Results 1 to 34 of 34
  1. #1

    P4 3.0 vs TGL 100 from thegridlayer

    Does anyone has any experience with the new grid server in thegridlayer ?

    I just move my site which has 350k page view per day from my old server P4 3.0 to the new grid server TGL100

    And I found out all performance are drop a lot in the TGL100.

    Server Load is rise a lot.. From Avg 1.5 to 30 during the peak hour.

    My new grid server only has very simple setup:

    Apache2.0, php5, mysql5, eAccelerator

    All setup and script are same as my old server. But the grid server's performance
    are much more lower than P4 3.0

    Does anyone able to give my any suggestion ?

    Thanks

  2. #2
    Go back to the p4 3.0.
    Jay

  3. #3
    For $200 per month, you can get a much better server from SoftLayer.com

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    AU
    Posts
    690
    Better stay with P4 3.0 and do optimize. Softlayer is good although they aren't managed.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    251
    TGL's pricing is high for what you get. You basically have "downgraded" from a dedicated server where you had all the resources of the server to a VPS where you are only getting a slice. You are basically paying for the "high availability" of your grid server, but it is still basically an overpriced VPS.

    One real positive is TGL has the potential to scale but the way TGL is priced, it would seem to be very expensive to add the grid servers so your website is properly load balanced on multiple servers.

    TGL needs to rethink their pricing in my opinion. They should only sell 1GB grid servers and give discounts (progressively) for adding servers to your grid (and the servers should be billed by usage and not a fixed price each month). Then, if you single server is overloaded you can just add another to the grid. But, not many small time website operators are going to want to pay $200 a pop for each 1GB grid server they have to add when they only need it during "peak" times to keep their website running smoothly.
    Kevin, The Walrus

  6. #6
    My Grid Server's Load is higher than 30 righ now.. Compare to the P4 3.0

    P4 3.0 is better and cheaper than grid server TGL 100

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    785
    lokman,

    The TGL package you have is equvilent to a 2.4ghz or higher CPU and 1GB of RAM + 100GB of highly available storage. We have also had a support ticket open awaiting your reply for the last couple days with a request to restart you appliance so a new CPU threshold can be set. Please check the open tickets in our support portal.

    Regards,

    Jeremy

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    251
    Quote Originally Posted by LTADMIN
    The TGL package you have is equvilent to a 2.4ghz or higher CPU and 1GB of RAM + 100GB of highly available storage.
    You should make this clear on your webpage in describing the available packages. Also, I'd like to see the cost of upgrades shown as well. What if I want to add another GB to the grid server? Also, what if I want another 100GBs? What if I need two load balanced servers to support the website? How much is that going to run me?

    I like the idea of being able to scale as the website grows, but your web page gives me no idea of how much it will cost me to scale. It is as if you are only selling to the VPS crowd with the packages you have now. Not to the dedicated server crowd... I know I can upgrade to dual processor/dual core or dual processor/quad core to scale a large website or split my website across two servers (one for web and the other for database) and I have a very good idea of what that would cost me.

    With TGL, I have no idea what it would cost to get the equivalent of dual clovertown (16GB) server processing power. Seems to me I would need to buy at least 10 TGL 100 grid servers (at $2K/month) to get this kind of scale that a single server would give me. And, by the time I'm ready for this type of server, there will be quad processor/quad core servers available.

    Now, if you adopted a utility pricing model and published this on your website, it might be a very attractive alternative to go with TGL. That is, all grid server packages would have 8 load balanced TGL 100 grid servers allocated to it (for the base price of $200/month) and if the load balanced cluster needs more resources than a single grid server would provide for some period of time, the extra processing time (by one of the 8 load balanced servers) would be billed at $1/hour/grid server. Most of the customers would not use more than the base grid server, but if they have a busy website during the day, the load balanced cluster might overflow to the $1/hour/grid server level.

    Anyway, just a thought. But, TGL will have to have a better pricing model published on the website before I will consider moving a busy website to it (one that would outgrow a VPS).
    Kevin, The Walrus

  9. #9
    Hi ! AWalrus

    I just moved one of my busy server to TGL 100 from my old server. My old server is P4 3.0 1GB memory. But looks like my old server has better performance than TGL 100.

