Results 1 to 25 of 33
-
05-15-2005, 09:25 AM #1Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Feb 2003
- Location
- Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
- Posts
- 4,980
Tell me which provider I should go for...
OK, here is a scenerio, this server is running on global content delivery system, therefore it is extremely important for me to look for an offsite provider that could run this thing:
1. I need extremely reliable network, speed and stability.
2. I need superb support.
3. I want to ensure that the NOC is ready to deal with ddos although we have not encountered it before.
I have made scoped down and needed your opinion:
1. liquidweb
2. gnax
3. voxel
4. steadfast
5. sagonet
Which should I go for?
-
05-15-2005, 09:41 AM #2Eternal Member
- Join Date
- Dec 2004
- Location
- New York, NY
- Posts
- 10,710
Re: Tell me which provider I should go for...
Originally posted by UltraUnixNET
Which should I go for?
CheersMediaLayer, LLC - www.medialayer.com Learn how we can make your website load faster, translating to better conversion rates for your business!
The pioneers of optimized web hosting, featuring LiteSpeed Web Server & SSD Storage - Celebrating 10 Years in Business
-
05-15-2005, 02:07 PM #3WHT Addict
- Join Date
- Jan 2005
- Posts
- 133
Steadfast used to host the main mirror of a site I was part of that was doing 4 million uniques a day. They were able to help mitigate the DDoSes, and smooth out bandwidth spikes when they did occur. Overall, it was a great experience.
-
05-15-2005, 02:14 PM #4Web Hosting Guru
- Join Date
- Mar 2004
- Location
- Duluth, MN
- Posts
- 286
Re: Tell me which provider I should go for...
Originally posted by UltraUnixNET
OK, here is a scenerio, this server is running on global content delivery system, therefore it is extremely important for me to look for an offsite provider that could run this thing:
1. I need extremely reliable network, speed and stability.
2. I need superb support.
3. I want to ensure that the NOC is ready to deal with ddos although we have not encountered it before.
I have made scoped down and needed your opinion:
1. liquidweb
2. gnax
3. voxel
4. steadfast
5. sagonet
Which should I go for?Tim Ryberg, InterWorx L.L.C. | InterWorx Hosting Control Panel 3.0!
Views expressed are the author's own and do not represent those of InterWorx L.L.C. unless stated otherwise.
Join me in my personal quest for The Ultimate CMS!
-
05-15-2005, 02:33 PM #5Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Aug 2004
- Posts
- 678
I second allmanaged since i have tried them, great network and support...
Others seem fine as well, but i didnt have any personal experience with them.
-
05-15-2005, 03:36 PM #6Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Jul 2002
- Posts
- 1,443
My vote goes to GNAX. They have handled our DDoS situation months back quite well. The network is also very reliable and great people to work with.
Synergy Blue LLC
SonataWeb.net | SynergyBlue.com
USA should so something about: http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/
-
05-15-2005, 03:53 PM #7Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Nov 2002
- Posts
- 2,780
None of them are really "manage", maybe try rackspace.
http://Ethr.net jay@ethr.net
West Coast AT&T / Level3 / Savvis Bandwidth, Colocation, Dedicated Server, Managed IP Service, Hardware Load Balancing Service, Transport Service, 365 Main St, SFO / 200 Paul Ave, SFO / PAIX, PAO / Market Post Tower, 55 S. Market, SJC / 11 Great Oaks, Equinix, SJC
-
05-15-2005, 04:37 PM #8Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Mar 2004
- Location
- New York City
- Posts
- 995
Originally posted by Mfjp
None of them are really "manage", maybe try rackspace.
SamSam Machiz / Director, Product Development / Ubersmith
smachiz[at]ubersmith.com / [direct] 212-812-4194
-
05-15-2005, 04:38 PM #9Newbie
- Join Date
- May 2005
- Posts
- 18
I'm going to go out of your 5 providers, and suggest ThePlanet - we've dealt with them for a lot of things, and have very good support teams and an extremely reliable network (from what I've dealt with).
But if you want to stick to your 5, I'd suggest looking at VoxelNathan Moore
Implux Internet Services
High quality, professional hosting for sites, voice servers, game servers and more!
Ph: 1 (858) 366-4854 * E-mail: sales@implux.net
-
05-15-2005, 04:53 PM #10Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Sep 2002
- Location
- Oklahoma
- Posts
- 825
If you are considering steadfast then I would have a look at coloquest. Both companies are based out of Chicago and coloquest has a proven record of mitigating ddos.
-
05-15-2005, 11:31 PM #11Newbie
- Join Date
- Feb 2005
- Posts
- 13
Steadfastnetworks seems to get a lot of support from this community.
Before learning this I investigated Steadfastnetworks as an option.
Here are some sites hosted with them:
uptime.netcraft.com/up/hosted?netname=CW-205-218-64-0,205.218.64.0,205.218.67.255
This is a very meager and poorly performing netcraft listing compared to other hosts.
