Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 110
  1. #26
    Your request would require a complete overhaul of Apache, MySQL, and various other service, it's completely irrational.

    Our current setup allows 2000 concurrent apache connections (minus keep alive)
    To my knowledge there is no way to delegate an amount of connections to a shared site. Same with SQL.

    One way of doing it is by IP, each site would then need its own ip limiting a server greatly and in the long run a hosting company would loose money.

    A /24 (255 ips) costs (to buy) a few thousand (not 100% sure on the price, check ARIN). This would limit a server to host rougly 220 sites, when it COULD possibly host 1000.

    At least with a site having its own ip using iptables or the likes a company can limit concurrent connections to in ip BUT what happens when there's a burst of visitors to a site? The client complains about loss of revenue, etc.

    What you're asking from hosting companies is very far fetched.
    Webair Internet Development Inc.
    Shared Hosting • Managed Dedicated Servers • SEO
    1.866.WEBAIR.1 • www.webair.com • 24/7/365 Support • Adult Friendly
    My comments do not reflect the views of the company or its management.

  2. #27
    @wanga ...

    how can you burden by just adding 3 or 4 more lines to the feature list ??? not clear to me ...

    if mom and pops are using cpanel which has dozens of controls buttons and on the left hand side plenty of meters and usage list , probaly just 2 more ( those 2 on which grounds most a/c get suspended despite being well within other limits ) lines wont add to the complicacy .... wanga, i understand your frustration but i dont understand how it can be 'ridiculous' to end users ....

    you may have to wait few months or years but as things move ahead ( i am not the only one ) one day if u are still into hosting you will be featuring this probably proudly

  3. #28
    mahut it comes down to the following:

    There is no standard whatsover on how many clients a server company should or could have on a machine, it depends on the following factors: cpu speed, cpu type, memory, hard drive, motherboard etc..

    The better a machine is the more rescources can be used by the client. Each company has its own set of rules to determine wether a client is using an acceptable amount of rescources, basically, if a site is causing problems then its using too much rescources, how much exactly? that's the hosting companies discretion.

    If you're worrying about rescource usage then go for a dedicated server, a shared environment is probably not for you. (that soudned cold, but it's not)
    Webair Internet Development Inc.
    Shared Hosting • Managed Dedicated Servers • SEO
    1.866.WEBAIR.1 • www.webair.com • 24/7/365 Support • Adult Friendly
    My comments do not reflect the views of the company or its management.

  4. #29
    @ wanga ....

    nothing is far fetched if the demand snowballs into something big

    its not a qsn of delegating but allowing .. what amount you will allow

    for example stating clearly how much mysql connections will u allow - diff hosts have diff policies ( or shud have ) - the customer then knows which to choose

    just for example see this - http://forum.e-rice.net/viewtopic.php?t=326 question 21

  5. #30
    Telling a client how many MySQL connections he can have is fine, however do you really want a hosting company to limit you to 10 apache connections? That is about 1-2 visitors (I.E. uses 9 or so connections)

    I think its an advantage that a host will let you fluctuate system rescource usage. Sometimes you need the extra apache connections, sql connections, cpu usage to process a php.

    I suppose you are right in the respect that a hosting company should let you know what acceptable usage is: for example if we said that we MAY suspend an account if it uses more than 10% cpu / Memory but at the same time we cannot give you a live output of how much you're using as it is at the moment impossible.
    Webair Internet Development Inc.
    Shared Hosting • Managed Dedicated Servers • SEO
    1.866.WEBAIR.1 • www.webair.com • 24/7/365 Support • Adult Friendly
    My comments do not reflect the views of the company or its management.

  6. #31
    >>There is no standard whatsover

    thats exactly what - a forum and people will like to have a standard



    >>Each company has its own set of rules to determine wether a client

    rules should be made tranparent

    >>its using too much rescources, how much exactly? that's the hosting companies discretion.

    thats what most users object and will liketo know or see technology or means developed so that they are not blind and can see how the company applies discretion

    >>If you're worrying about rescource usage then go for a dedicated server, a shared environment is probably not for you. (that soudned cold, but it's not)

    certain hosts ( the recent one in closed thread ) have no means to upgrade and they shud clearly say that if "excess" usage is done client has to hunt new home and for that very sake they need to throw clear light on what is 'excess'

    I am also wrting to cpanel to addrsss this problem in their future versions ...

    >>This would limit a server to host rougly 220 sites, when it COULD possibly host 1000.

    may be you shud do that and price accordingly ... may be 2 groups shud emerge 'fair practice costlier ' hosts and 'at-webhosts-discretion-everything' cheaper hosts ...

    surely the forum needs to divide shared hosts into categories in addn to vps, ded etc

  7. #32
    I see where you're coming from but hosting is so dynamic that its difficult to implement such a thing, at the present day and time you just have to trust your host and hope that they're making the right decision.