    Compare to server load on the busy hour
    ---------------------------
    P4 3.0 - Server Load < 5
    TGL100 - Server Load < 30

    Hard Drive I/O benchmark
    hdparm -Tf /home/mysql.sql
    ---------------------------
    P4 3.0 - 1800MB / s
    TGL100 - 350MB /s

    Finally, I know the package of TGL100's cpu are based on 2.4GHZ
    But my application is currently running on 2.8GHZ CPU. It means
    I has over 27% using of the CPU allocated.

    So, the TGL100's performance is not even come close to P4 3.0 but
    the price is almost twice. : (

    P4 3.0 - $109/month.
    TGL100 - $199/month.

    -------------------------------
    I will try to ask LT to upgrade my CPU allocations higer. To see how well
    the server running. But I don't know the price yet

    My TGL100's server load is currently between 5 ~ 15 during the non-Busy hour
    In order to run my application stable, I must keep the server load under 3.
    Last edited by lokman; 12-01-2006 at 03:57 PM.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    217
    lokman have you read:

    We have also had a support ticket open awaiting your reply for the last couple days with a request to restart you appliance so a new CPU threshold can be set. Please check the open tickets in our support portal.

  11. #11
    Hi ! carlgm

    I have replied the ticket and the new CPU threshold was set.
    I will keep checking the server load during the busy hours


    Below is my top and which is non-busy hour on my server,
    most of the process is just apache. And the server 95% is static HTML
    not CGI script. You can see I only have a few MySQL process.
    ----------------------------------------------------
    top - 21:37:53 up 12:16, 1 user, load average: 5.80, 4.90, 4.54
    Tasks: 117 total, 2 running, 115 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie
    Cpu(s): 12.7% us, 17.0% sy, 0.0% ni, 68.3% id, 1.0% wa, 0.0% hi, 1.0% si
    Mem: 1035484k total, 856404k used, 179080k free, 82268k buffers
    Swap: 524280k total, 0k used, 524280k free, 603044k cached

    PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND
    11007 apache 16 0 41880 13m 9660 S 1.3 1.4 0:01.90 httpd
    12377 apache 15 0 41888 13m 9592 S 0.7 1.4 0:01.98 httpd
    22462 apache 15 0 41800 13m 9212 S 0.7 1.3 0:00.87 httpd
    3677 apache 15 0 41880 12m 8252 S 0.7 1.2 0:00.09 httpd
    3881 apache 15 0 41524 11m 7336 S 0.7 1.1 0:00.13 httpd
    4826 apache 15 0 41524 11m 8004 S 0.7 1.2 0:00.03 httpd
    4924 apache 15 0 41836 12m 8304 S 0.7 1.2 0:00.05 httpd
    1006 mysql 15 0 59620 21m 3976 S 0.3 2.1 1:01.50 mysqld
    1024 mysql 16 0 59620 21m 3976 S 0.3 2.1 1:19.81 mysqld
    31955 apache 15 0 41900 13m 9676 S 0.3 1.4 0:04.17 httpd
    11297 apache 15 0 41920 14m 9.9m S 0.3 1.4 0:04.51 httpd
    6891 apache 15 0 41884 13m 9388 S 0.3 1.3 0:02.18 httpd
    9138 apache 15 0 41904 13m 9292 S 0.3 1.3 0:01.83 httpd
    12011 apache 15 0 41876 13m 9312 S 0.3 1.3 0:01.55 httpd
    17042 apache 15 0 41952 13m 9624 S 0.3 1.4 0:02.17 httpd
    17801 apache 15 0 41892 13m 9200 S 0.3 1.3 0:01.26 httpd
    20770 apache 16 0 41716 12m 8844 S 0.3 1.3 0:00.91 httpd
    Last edited by lokman; 12-02-2006 at 01:42 AM.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1,270
    looks like a rip off to me. I am every suspicious of this whole grid stuff. I won't be moving anytime soon.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Bay Area
    Posts
    1,320
    A ripoff? Please just do a little research before posting that kind of BS.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    813
    can you install lighttpd on this TGL thingie? seems apache is running hot

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Bay Area
    Posts
    1,320
    You can. I've tried it with PHP using FastCGI, works like a charm

  16. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by mihd
    can you install lighttpd on this TGL thingie? seems apache is running hot
    Hi mihd

    The problems is my P4 3.0 handle that kind of load very easy. Right now
    the grid server seems not able to handle high volumn of traffic.

