A 10 minute wait constitutes holding files hostage?

    The portrayal of Site5 presented here is, to say the least, very unfair. I'm quite confident that an impartial third party with access to all of our support system records would find that our team was very accommodating to this user, however I have no interest in presenting an in-depth proof of the situation at this time.

    Note that out of many thousands of direct customers, we probably have one of the lowest complaint rates (not to mention highest satisfaction rates) in the entire industry. Certainly a good reputation is not, in and of itself, proof that a company is good; however it would seem logical that the two would go hand-in-hand in most cases.


    Your site, by your own admission in many tickets, experiences large surges of traffic. This traffic, regardless of how you want to argue the numbers, is causing major problems for other customers on that particular server. Your utter incredulity of this fact notwithstanding, we have identified your site as the cause of the problem on two separate occasions. So in the very least, if our methods are as flawed as you claim they are, we're at least consistent in applying those methods.

    I believe WHT members will confirm that I am a rather reasonable guy, and have a moderately high threshold for working with frustrated customers to find a satisfactory solution. But in this particular case, I am very displeased by the way you have immediately taken issues public without first attempting to contact our management team (which is where complaints should be directed). Additionally your public accounts of the issues encountered, in my opinion, are not accurate representations of the situation, and certainly don't make any attempt at reaching a solution. These problems are solvable problems--however you choose to present them in a way such that constructive discussion becomes virtually impossible.

    However as a token of good faith, I am authorizing a full refund for this account--including money for services already rendered. Our philosophy is that if you hate the service (as you seem to), you shouldn't be made to pay for it. I will inform our billing department of this situation immediately and your full refund will be issued upon account termination.

    We wish you the best of luck at your new provider--I hope that your site continues to be successful, and that you new host will be your last.

    Matt
    Matt Lightner - http://www.mattlightner.com/
    - First initial to the last name at the mail service provided by the world's largest search engine
    - Founder and CEO (Former) Site5.com, sold in 2008
    - Really honestly wants to be a good WHT citizen but can never remember all the correct etiquette. Mods, sorry in advance
      0 Not allowed!

  20. #20
    Originally posted by NexDog
    I bet such threads make you rue the day you decided to post a million press releases on Hosting Tech.
    Press releases?? What press releases?!
    Matt Lightner - http://www.mattlightner.com/
    - First initial to the last name at the mail service provided by the world's largest search engine
    - Founder and CEO (Former) Site5.com, sold in 2008
    - Really honestly wants to be a good WHT citizen but can never remember all the correct etiquette. Mods, sorry in advance
      0 Not allowed!

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    WebHostingTalk
    Posts
    8,878
    Originally posted by Site5-Matt
    I believe WHT members will confirm that I am a rather reasonable guy, and have a moderately high threshold for working with frustrated customers to find a satisfactory solution. But in this particular case, I am very displeased by the way you have immediately taken issues public without first attempting to contact our management team (which is where complaints should be directed). Additionally your public accounts of the issues encountered, in my opinion, are not accurate representations of the situation, and certainly don't make any attempt at reaching a solution. These problems are solvable problems--however you choose to present them in a way such that constructive discussion becomes virtually impossible.
    The irony in this statement alone is enough to make me fall out of my chair. Although the thread has been deleted from the WHT-Announcements, WHT-Feedback, WHT-Questions forum, you should probably learn to take your own advice.

    Originally posted by Site5-Matt

    However as a token of good faith, I am authorizing a full refund for this account--including money for services already rendered. Our philosophy is that if you hate the service (as you seem to), you shouldn't be made to pay for it. I will inform our billing department of this situation immediately and your full refund will be issued upon account termination.
    Definately a good faith gesture... glad to see this issue resolved.

    Sirius
    I support the Human Rights Campaign!
    Moving to the Tampa, Florida area? Check out life in the suburbs in Trinity, Florida.
      0 Not allowed!

  22. #22
    Touche.