    For example, a company can have in place: On a first (even 2nd) offense they probably dont suspend an account, they isolate the script/file thats causing the problem and disable it and notify the customer, they know that suspending a site can lead to undue hardships to their clients and wish to refrain from such.
    Last edited by webair-gene; 04-20-2005 at 10:13 AM.
    Webair Internet Development Inc.
    Shared Hosting • Managed Dedicated Servers • SEO
    1.866.WEBAIR.1 • www.webair.com • 24/7/365 Support • Adult Friendly
    My comments do not reflect the views of the company or its management.

  8. #33
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    9,264
    Originally posted by wanga
    I see where you're coming from but hosting is so dynamic that its difficult to implement such a thing, at the present day and time you just have to trust your host and hope that they're making the right decision.

    On a first (even 2nd) offense we dont suspend an account, we isolate the script/file thats causing the problem and disable it and notify the customer, we know that suspending a site can lead to undue hardships to our clients and we wish to refrain from such.
    Just a note Wanga - be careful of the WHT rules!

  9. #34
    fixed, thanks.
    Webair Internet Development Inc.
    Shared Hosting • Managed Dedicated Servers • SEO
    1.866.WEBAIR.1 • www.webair.com • 24/7/365 Support • Adult Friendly
    My comments do not reflect the views of the company or its management.

  10. #35
    I guess thats a very good practice wanga ( i am not sure of wht rules and hp-david what do you think of these if you have read all the posts in this thread ? ) - I wish all hosts adapt that ... disable script/software but do not suspend a/c unless properly satisfying the reasons ...

    and yes, i am raising this issue in cpanel domain or other admin panels ( since cpanel first response is always a n-no , for example long back they said why do u need a logout button when u can just close ur browser ) ... surely we advance if we want to and we can advance at affordable prices too ...

  11. #36
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    9,264
    Mahut,

    I've been here discussing it since the beginning of the thread as well - I had just noticed an awful lot of chirping on behalf of each companie's policies - which isn't allowed unless specifically requested.

    I do understand that there should be some sort of 'standard' - but there will never be a standard.

    As someone previously said - you have to just trust your host.
    Each host has different hardware, connections, opinions - there can be no standard.

  12. #37
    >>I do understand that there should be some sort of 'standard' - >> but there will never be a standard.

    may be end customers will differ and as they raise voices and concern some standard as oppsed to know standard is bound to emerge / value people will learn lesson from 'no standard' hosts and move onto those whio have at least some tranparent standards ....

    one aspect of forum is to crave for not what is but what can be or should be ....


    [[ this is rather offtopic and 'btw' sort of thing , and no offence please, just 'musing' - I just clicked on ur link David and i begin to understand why there cant be any standard at least why some hosts say that ]]
    Last edited by mahut; 04-20-2005 at 12:28 PM.

  13. #38
    Can I ask you guys few questions? If you stream (not let download but just let them listen) audio, would it exceed the the 10% limit?
    And what about running a coppermine gallery (with a decent number of pictures. like 500+) ? does that exceed 10% as well?

    thanks!

  14. #39
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Northern VA
    Posts
    1,582
    Not necessarily. It would be a lame host indeed that didn't allow any streaming because just one audio or video file would exceed bandwidth limits.

    I hosted a church web site with ix Web Hosting for a number of years. Many here will tell you they stink. We had over 200 sermons loaded in excess of 5 MB each and they were streamed regularly.

    For photos, same deal. It shouldn't tax 10% of resources. 500 pictures is not much space.

    The whole problem might be if you have a ton of people looking at those pictures or listening to files at the same time.
    Rich
    Husband, Father, Retired Marine, Geek

  15. #40
    how exactly or inexactly a host defines a ton seems to be the issue ... and hosts need to clearly address that ( hosts may not think so ) .... a ton may be = 100 or =10 though we thought bandwidth will be a measure for how many people consuming how much data ... surely it seems at 3000 megs and 100 gb transfer offered by host a and host b, scenario can be different when it comes to ton .... surely higher the ton and lesser the objection the greater will be the number of client .... clients want to know how you define or not define ton .... not qualitatively but quantitatively and wants a "meter" be developed in future if not now

  16. #41
    @sohifa ...
    coppermine has been blamed in many places as resource hog,
    phpbb has security hole thus a threat to system resource ( but not hog ) , some hosts predefine that for some intensive forums like vbb you can have not more than x number of users ....

    thus different standards but defined by some, illdefined by some and not defined by some ...

  17. #42
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Northern VA
    Posts
    1,582
    Not every problem can be solved by appealing to a mathematical equation.

    A web host can create a model but then you'd have to review their model to figure out if another web host was offering the same thing and using the same model.