    My site currently in Alexa rank 2000

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    813
    sorry to hear that, alexa 2000! damn yea thats quite a problem for you mate


    lighttpd will help on any server it just undeniably faster than apache and uses alot less resources


    i looked at this offer, the technology behind this is fascinating but is it me or this just seems like an overglorified VPS (200$!!) ?


    anyways their front page says
    Unlimited CPU and server use which means lower cost and greater ROI.
    ....

  18. #18
    Hi ! mihd

    Right now, looks like the cost is double, and the performance is ran down.

    P4 3.0 is able to handle my Alexa 2000 site easily and cost only $109/month
    I don't need to split the web/database in different server.

    TGL100 cost $199/month. and also LT suggest me to split the web/database in appliance.

    Looks like it will cost 3 times more, In order to keep my site running smooth.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    785
    lokman,

    Your misunderstanding. You certainly do not need 100GB of storage space for your MySQL host and it can use a portion of your existing quota if needed. What you need is the additional CPU and RAM from a 2nd appliance and then you run your MySQL on that. Both will be inside you own appliacation and you can define which gets more resources of your total quota.

    As I suggested in the email you could upgrade to something like 150GB of storage, 2+ CPU and 2+GB of RAM. Splitting the MySQL onto its own appliance will drop the load on your WWW host. The MySQL should not need more then a few GB for storage and would probally want a full CPU and 1GB of RAM you can then use the storage space for WWW appliance and any other resources left over.

    Also please keep in mind what I said about how to read the load average. I will ask the staff from 3tera to post and explain it further but what you are seeing is not the true load.

    Thanks,

    Jeremy

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    785
    Quote Originally Posted by AWalrus
    You should make this clear on your webpage in describing the available packages. Also, I'd like to see the cost of upgrades shown as well. What if I want to add another GB to the grid server? Also, what if I want another 100GBs? What if I need two load balanced servers to support the website? How much is that going to run me?

    I like the idea of being able to scale as the website grows, but your web page gives me no idea of how much it will cost me to scale. It is as if you are only selling to the VPS crowd with the packages you have now. Not to the dedicated server crowd... I know I can upgrade to dual processor/dual core or dual processor/quad core to scale a large website or split my website across two servers (one for web and the other for database) and I have a very good idea of what that would cost me.

    With TGL, I have no idea what it would cost to get the equivalent of dual clovertown (16GB) server processing power. Seems to me I would need to buy at least 10 TGL 100 grid servers (at $2K/month) to get this kind of scale that a single server would give me. And, by the time I'm ready for this type of server, there will be quad processor/quad core servers available.

    Now, if you adopted a utility pricing model and published this on your website, it might be a very attractive alternative to go with TGL. That is, all grid server packages would have 8 load balanced TGL 100 grid servers allocated to it (for the base price of $200/month) and if the load balanced cluster needs more resources than a single grid server would provide for some period of time, the extra processing time (by one of the 8 load balanced servers) would be billed at $1/hour/grid server. Most of the customers would not use more than the base grid server, but if they have a busy website during the day, the load balanced cluster might overflow to the $1/hour/grid server level.

    Anyway, just a thought. But, TGL will have to have a better pricing model published on the website before I will consider moving a busy website to it (one that would outgrow a VPS).

    We do have pricing for upgrades available on the site now but it is buried down in the shopping cart. Others have raised this issue with us earlier this week and a new site will be up next week with more details on upgrade paths and costs. It should be MUCH easier to understand once that is live. I am also working with 3tera and my staff to build some templates that people can use for any LAMP type application which will spread the load out to multiple appliances on the TGL. This will allow to have a 1 firewall input, 1 load balancer input, 2 or more WWW hosts, 1 MySQL host and 1-2 NAS devices to store your log and content data on.