    As I said--criticism is always welcome... on any front. (except my keen sense of style... that's off-limits)

    Matt
    Last edited by Matt Lightner; 04-19-2005 at 09:13 AM.
    Matt Lightner - http://www.mattlightner.com/
    - First initial to the last name at the mail service provided by the world's largest search engine
    - Founder and CEO (Former) Site5.com, sold in 2008
    - Really honestly wants to be a good WHT citizen but can never remember all the correct etiquette. Mods, sorry in advance
      0 Not allowed!

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Above The Clouds
    Posts
    6,999
    Your courage under fire is admirable, Matt. You carry yourself very well.
    Laurence Flynn @ atOmicVPS LTD
    Linux & Windows Cloud Hosting Solutions Powered by OnApp
    Fully Managed [Shared][Reseller][Cloud VPS] [Dedicated]
    Featuring the atOmicSTACK ● Speed ● Performance ● Reliability
      0 Not allowed!

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    WebHostingTalk
    Posts
    8,878
    Originally posted by NexDog
    Your courage under fire is admirable, Matt. You carry yourself very well.
    Can't disagree there... it's good to see his focus on his customers.

    Sirius
    I support the Human Rights Campaign!
    Moving to the Tampa, Florida area? Check out life in the suburbs in Trinity, Florida.
      0 Not allowed!

  25. #25
    Originally posted by Site5-Matt
    Should we have a server that is consistently overloaded (and to answer a previous poster's hypothesis--we absolutely consider regular load averages of 3-4 to be too high), we have no qualms about distributing the load across new systems.
    I've pointed out to Site5 that they have loads >6 at 6AM ET. It's easy to make claims that they consider 3-4 too high, but their server load averages speak for themselves.

    Just to note: we actually implemented a new internal account suspension system/protocol--largely as a result of this user's previous thread. I'm not sure how this sends a signal to the user that our company is unyielding and unresponsive to feedback.
    Yes, previously they would disable a site WITHOUT sending a single email, and now there is an email.


    To all thread observers, the events described by the thread poster took place over a short period of time. For instance the allegation that we were holding his files "hostage" was a complete fabrication--the user was granted access to his files long before our team was even made aware of this thread. The user simply did not give us ample time to respond to his request.

    What constitutes "ample time" you're probably wondering? The user sent a request for SSH access in order to access files at 12:06 PM today, and one of our engineers responded at 12:16 PM. A 10 minute wait constitutes holding files hostage?
    See, this is how Site5 always responds... as in the first email posted in this thread, they accuse me of calling them liars.

    That response was between my THIRD email and finally getting access. You conveniently forget to mention the FIRST and SECOND email which were never responded to.

    I'm sorry, but the publicity we received was the result of the culmination of a year of hard work by everyone, and to have a 12 hour outage (after a 3 hour outage the day before) with no website, no emails, no access... and with site5 failing to respond to emails, well I think I have a fair reason to consider them unreliable.


    But in this particular case, I am very displeased by the way you have immediately taken issues public without first attempting to contact our management team (which is where complaints should be directed).
    The emails I quoted from are signed by your Chief Operating Officer.

    However as a token of good faith, I am authorizing a full refund for this account--including money for services already rendered. Our philosophy is that if you hate the service (as you seem to), you shouldn't be made to pay for it. I will inform our billing department of this situation immediately and your full refund will be issued upon account termination.
    Thank you for your token of good faith; however, that does little to change that we lost an important opportunity due to the unreliable nature of the service. I've learned my lesson.
    Last edited by sincewednesday; 04-19-2005 at 11:01 AM.
      0 Not allowed!

  26. #26
    Originally posted by sincewednesday
    I think I have a fair reason to consider them unreliable.
    You're certainly entitled to your opinion. I think there are others who would disagree strongly, but that just goes to show that there's no "best" host for everyone.

    That being said, I will be conducting a thorough investigation of the matter to see where we could have handled this better. We will never be completely content with our service levels... regardless of how good our reputation is.
    Thank you for your token of good faith; however, that does little to change that we lost an important opportunity due to the unreliable nature of the service. I've learned my lesson.
    You're more than welcome. We appreciate your business and are sad to see you go, however we realize that in some rare cases, such as this, it does make sense for a customer to seek an alternative hosting arrangement.

