Results 1 to 36 of 36
  1. #1

    desperate for a good server

    Hello all...

    (first post here)

    I'm so desperate for a good dedicated server host. I've quite a big site hosted on a server, together with several small sites. The big one has quite a large msg board (invision) - 15.000 members. Bandwidth... guessing around 150 gb/month.

    I've had a dedicated server at EV1/Rackshack, Server Matrix and currently at Invision. All three lacking in performance.

    Not sure on what I really want when it comes to specs, but I just want a server that runs good and fast support if something goes wrong. Am I really asking too much? It seems I'm just very unlucky when it comes to choosing the right host.

    Any recommendations, tips... I'd appreciate it.

    Thanks!

  2. #2
    Try LiquidWeb, they have top notch services and very good Hardware specs.

    I am very happy with them.

    Regards
    Ruben
    Portugal Networks
    Shared and Reseller cPanel Accounts. NEW! Windows 2003 with Plesk, ASP.NET 2.0 and MSSQL 2005.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    3,038
    Well, the companies you mentioned are considered "Budget" hosts.. Not saying they are bad but they wouldn't be considered as you say "performance hosts"

    If you want great performance you need to aim a little higher..

  4. #4
    Originally posted by PTNHosting
    Try LiquidWeb, they have top notch services and very good Hardware specs.

    I am very happy with them.

    Regards
    Ruben
    Thanks. I had a site hosted a liquidweb once. It was crap (hosting & support) On a shared server though. For some reason I'm actually considering moving to liquidweb again. Any recommendations on their packages. How is their support?

    thx in advance

  5. #5
    Originally posted by X-Gaming
    Well, the companies you mentioned are considered "Budget" hosts.. Not saying they are bad but they wouldn't be considered as you say "performance hosts"

    If you want great performance you need to aim a little higher..
    really? paying a minimum of $200 a month is nothing i would consider 'budget'. but i could be wrong here. any host you could recommend in the 'performance' league?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    3,038
    Originally posted by atease
    Thanks. I had a site hosted a liquidweb once. It was crap (hosting & support) On a shared server though. For some reason I'm actually considering moving to liquidweb again. Any recommendations on their packages. How is their support?

    thx in advance
    We used to have one of our webservers hosted at LW. I would definately recommend them to you.

  7. #7
    I am using P4 3.06 HT server with them and i am very impressed with support and network, so i recomend them to any one looking for a managed server.

    Regards.
    Portugal Networks
    Shared and Reseller cPanel Accounts. NEW! Windows 2003 with Plesk, ASP.NET 2.0 and MSSQL 2005.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Texas, USA
    Posts
    84
    I use LayeredTech and I haven't had a problem with them.. my server has been online and running with them since it's been set up (26 days straight)..

    However, It's assumed that you have an extensive knowledge of server administration to keep it up.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    3,038
    Originally posted by atease
    really? paying a minimum of $200 a month is nothing i would consider 'budget'. but i could be wrong here. any host you could recommend in the 'performance' league?
    "Budget" hosters is not a term I use concerning how much you pay per month.

    The companies you referenced are widely considered "budget" oriented. It's kinda like shopping at Walmart vs. Macy's.


    A few companies that come to mind are :

    CRNC
    Liquid Web
    Rackspace
    route256.com

  10. #10
    Originally posted by X-Gaming
    "Budget" hosters is not a term I use concerning how much you pay per month.

    The companies you referenced are widely considered "budget" oriented. It's kinda like shopping at Walmart vs. Macy's.


    A few companies that come to mind are :

    CRNC
    Liquid Web
    Rackspace
    route256.com
    ah I see your point. thanks!!

  11. #11
    and for the ones who are recommending liquidweb (& layertech)... what kind of sites do you have running on those dedicated servers? I may sound picky here, but i'm just fed up with all the previous dedicated servers.

    will check out layer tech as well. nphase, when you say 'extensive knowledge of server administration'... i'd say i know my way around with plesk/cpanel when it comes to adding accounts, mail, etc... that's about it... and i'd like to keep it that way

  12. #12
    route256 looks alright as well. especially their managed ded.servers

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Texas, USA
    Posts
    84
    Yep...

