Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Liquidweb?

  1. #1

    Question Liquidweb?

    I am about to order a dedicated hosting solution at Liquidweb, when I am contacted by a salesperson from "X competitive company".

    He is off course just that - a "SALES"person - so let us take it easy with his statement.
    But anyway - he absolutely killed Liquidweb, so before going ahead with any business with them I would like to either kill of, or confirm, these statements he threw at me:

    Liquidweb:

    1. They have 70 employees (doesn't seem like many to me).
    2. All servers are white boxes, no brand name like Dell or HP.
    3. They don't offer Redhat, just CentOS.
    4. They only provide 10Mbps connections, not 100Mbps (What? I need 100MB..)
    5. They offer Zeus load balancers who are low quality balencers..
    6. According to forums they bill both directions of bandwidth, we (company X) bill only for outbound. (could someone explain what this means first of all..?)
    It would be rally cool to get some feedback on these topics as we are about to put the faith in the hands of our next provider - also:

    • Who would you consider to be the best host service-wise out there? Price is not a concern. Who is the TOP-DOG on the US market?
    Thank in advance for your input.

  2. #2
    From what I know they offer 100mbps too and they offer on standard plans 2400gb bandwidth in and 2400gb bandwidth out or similar. Zeus load balancers might not be the best, but unless you need mission critical they should do.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Posts
    877
    Quote Originally Posted by Matster View Post

    Liquidweb:

    1. They have 70 employees (doesn't seem like many to me).
    70 employees isn't a lot - compared to whom? Maybe The Planet/EV1 or Softlayer. I suppose the concern could be that they don't have a sufficient number of employees to handle customer/technical support requests but in general I'd say Liquidweb has a good reputation for both, though you'll always find detractors, especially as you grow.
    • All servers are white boxes, no brand name like Dell or HP.
    Most dedicated server providers use white box or generic x86 servers like Supermicro. It's a strategic business decision that addresses the marketplace that provider has chosen to be in - i.e., inexpensive dedicated servers. I suppose commodity boxes may be lacking in performance somewhat to Dell or HP, but not much if at all. HP and Dell mainly have a better support infrastructure and better integrated power and KVM. On the other hand going commodity enables you to swap hardware very easily using very cheap parts.

    Given what the support costs are for Dell and HP hardware going commodity boxes is generally much smarter especially as you scale into hundreds and thousands of servers. There is always room for more niche providers of the higher end of the hardware spectrum
    • They don't offer Redhat, just CentOS.
    Most providers at the low end of the dedicated server market don't want RHEL, which is quite expensive. Most users looking for cheap find the right value fit with CentOS.
    • They only provide 10Mbps connections, not 100Mbps (What? I need 100MB..)
    This isn't true. 100Mbps is an available option on their website.
    • They offer Zeus load balancers who are low quality balencers..
    • According to forums they bill both directions of bandwidth, we (company X) bill only for outbound. (could someone explain what this means first of all..?)
    This is typical 95th Percentile Billing.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Lansing, Michigan
    Posts
    649
    Quote Originally Posted by serverminds View Post
    70 employees isn't a lot - compared to whom?
    Thanks for responding, better than I could do myself

    Take care,
    Travis Stoliker
    Liquid Web - Dedicated Hosting with Heroic Support
    StormOnDemand - Flexible Cloud Hosting Infrastructure
    1-800-580-4985 | Twitter: @liquidweb | @StormOnDemand

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    WWW
    Posts
    718
    Who would you consider to be the best host service-wise out there? Price is not a concern. Who is the TOP-DOG on the US market?
    Since you did not disclosed other company name, comparison is not possible. However, LiquidWeb is having good reputation in market and is very good host.

    Thanks
    “We don’t see things as they are, we see them as we are.” - Anais Nin
    + + http://goo.gl/FueXnz

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    6
    Speaking of Liquidweb, I couldn't find any indication that they offer Windows Shared hosting - looks like it's only offered on Dedicated hosting. Does anyone know if this is true?

    tb

  7. #7
    It's true, they only offer Linux on shared hosting, and Windows/Linux on dedicated servers.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Lansing, MI
    Posts
    48
    Of further note, our head count is nearly double 70 and with our growth rate it will be above that within mere weeks. It should honestly be immaterial however whether we have 20 or 2000 employees, it's all a matter of relative service and scale.

    Furthermore Zeus is not low quality NOR is it our only option, merely our least expensive, if you take a look at our website you will see so.

    The rest of the corrections were well handled by serverminds.
    Matthew Hill
    CEO, Liquid Web Inc.
    http://www.liquidweb.com
    http://www.stormondemand.com

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by serverminds View Post
    70 employees isn't a lot - compared to whom? Maybe The Planet/EV1 or Softlayer. I suppose the concern could be that they don't have a sufficient number of employees to handle customer/technical support requests but in general I'd say Liquidweb has a good reputation for both, though you'll always find detractors, especially as you grow.

    Most dedicated server providers use white box or generic x86 servers like Supermicro. It's a strategic business decision that addresses the marketplace that provider has chosen to be in - i.e., inexpensive dedicated servers. I suppose commodity boxes may be lacking in performance somewhat to Dell or HP, but not much if at all. HP and Dell mainly have a better support infrastructure and better integrated power and KVM. On the other hand going commodity enables you to swap hardware very easily using very cheap parts.

    Given what the support costs are for Dell and HP hardware going commodity boxes is generally much smarter especially as you scale into hundreds and thousands of servers. There is always room for more niche providers of the higher end of the hardware spectrum

    Most providers at the low end of the dedicated server market don't want RHEL, which is quite expensive. Most users looking for cheap find the right value fit with CentOS.

    This isn't true. 100Mbps is an available option on their website.

    This is typical 95th Percentile Billing.

    Most good servers are on CentOs or Redhat Doesnt nessercerrly have to be Redhat.
    Also most server are Dell,HP,IBM.

Posting Permissions

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