    You could also add an optional mail host for outbound mails. Each of these appliance devices would have their own HA storage that can be used from a quota of a larger amount and can have their own CPU, RAM resources assigned to them. You can also have additional WWW hosts installed but running idle or turned down but ready to be turned up if you need to handle a large rush of traffic or load.

    I am speaking with our sales group to come up with prices for the bulk purchase of resources like this so you pay for what you need. IE with this package if you have a busy site and small content you could go with 60GB HA storage, 4x CPU, 8GB of RAM to run the entire application. Or if you need more HA storage you could go the other way.

    Remember also the HA storage is what costs the most as anytime you put 1B of data on a disk on TGL it is written to a second disk on a second host. So you see only 10GB of space getting used up but it is actually consuming 20GB of space on the TGL. The second 10GB being the mirror of the first incase the first node should have a hardware failure.

    Thanks,

    Jeremy

    EDIT: Also I feel many people do not understand how TGL works and I encourage you to review the long thread that is already open on these forums here and also take 20 mins and watch the demo from our site or 3tera.com. If you have ANY type of questions please feel free to ask them in the other thread where myself and others from 3tera will answer them.

    http://webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?t=561046
    Last edited by Cirrostratus; 12-02-2006 at 05:52 PM.

  21. #21
    Bottomline as Jay said: Go back to the P4 3.0ghz.
    Like us on Facebook to qualify for discounts!
    http://www.sprintserve.net
    Offering: | Internap FCP Bandwidth! | Rebootless Kernel Updates! | Magento Optimized Hosting | Wordpress Hosting |
    Services: | Managed Multiple Cores 64bit Servers | Server Management |

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    785
    Quote Originally Posted by sprintserve
    Bottomline as Jay said: Go back to the P4 3.0ghz.
    Why go back? He can simply split his MySQL and WWW into 2 appliances and they will then have much more power then the P4 3.0 would be able to offer along with having the HA storage and other features.

    Sure he can go back to a single P4 host but if that host drive, MB, CPU, RAM, NIC or any other part on it should die he is down. With the TGL he will be automatically up and running within 5 mins on a new node.

    The cost will not be as much as he thinks either as he already has plenty of the most expensive resource which is the HA storage.

    Thanks,

    Jeremy

  23. #23
    Hi ! Jeremy

    The site that I just moved to your TGL 100 is currently rank in Alexa is between 2000 ~ 3000
    http://www.alexa.com/data/details/tr...l=bbs.x383.com
    One P4 3.0 server can handle that kind of traffic is a piece of cake.

    And I have another huge volumn traffic site. currently rank in Alexa between 800 ~ 1500
    http://www.alexa.com/data/details/tr...l=bbs.x693.com
    Which is currently hosted in one P4 3.2 server.

    I hope your TGL appliance's are able to handle that kind of challenge.
    And let me see what is different between P4 servers and Grid appliance

  24. #24
    It most likely isn't about the CPU, it is about the RAM in a Grid.
    Jay

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    10,574
    Quote Originally Posted by jayglate
    It most likely isn't about the CPU, it is about the RAM in a Grid.
    Don't forget the I/O which is unfortunately not that great...but understandably since its H/A

  26. #26
    True I/O could be an issue in a database driven site especially. But once again we can alleviate that by having the database live in RAM and store all writes to disk as they happen, similar to a mysql cluster using NBD, all data is stored in RAM. But the way it is being used now isn't the way it was meant to be used the grid that is. A client would setup their site across multiple VPS's within the grid and load balance and cluster it and such, THAT is where the true benefit of the grid comes to play, and having a higher RAM allocation of 2gb or so would most defiantly improve the performance and reliability of the site, as his whole application isn't just on 1 VPS but on many across multiple boxes.
    Jay

  27. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by LTADMIN
    Why go back? He can simply split his MySQL and WWW into 2 appliances and they will then have much more power then the P4 3.0 would be able to offer along with having the HA storage and other features.