    This is not a criticism--simply a suggestion that in the future, if you're anticipating a significant traffic blitz, you ought to really ensure that your site's hosting services are going to be able to accomodate the additional volume--whether that means getting a dedicated server, VPS, or simply informing the hosting company beforehand. Had you contacted us in advance, we very likely would have worked with you to find a solution before it became an issue--just as we do for several of our clients who periodically experience large but transient traffic surges.

    At any rate, I sincerely wish you the best of luck with your new provider. Don't hesitate to let me know if there's anything else we can asist you with.

    Matt
    Last edited by Matt Lightner; 04-19-2005 at 11:25 AM.
    Matt Lightner - http://www.mattlightner.com/
    - First initial to the last name at the mail service provided by the world's largest search engine
    - Founder and CEO (Former) Site5.com, sold in 2008
    - Really honestly wants to be a good WHT citizen but can never remember all the correct etiquette. Mods, sorry in advance
      0 Not allowed!

  27. #27
    @site5

    what are the exact or approx ways that system resource usage overages are calculated ? can use of some of the common fantastico scripts cause this provided the transfer is within the huge limit that sitefive shared plans offer ?

    the huge space and transfer that site5 provides - are they proportionate with sys resource usage that might be generated by use of that amount of space and transfer

    as i was asking in another thread ( still unanswered by this forum )
    is there way to judge for myself what is my system resource usage like the way i can judge and actually see my bandwidth and disc space for which i am billed or I am at the mercy of the webhost to accept what values he give to me ?

    similarly
    is there way for me to judge live "connections" - apache connections and mysql connections ( and precisely how are they defined may i know ? ) - and a similar meter that shows me i have this much connection out of this much maximum allowed connection


    regarding
    sincewednesday's case it bugs me
    why the initial emails were not unanswered ?
    how can one be sure that servers are not too overpacked with too many sites so that they can't afford what-will-be-managable-load on a properly space allocated server ? i mean is the webhost always correct ?
      0 Not allowed!

  28. #28
    Originally posted by mahut
    the huge space and transfer that site5 provides - are they proportionate with sys resource usage that might be generated by use of that amount of space and transfer

    as i was asking in another thread ( still unanswered by this forum )
    is there way to judge for myself what is my system resource usage like the way i can judge and actually see my bandwidth and disc space for which i am billed or I am at the mercy of the webhost to accept what values he give to me ?
    This is my biggest issue with site5-- their support makes statements about limits which are vague or downright incorrect.

    The bottom line is that they make claims like "As soon as your site was disabled, the load dropped from approx. 7/8 to 2." Luckily, I was online and I have evidence from "sar" to show that their claim was a fantastic exaggeration. What does that say about a company whose Chief Operating Officer will make false statements, and then accuse you when confronted with evidence?

    Here is a different email that I sent to them (naturally, there was no response):

    Me: Other sites are creating load, so the mere fact that turning off a popular site reduces load is not surprising. But other sites are certainly capable of driving the system load to similar levels. Here is the sar log for this morning:

    04:40:00 8 206 5.62 5.85
    04:50:01 6 189 6.15 6.20
    05:00:01 2 221 6.93 6.96
    05:10:01 1 187 7.49 8.50
    You'll note that the "7/8 levels" that seemed so upsetting to them occurs at 5AM (EDT) in the morning.

    Secondly, they do not allow you to monitor connections -- "netstat" is not available on the restricted shell. They say the limit is 50 connections, but they appear to include connections in fin_wait, close_wait, etc. which are not active connections. Each user's browser can use 6 sockets, so you'll reach 54 with 9 users.
      0 Not allowed!