    I know what you want and I can't fault you for asking for it but sometimes you just can't have the benefits that a free market provides and then try and enforce a tight regime of standards on top of it and expect it all to gel and provide the granularity and certainty you're looking for.
    Rich
    Husband, Father, Retired Marine, Geek

  18. #43
    >>A web host can create a model but then you'd have to review their model to figure out if >>another web host was offering the same thing and using the same model.

    thats what prospective clients do - compare host to host

    >>you just can't have the benefits that a free market provides

    how it is free - many may ask ? at $10 average permonth $120 a year it is a lot of money to lot of people though it may be just 'peanuts' to some webhosts

    >>and then try and enforce a tight regime of standards on top of it and expect it all to gel >>and provide the granularity and certainty you're looking for.

    not a tight regime ... just a regime that has clarity and meaning to the end client

    see what hosting was ten years ago, see how it is getting organized now, whatever disorganizations are there needs to be sorted out - if one is static in beliefs and say what is is ok there cant be any scope for advancement .... as I said no one thought of free media player incorporated graphical browser when it was just text only at version 1 - ideologies, ideas and strong belief can even spark of a new OS for the hosting industry and may come with even cheaper but high performer solutions ... we must raise a voice and voice shud reach proper ears ...

  19. #44
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    307
    I would like to see my resources guarateed somehow. How much system resources my 25 bucks are actually buying? I know I have x Gb of disk space and x Gb of bandwidth for what I pay.

    Individual site statistics is the next step to make shared hosting a better service.

    I can only think of some sort of mini Virtuozzo for resellers. It would be great!
    ACcomunica

  20. #45
    Thanks devildog and mahut.

    I think hosts need to clarify these kind of iformation. be more clearer or give examples so that we have a sense of what is defined by "reasonable". Everytime I look for ahost, i do read their policies, terms of services and all. but nobody I have seen yet defining or clearly stating what it means. all of them say if you exceed 10%, your account will be terminated. and that's what worries me.

    how should i know if i'm using that much resource? all i know is how much disk space i'm using and the bandwidth.

  21. #46
    I agree with you ACcomunica
    and wish more and more people air this opinion here, there and everywhere ...

  22. #47
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Northern VA
    Posts
    1,582
    I don't disagree that the goal would be good but it's just not as cut an dry as purists would prefer.

    You may not like the idea of it being called a free market but try and buy web hosting in another country and then tell me what price you would prefer to pay.

    All I'm saying is that when you start regulating companies then it creates the benefit you might want but also adds a premium in the fact that it has to comply with a regulation.

    I would like for somebody to come up with a model myself but the problem would always be:

    1. Would the web hosting community adopt it
    2. If they did would the web hosting companies be honest about whether they were reporting their stats accurately wrt the model
    3. If they weren't who would enforce it? Would they have the authority of the government or some other regulatory body to audit the web hosting company's compliance?
    4. Who would pay for this auditing agency?

    These are just things that come to mind. I'm not completely disagreeing with the idea of a standard. I'm just having trouble getting my arms around how it could be done in a way that preserved some of the things that cause prices to stay low too. I think you too easily assume away that everything you want can be done cheaply and easily and at little cost. I think it is a bare assumption however.

    Let's face it - shared hosting is, by definition, a way for consumers to get more for their money on the assumption that the aggregate requirement of you and the others on the server won't exceed what it can do. Hosts have done such a good job of meeting demands and marketing the idea of unlimited expectations that people are demanding something that can only be met at times by dedicated platforms. A company does not HAVE to sell you anything at any price and you don't have to pay for anything you don't agree to. It's easy to reap the benefits of low prices from economies of scale and then start wondering why were just being treated like a nother number.

    If you don't like the fact that they only serve pretzels in coach and you get bumped from your flight at times then fly first class.
    Rich
    Husband, Father, Retired Marine, Geek

  23. #48
    web hosting price in many countries are comparable and I am not in usa or canada

    i could not quite grasp the detailed discourse and the flight analogy .... flights still take to same destination ... they do not drop ( = suspend ) a passenger in mid air

    i know i dont have to pay for what i dont agree to and i know i wont ask for more by paying less

    the issue was about getting to know what i am getting for what i am paying with clarity and tranparency and not knowing in midterm of my tenure that i have done something wrong and thats at assumption and discretion of my host with me being in the blind

  24. #49
    if you are happy with current scenario its fantastic ...
    if you are not its even more fantastic ... dissatisfaction leads to development if you have belief and faith in the fact that you can evolute and develope further

  25. #50
    1. Would the web hosting community adopt it
    if the web hosted community's voice and demands can be unified

    2. If they did would the web hosting companies be honest about whether they were reporting their stats accurately wrt the model
    why they want to be dishonest ?? doing business shrewdity/strategy and dishonesty are not same , perhaps ??

    3. If they weren't who would enforce it? Would they have the authority of the government or some other regulatory body to audit the web hosting company's compliance?
    no one is above the laws of the land

    4. Who would pay for this auditing agency?
    who pays for the cop catching someone breaking traffic laws ?

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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