    Sure he can go back to a single P4 host but if that host drive, MB, CPU, RAM, NIC or any other part on it should die he is down. With the TGL he will be automatically up and running within 5 mins on a new node.

    The cost will not be as much as he thinks either as he already has plenty of the most expensive resource which is the HA storage.

    Thanks,

    Jeremy
    Well, cost as he mentions is about double now for a single appliance. For 2 appliance it will cost him 4 times. With that same cost, you could have 2 P4 servers and cluster them om the same way you have 2 appliances. HA? No problem, you could set up raid etc. And chances are it will still be cheaper. Sure it's a bit more work. But bottomline is he's finding the VPS struggling for his usage.
    Like us on Facebook to qualify for discounts!
    http://www.sprintserve.net
    Offering: | Internap FCP Bandwidth! | Rebootless Kernel Updates! | Magento Optimized Hosting | Wordpress Hosting |
    Services: | Managed Multiple Cores 64bit Servers | Server Management |

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    785
    Quote Originally Posted by sprintserve
    Well, cost as he mentions is about double now for a single appliance. For 2 appliance it will cost him 4 times. With that same cost, you could have 2 P4 servers and cluster them om the same way you have 2 appliances. HA? No problem, you could set up raid etc. And chances are it will still be cheaper. Sure it's a bit more work. But bottomline is he's finding the VPS struggling for his usage.

    You do not understand how the TGL system works. Even a host with RAID1 / 5 / 10 would not compare as that host could be still cause your site to go down if the RAID, MB, RAM, CPU, PSU, NIC, OS should have a problem With a TGL host the applaince would restart within 5 mins on a new hardware node with 0 data loss or human intervention. Unless a VPS or dedicated host has a way to span 2 physical hardware nodes and can keep all data volumes in sync realtime it is no where near the TGL system. Think of it as the same way a RAID 1 array would work but instead of both disks being installed on 1 server they are now split between 2 physical servers both running on the grid.

    The cost is also not going to be nearly expensive as you think since he has already covered the cost of the HA storage which is by far the most expensive feature on the TGL. His needs for additional CPU and RAM are being addressed while using his existing quota of disk space from his other appliances.

    We can simply split off 3GB, 10GB, 20GB or whatever amount he needs from his existing HA data volumes into seperate HA storage volumes and then assign its own dedicated CPU and RAM resources to it so it can run his MySQL and other services without any problems on its own. This configuration will not take away from the WWW appliances resources. All data transfers and queries will be done on a 1000mb/s private network and will not take deduct from his bandwidth quota so that also saves him the cost of additional bandwidth and a private switch.

    To do the same with 2 dedicated hosts or 2 VPS would be much more complicated and costly since it would involve more then 1 host and would require a backend network and atleast 2 accounts on 2 different VPS hosts to provide a similar setup without having the features of the HA storage.

    In the future if he needs more HA storage we can mount another data volume. If he needs more WWW processing power we can drop in a Load Balancer appliance and as many Apache web nodes as he needs. This is all done without any need of building and installing additional hardware nodes, private switches, firewall devices, load balancer devices or similar.

    This can all be added with little or no down time either and has the ability to roll back to his previous configurations with a few commands vs having to do it all by hand with physical hardware, switches and many config file changes which can be very difficult to roll back if required.

    He can also then take this configuration and migrate it as a single application it to our more powerful grids as they are built if he wants to move from the current 2.4GHz CPU's to a Opteron based Grid. The only change on his part then would be to re-IP 1-2 external IP's and change his DNS. The other appliances all run on private IP space and would not be affected.

    This also allows him to take snapshots as backups of his appliances as a whole and data and if he wanted copy the application to our other DC's and have them run on both grids as the same time with external load balancing if he wanted to have fault tolerance built into his design to use along side with the HA storage to protect his data.

    Thanks,

    Jeremy
    Last edited by Cirrostratus; 12-03-2006 at 04:39 AM.

  29. #29
    I understand how it works. We actually have a contract to implement it on a trial and we have discussed with 3tera regarding it. Neither Jay nor I are speaking without any knowledge of it. I understand all the benefits. I know the level of redundancy can be different, but I am saying raid can be a mitigating factor if HA is what he's looking at and he's going to go to a server that can handle his site better at a cost he likes better. End of the day, sure it can be scaled to a certain extent, but at what cost.