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Twin Cities Area
    Posts
    5,651
    Originally posted by Site5-Matt
    If you could provide me with any sort of evidence as to why you have this feeling, I would be very interested. We are, of course, always looking to improve. Please do PM me with any info you have, as I am quite curious about the reasons for your feelings about Site5...
    i thought hosting companies are only allowed to have ONE account here at WHT? ive seen about 4 for site 5 already, at a minimum. maybe im misinterpreting the rules here, but my BF got booted from here (for having more than one account) after ONE post and we arent even with the exact same company or even in the same city or selling the same thing!!!

    as far as the case here, holding someones stuff hostage (if that is the case) just isnt cool.

    to the client "you get what you pay for".
    if you haven't considered chapter 7 bankruptcy, maybe you should.
    eliminate your debt, keep the property you want, most people qualify.
    contrary to popular belief - no attorney is necessary!
      0 Not allowed!

  30. #30
    with mahut on this one...

    I was looking into going with Site5 for hosting due to their incredible feature list just before reading this. 90gb bandwidth more than accommodates us and the unlimited e-mail accounts/mysql databases looks great. But why would I pay for such services if I can't use them?

    When I pay for web hosting I expect that if my site does cause a meltdown on a shared server then I have the opportunity to upgrade with immediate effect. The chances are that if my site is getting such traffic, it is making us money at the same time and we would be more than happy to upgrade to a superior service offering. Your services do not offer any such solutions to us, thus are not ideal for what we are looking for.

    I have to applaud your decision to refund sincewednesday however, it's a gesture you don't often see. I just hope that if he hadn't gone public with this that he would still have been refunded.
      0 Not allowed!

  31. #31
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    EU - east side
    Posts
    21,913
    i thought hosting companies are only allowed to have ONE account here at WHT?
    Nope:

    Members are permitted a maximum of one account per person, regardless of how many companies you represent.
    my BF got booted from here (for having more than one account) after ONE post and we arent even with the exact same company or even in the same city or selling the same thing!!!
    If you have any questions about that decision: http://www.webhostingtalk.com/helpdesk/
      0 Not allowed!

  32. #32
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    9,852
    I think this thread is backfiring a little.

    The thread starter obviously has an agenda to give Site 5 a bad name after what he perceives as bad service.
    Site5-Matt has represented his company admirably and even extended a full discount to someone who is obviously baiting him.

    Top that off with a few "competitors" making silly unsubstantiated claims without having a clue what the actual facts of the matter and it makes for an entertaining thread, but one that ultimately will be more helpful to Site5 than harmful as the the thread starter would have liked.
      0 Not allowed!

  33. #33
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    1,128
    Originally posted by blue27
    I think this thread is backfiring a little.

    The thread starter obviously has an agenda to give Site 5 a bad name after what he perceives as bad service.
    Site5-Matt has represented his company admirably and even extended a full discount to someone who is obviously baiting him.

    Top that off with a few "competitors" making silly unsubstantiated claims without having a clue what the actual facts of the matter and it makes for an entertaining thread, but one that ultimately will be more helpful to Site5 than harmful as the the thread starter would have liked.
    I agree with blue 100%, I think Site5 handled themselves very professionally, made a nice gesture, and other posters are making claims when they aren't even involved in the situation. Site5 always handles themselves very professionally in these forums, and that really stands out nicely.
    Daily Updated Web Hosting News Blog
    Including an RSS feed that you can syndicate!
    Daily Updated Web Hosting News Blog
    Unlimited vs. Unmetered bandwidth
      0 Not allowed!

  34. #34
    Originally posted by BillNathan
    I agree with blue 100%, I think Site5 handled themselves very professionally, made a nice gesture, and other posters are making claims when they aren't even involved in the situation. Site5 always handles themselves very professionally in these forums, and that really stands out nicely.
    Too bad there's a difference between handling themselves professionally in a forum and professionally in client interactions. I'll admit, I was attracted to them because of all of the lip service they pay to customer service in these forums, but the reality is a different story. The sad fact of the matter is they are far more responsive in this forum than they are in email.

    Frankly, it doesn't bother me if people want to go join site5. I think they've pretty much admitted that they can't handle a site if it gets even remotely popular, so by all means host all of your pictures of Gramma and Grampa and Froopy with site5. Either that, or hope no one visits your site.

    Best of luck to you.
      0 Not allowed!

  35. #35
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Tasmania, Australia
    Posts
    34,796
    Good luck with your new host, sincewednesday.
      0 Not allowed!

Posting Permissions

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