As recently as July of 2004 they were hosted with fdcservers.net:
uptime.netcraft.com/up/hosted?netname=FDCSERVERSNET,66.90.68.0,66.90.68.63
Before that, in 2002, they were with Icon Developments
uptime.netcraft.com/up/hosted?netname=COMMUNITECHNET,209.15.0.0,209.15.255.255
Nozone (their stub/parent company) was hosted at Interland in 2001
uptime.netcraft.com/up/hosted?netname=ICON-CNETS,192.41.0.0,192.41.101.255
They employ png alpha hacks throughout their site, even in places they don't need to.
My multi-ping to them is higher and fluctuates more than most hosts I am monitoring.
(PS. I can't post real urls)
-
05-15-2005, 11:45 PM #12Newbie
- Join Date
- Feb 2005
- Posts
- 13
I had high hopes for voxel and particularly voxrox, but like a couple others
I have discarded from my list, their connections are wildly fluctuating.
They have more impressive netcraft client numbers:
uptime.netcraft.com/up/hosted?netname=VOXEL-NET,69.9.160.0,69.9.191.255
However, my multi-ping to them is the most jagged of all those I still
monitor. (I already removed serverpronto and serverbeach for similar)
Both voxel.net and voxrox.com exhibit this apparent instability going
all the way up to and above 200ms for pings to their network.
Half of the recommendations in these forums are not even in netcraft's
list of well performing hosts. The other half are, but people are often
dismissing them for price, though a few have decent prices.
uptime.netcraft.com/perf/reports/performance/Hosters?tn=april_2005
Expensive options better than voxel.net:
Primary: Interland, Pair, NYI
Secondary: InetU, EV1
Budget options probably better than voxrox.com:
Primary:
1and1 (great network/uptimes/clients/bad-reviews here?/due to sheer size?)
EV1 (almost the same story as 1and1, great numbers, bad/lesser reputation)
Secondary:
Dreamhost (lesser client uptimes than voxel, less professional concerns)
I was really hoping voxrox would be my nice host, but the low-price game
seems to have burnt me again. Why are their sites slow?
(PS. I can't post URLs)
-
05-15-2005, 11:57 PM #13WHT Addict
- Join Date
- Nov 2003
- Location
- Boston, MA
- Posts
- 141
I'd have to go with Steadfast from that list.
Going outside I'd go with GigE/Coloquest or CyberWurx (although I don't have any experience with cyberwurx and DDoS attacks)
-
05-15-2005, 11:58 PM #14THE Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Jan 2003
- Location
- Chicago, IL
- Posts
- 6,957
Originally posted by kaishaku
Steadfastnetworks seems to get a lot of support from this community.
Before learning this I investigated Steadfastnetworks as an option.
Here are some sites hosted with them:
uptime.netcraft.com/up/hosted?netname=CW-205-218-64-0,205.218.64.0,205.218.67.255
This is a very meager and poorly performing netcraft listing compared to other hosts.
As recently as July of 2004 they were hosted with fdcservers.net:
uptime.netcraft.com/up/hosted?netname=FDCSERVERSNET,66.90.68.0,66.90.68.63
Before that, in 2002, they were with Icon Developments
uptime.netcraft.com/up/hosted?netname=COMMUNITECHNET,209.15.0.0,209.15.255.255
Nozone (their stub/parent company) was hosted at Interland in 2001
uptime.netcraft.com/up/hosted?netname=ICON-CNETS,192.41.0.0,192.41.101.255
They employ png alpha hacks throughout their site, even in places they don't need to.
My multi-ping to them is higher and fluctuates more than most hosts I am monitoring.
(PS. I can't post real urls)
I'm open about our history, just ask me, and I'll tell you. We started doing shared hosting on a reseller account in 1997. From there we moved onto our own dedicated server and eventually operated on several dedicated servers throughout the US. In 2004 these became too spread out and we had saved enough cash and resources to allow us to build out our own network, based out of Equinix in Chicago. We opened our own network in June of 2004, keeping things at FDC, which is also in Chicago, up to that point. We aren't hiding anything, that is our history, do you have a problem with it?
As for that NetCraft report, what does it prove? The IP space you seem to be checking is less than half of our IPs and most of the IP space being checked is also used for shared/VPS hosting... Also, I would assume that companies with more servers then we have, and which have been offering dedicated servers for more than a year, would have a more developed NetCraft survey.
As for your multi-ping, first of all, no hard facts were shown to prove that is the case. Second, I highly doubt that pings from a single location are really valid for an overall network assesment. I would honestly put my network up against any others in Chicago in regards to overall performance and reliability.
As for the alpha png hacks, we use transparent PNG's on every page of our site, it is part of the XHTML standard, and I don't believe it is our fault that Microsoft cannot make a standards compatible browser, though it is looking like IE7 will have some vast improvements. Just more reasons to use a real browser, such as Firefox...Karl Zimmerman - Founder & CEO of Steadfast
VMware Virtual Data Center Platform
karl @ steadfast.net - Sales/Support: 312-602-2689
Cloud Hosting, Managed Dedicated Servers, Chicago Colocation, and New Jersey Colocation
-
05-16-2005, 06:18 AM #15Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Feb 2003
- Location
- Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
- Posts
- 4,980
We have servers in CyberWurx, therefore not considering them, need an offsite server.