    I just like LayeredTech because my pings are ~16ms.

  14. #14

    NDCHost

    Try NDCHost. I'm working with them for almost a year and very happy. Good prices, great support and reliability. Plus, very nice people to deal with (which is also important).

    Peter

  15. #15
    u should try dedicatedplace.com they are reseller of LT
    I have 2 box with them and all running pretty good. Sometimes when the problems arise you can email them and got the problem resolve after 10' mins or so.

    Use the search and you will see some nice review about DP

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Switzerland
    Posts
    855
    15.000 members ! Waou, your board is successfull. However, even if you need only 150 Gb bandwith a month, you can't rely on a $100 server to host this board.

    Your board must run a huge data base. If you take a low end, or even a middle range server, you will not make it regardless where you take this machine.

    I would recommand a server with at few Gb RAM, at least 6 - 8 Gb to start, then SCSI drives and dual CPU. If you bet for less, you will be allways disapointed.
    .:. Enterprise SAN Consultant .:.

  17. #17
    well. i'm paying $230 per month at the moment for an Intel Celeron 2.0 GHz, with 1 GB RAM. And i think I need a managed server to be ensured of proper support.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Indiana, US
    Posts
    1,354
    Originally posted by edelweisshosting
    15.000 members ! Waou, your board is successfull. However, even if you need only 150 Gb bandwith a month, you can't rely on a $100 server to host this board.

    Your board must run a huge data base. If you take a low end, or even a middle range server, you will not make it regardless where you take this machine.

    I would recommand a server with at few Gb RAM, at least 6 - 8 Gb to start, then SCSI drives and dual CPU. If you bet for less, you will be allways disapointed.
    6-8GB RAM???? This is not WHT we're talking about...

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    3,038
    Yikes I don't even think WHT uses that much ram in their machines to host this site..

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Texas, USA
    Posts
    84
    Originally posted by SigmaRan
    6-8GB RAM???? This is not WHT we're talking about...
    yeah. not just that, even Dual Xeons/Opterons would be overkill.

    you won't be dissappointed with a p4 2.4 or 2.8ghz... Course, the celery server you have right now is too low anyways.

  21. #21
    let's say it should be able to handle several hunderds of users online. the most recent record was around 400. but this is a slow period and i want to be prepared for the busy period. then i've got a news database powered by movable type. parts of the other pages (apart from the forum) use php require tags. that's several hundreds of pages too.

    also on the server is a medium size site with about 200 unique visitors and a small forum. nothing to worry about i think. and about 10 small sites, which only sit there because they're hardly using any disk space/bandwidth.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    2,005
    Originally posted by atease
    well. i'm paying $230 per month at the moment for an Intel Celeron 2.0 GHz, with 1 GB RAM. And i think I need a managed server to be ensured of proper support.
    \

    So you have a 15,000 member board running on a consumer based non server processor. And you think the problem is the providers you're going to? Upgrade to a real processor like a Pentium 4 or AMD Athlon and you'll see some real performance...whoever said 6 to 8 gigs of ram doesn't seem to know what they are talking about. 1-2 gigs of ram will be more than enough.

    Go with managed if you don't know enough about server administration, it will save you headaches down the road.
    I wish all my traffic went through AS174.

  23. #23
    thanks....but i don't know if it's the provider. i now realise that the machine makes a lot of difference. but every provider (and i had quite a few) haven't advised me properly. if i knew my way around servers i would've started my own server biz. and i'm most likely going for managed. based on all of the suggestions i think 2 gb of RAM is what I need.

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    2,005
    http://www.ev1servers.net/english/pentium4_series.asp

    Should consider EV1 again, just this time on a real server and not a Celeron. Good value for your money in my opinion, and a solid network.
    I wish all my traffic went through AS174.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    3,038
    Your best bet IMO is going with the most server you can afford and hiring a third party to manage it for you. Reason being alot of places call it "managed" servers but at the end of the day this only means they will update the machine for you when you put a ticket in asking for it..

    You can get a decent managment Co. to look after your server for as little as $30 per month and will save you a ton of headaches.