    We must also consider his needs. Is the kind of redundancy what he really needs etc. If not, he may just want to save some money etc.

    There's also some areas that we will be working on testing once we start the trial as there are some information gaps that we will like to fill.
    Like us on Facebook to qualify for discounts!
    http://www.sprintserve.net
    Offering: | Internap FCP Bandwidth! | Rebootless Kernel Updates! | Magento Optimized Hosting | Wordpress Hosting |
    Services: | Managed Multiple Cores 64bit Servers | Server Management |

  30. #30
    Lokman,

    If I were you, I would have moved my site to dedicated box. I will never host something which is not stable especially when you earn money from site.

    Once LT grid becomes stable you can give them a try again.
    <<Please see rules for signature setup>>

  31. #31
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Bay Area
    Posts
    1,320
    Quote Originally Posted by LTADMIN
    We can simply split off 3GB, 10GB, 20GB or whatever amount he needs from his existing HA data volumes into seperate HA storage volumes and then assign its own dedicated CPU and RAM resources to it so it can run his MySQL and other services without any problems on its own. This configuration will not take away from the WWW appliances resources. All data transfers and queries will be done on a 1000mb/s private network and will not take deduct from his bandwidth quota so that also saves him the cost of additional bandwidth and a private switch.

    Jeremy
    If I would buy one TGL server, how much would it cost extra to split that into two, three or four Appliances each with 2.4Ghz power and a part of the storage?

  32. #32
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    10,574
    Quote Originally Posted by goku123
    Once LT grid becomes stable you can give them a try again.
    What makes it unstable now?

  33. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by layer0
    What makes it unstable now?
    I read about some post here about volume problem and it is little slow as compare to dedicated box. Another thing is LT itself is not totally comfortable with new technology. That is why I used the word unstable. I am sure everything will be sorted out but it will take some time. So why to waste time if you make money out of u r site?
    <<Please see rules for signature setup>>

  34. #34
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    3,582
    All the slowness complaints I just don't think the people understand the technology to well or it's not advertised well or what I do not know. The real advantages come in when you start throwing up more applications. My sites outgrows the original one instance application I talk to TGL saying how things are sluggish. Now in the old environment my solution is to split mysql and apache up some work to do has private network requirements and such. With TGL it's just bam boom mysql now runs as it's own appliance. Ok easy enough on a dedicated but what happens when my apache is getting sluggish well I need a load balancer, not a cheap solution by any means and you need to find a host that'll do it. With the TGL anyways say apache is running slow I'd like to add another appliance so they say simple enough drop the virtual load balancer in and then add another apache instance. I'm now running on 3 physical machines which are all being mirrored by others incase of failure.

    So the advantages are really the availability and the ability to scale out much easier.


    It seems like TGL has not worked out all the kinks with their support and it seems like it's appealing to people running cPanel and web hosts who see it as a VPS or a middle ground until a dedicated.

    Of course if I was just starting to do hosting now and I did not want a reseller account I'd probably use TGL. Rather than after filling one machine I buy another I'd just order another application so I can continue to keep things all under one cPanel roof.

    For me though I'm looking forward to bringing up my own "grid" and using the cPanel cluster template once some features that are very important are supported.

    I don't know about anyone else but as a host who uses cPanel I'd love to get away from my cPanel silo's and have a unified cPanel. There are many times when I'm shaking my head thinking well all this box needs is a split of mysql or maybe adding another machine to take apache processes but it was never feasible.


    Oh and I agree with TGL being somewhat unorganized last week dedicated/private grids were suppose to be available and they are not. Also I'm not sure if many people have even been able to demo the dedicated grids.
    Tony B. - Chief Executive Officer
    Hawk Host Inc. Proudly serving websites since 2004
    Quality Shared and VPS Hosting
    PHP 5.3.x & PHP 5.4.x & PHP 5.5.X & PHP 5.6.X & PHP 7.0.X Support!

Posting Permissions

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