-
05-16-2005, 06:24 AM #16Aspiring Evangelist
- Join Date
- May 2004
- Location
- Blue Springs, Missouri
- Posts
- 366
hey karl!
servercentral > your network
OK, and where is a reason in there not to host with us?
-
05-16-2005, 06:53 AM #17THE Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Jan 2003
- Location
- Chicago, IL
- Posts
- 6,957
Originally posted by omaha.stylee
hey karl!
servercentral > your network
gotta love those sales tactics!! no wonder you're a fan favorite!!Karl Zimmerman - Founder & CEO of Steadfast
VMware Virtual Data Center Platform
karl @ steadfast.net - Sales/Support: 312-602-2689
Cloud Hosting, Managed Dedicated Servers, Chicago Colocation, and New Jersey Colocation
-
05-16-2005, 08:05 AM #18Newbie
- Join Date
- Feb 2005
- Posts
- 13
A host that tells me to use a "real" browser is not a host for me.
The web was built with non-real browsers and many use them.
Forcing PNG alpha hacks on a large numbers of visitors is wrong.
This is compounded by the fact you do not need to use them.
You struck me as a fan favorite partly due to your participation
here. This tactic has its downsides, and your personality is one.
My post allows others to further investigate you and steadfast.
That is a good thing(tm). I never said not to host with you,
but given your reply I may as well:
Don't host with steadfastnetworks, there are better options.
Options with more stable pings, no crazy browser antics, and
self-assured owners without the time to participate in these
forums responding to every quibble and blathering about
development standards and ideals you already know well.
You may not know them by first name, but they exist.
-
05-16-2005, 08:07 AM #19WHT Addict
- Join Date
- Jan 2005
- Posts
- 133
Originally posted by kaishaku
Forcing PNG alpha hacks on a large numbers of visitors is wrong.
This is compounded by the fact you do not need to use them.
Let me get this straight........you're holding the fact that your browser can't display PNGs properly because its manufacturer holds no regards for web standards against a company's ability to offer dedicated server?
That makes no sense at all.
-
05-16-2005, 08:10 AM #20WHT Addict
- Join Date
- Jan 2005
- Posts
- 133
Originally posted by KarlZimmer
As for the alpha png hacks, we use transparent PNG's on every page of our site, it is part of the XHTML standard, and I don't believe it is our fault that Microsoft cannot make a standards compatible browser, though it is looking like IE7 will have some vast improvements. Just more reasons to use a real browser, such as Firefox...
Just because one vendor will not implement an open and widely recognized standard does not make a webmaster incompetent - in this situation, its quite the contrary. A PNG is the best choice for what its being used for, and because one browser does not support the widely recognized standard is no fault of the webmaster.
Wake up, folks, IE is NOT the internet, and Microsoft does not get to set standards by themselves.
-
05-16-2005, 08:21 AM #21Newbie
- Join Date
- Feb 2005
- Posts
- 13
A host that tells me to use a "real" browser is not a host for me.
The web was built with non-real browsers and many use them.
Forcing PNG alpha hacks on a large numbers of visitors is wrong.
This is compounded by the fact you do not need to use them.
-
05-16-2005, 08:24 AM #22Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Feb 2003
- Location
- Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
- Posts
- 4,980
Hm, this is my topic, not yours, please do not change the genre.
-
05-16-2005, 08:28 AM #23Newbie
- Join Date
- Feb 2005
- Posts
- 13
Karl struck me as a fan favorite partly due to his participation
here. This tactic has its downsides, and his personality is one.
My post allows others to further investigate him and steadfast.
This is a good thing(tm).
-
05-16-2005, 08:55 AM #24Junior Guru Wannabe
- Join Date
- Mar 2005
- Posts
- 44
Stop repeating yourself.
-
05-16-2005, 09:09 AM #25WHT Addict
- Join Date
- Jan 2005
- Posts
- 133
Originally posted by kaishaku
A host that tells me to use a "real" browser is not a host for me.
The web was built with non-real browsers and many use them.
Forcing PNG alpha hacks on a large numbers of visitors is wrong.
This is compounded by the fact you do not need to use them.
PNG is a standard recognized by the W3C and implemented across multiple platforms by a wide variety of companies. This isn't even an issue on Apple/Linux/Unix platforms, nor is it an issue on Windows-based web browsers which comply to standards - most notably Mozilla/Firefox and Opera. MSIE is the only browser used by any appreciable portion of the population which still exhibits this obsolete and incorrect rendering behavior.
It is not Karl's fault that your defective browser fails to properly render his standards compliant site.
Furthermore, http://www.steadfastnetworks.com/ is FULLY COMPLIANT with the XHTML 1.1 specification.
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=ht...etworks.com%2F