  26. #26
    thanks. but for some reason three parties dealing with one server sounds like a bit too much.

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    3,038
    Originally posted by atease
    thanks. but for some reason three parties dealing with one server sounds like a bit too much.

    hahaa. Sorry, What I was referring to is 3rd party managment which will take over the responsibility of the server. Basically neither you nor the DC would touch the server. We use a company now to look after our web servers and since they have been up we have not had one issue with them or had to log in at all. It is full management for your machine.

  28. #28
    no... i know what you meant

    i meant three parties dealing with one server: me, host, 3rd party management.

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    3,038

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    833
    Check Idologic out.

    Friendly, knowledgeable and helpful.

  31. #31
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    5,084
    atease, as others have pointed out, you are on a underpowered server for your needs. There are many options at many companies that can meet your needs.

    It sounds like you need some basic management and at $200 your close to where you can get some management functions thrown in.

    I am a big fan of multiprocessor servers and think you would be best advised to go for something like that. Good luck in your search. For your price range you can find something good. If you ask around many providers will either provide a management option or recommend you to a 3rd party and most providers won't do much finger pointing to the other party if they recommend them.

    Personally I am a fan of Solidlogix or Rack911 just based on my experience if you decide to go 3rd party. Rack911 probably has more depth but solidlogix is a good new company.
    Andrι Allen | E: aallen(a)linovus.ca
    Linovus Holdings Inc
    Shared Hosting, Reseller Hosting, VPS, Dedicated Servers & Public Cloud | USA, Canada & UK - 24x7x365 Support

  32. #32
    Originally posted by X-Gaming
    Your best bet IMO is going with the most server you can afford and hiring a third party to manage it for you. Reason being alot of places call it "managed" servers but at the end of the day this only means they will update the machine for you when you put a ticket in asking for it..

    You can get a decent managment Co. to look after your server for as little as $30 per month and will save you a ton of headaches.
    Hi X-Gaming,

    Who would you recommend for third party server management company?

    Thanks.

    -M

  33. #33
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    833
    Originally posted by X-Gaming
    Your best bet IMO is going with the most server you can afford and hiring a third party to manage it for you. Reason being alot of places call it "managed" servers but at the end of the day this only means they will update the machine for you when you put a ticket in asking for it..
    If they do not do what they say they will do then avoid them, why stick with them or sign up with them. Make sure you find out what their "manage" means before signing up with them. I know Idologic do what they say they will do, I am sure many others will.

    You can get a decent managment Co. to look after your server for as little as $30 per month and will save you a ton of headaches.
    Is $30 enough to pay the wages of a server admin to proactive fully manage a server? How much time a server admin needs to spend on a server monthly to proactive fully manage a server?

  34. #34

    How Managed is Managed?

    Here is a problem I had.

    My provider is unmanaged, and one that is recognized as good by the board, and I have a company that does manage the server very well for me. So all goes well

    Except when the linux OS doesn't load

    So the DC says I have to have a reload and I end up being down like 36 hours. Not good for your customers or you.

    So what about a solution for managed servers where they actually try to help before forcing you to do an OS reload and charge you for it.

    My very limited knowledge says that if they are at the physical box they should first look to see if it can be fixed.

    Thoughts and advise please.

    Tks, Larry

  35. #35
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    833

    Re: How Managed is Managed?

    Originally posted by dlsweb
    Here is a problem I had.

    My provider is unmanaged, and one that is recognized as good by the board, and I have a company that does manage the server very well for me. So all goes well

    Except when the linux OS doesn't load

    So the DC says I have to have a reload and I end up being down like 36 hours. Not good for your customers or you.

    So what about a solution for managed servers where they actually try to help before forcing you to do an OS reload and charge you for it.

    My very limited knowledge says that if they are at the physical box they should first look to see if it can be fixed.

    Thoughts and advise please.

    Tks, Larry
    Talk to Idologic , they have managed solutions and they do what they say they will do.

  36. #36
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Posts
    276
    Try Sigmaservers.com , Low Pings, good Pricing and 1000GB of transfer. Contact theirs sales, and they will hook you up!.

Posting Permissions

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