Results 1 to 15 of 15
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    95
    I've hosted with ASO twice now. They are superb hosts. Probably the best. Most webmasters are more capable (trained in hosting mechanics) than I.
    I ran afowl of ASO's forum/wiki/support system BECAUSE I am not an ubergeek. These support media are NOT accessible, at ASO, to the casual webmaster walking in with a simple-minded website. It might be prudent to check out the forum, before you buy in, to ensure this is in your league.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    277
    Tried ASO once and moved after 24h. Their servers are very weak (dual-core, dual-proc systems with 2GB memory) comparing with other hosting companies (Downtownhost Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU 8x core, 4 or 8GB) and when i was hosted by ASO site was more down than up. It looks as they are overloaded.
    They are many beter alternative like DTH or TCH.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Posts
    3,478
    Tried ASO once and moved after 24h. Their servers are very weak (dual-core, dual-proc systems with 2GB memory) comparing with other hosting companies (Downtownhost Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU 8x core, 4 or 8GB) and when i was hosted by ASO site was more down than up. It looks as they are overloaded.
    They are many beter alternative like DTH or TCH.
    That's odd - I haven't experienced anything like that with them. Did you ask them to move your site to a different server? They are more than accommodating with requests like that. I asked to be switched to a server running PHP 5 (back when it was new) and they moved me in a matter of minutes.
    I'm still very happy with ASO.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    EU - east side
    Posts
    21,913
    Did you ask them to move your site to a different server? They are more than accommodating with requests like that.
    I did read testimonies to that effect, and it's good that they're accommodating like that. Still, moving customers around is not a real solution to overloaded servers (if that's indeed the case).

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    London, ON
    Posts
    385
    I have no personal experience but have heard many times they are very good. A lot of people seem to recommend them a fair bit as well.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    3,982
    Tried ASO once and moved after 24h. Their servers are very weak (dual-core, dual-proc systems with 2GB memory) comparing with other hosting companies (Downtownhost Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU 8x core, 4 or 8GB) and when i was hosted by ASO site was more down than up. It looks as they are overloaded.
    They are many beter alternative like DTH or TCH.
    Well the number of cores and RAM does not make any difference in terms of overloading if they placed more sites on high specs servers.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA, UK, Singapore
    Posts
    3,085
    I have heard good things about ASO. However, it will be best to use the search feature of WHT (Here (http://www.webhostingtalk.com/search.php)) and decide for yourself!
    Good luck!
    - Rick

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    12,540
    Tried ASO once and moved after 24h. Their servers are very weak (dual-core, dual-proc systems with 2GB memory) comparing with other hosting companies (Downtownhost Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU 8x core, 4 or 8GB) and when i was hosted by ASO site was more down than up. It looks as they are overloaded.
    They are many beter alternative like DTH or TCH.
    There is nothing wrong with Dual Core. The problem is if they oversell the server.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    277
    There is nothing wrong with Dual Core. The problem is if they oversell the server.
    I know but i feel better if i see that company have newer and stronger server with higher memory.
    My experience with ASO is not great. Support is good by ASO but if response and load time of server is pretty high then i can conclude only that they servers or server where my site was hosted is/are oversell.
    Since i moved site by DTH i did not faced such a problem.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Indianapolis, Indiana USA
    Posts
    15,176
    I absolutely hate it when people equate a dual core server with a "low quality server". Less cores/ram just means less customers can "fit" on that server which is generally OK because the server costs less to operate.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    eastern USA
    Posts
    539
    I have one non-mission critical website on ASO.
    No complaints.
    I'm not sure what OP's complaint about having to be an ubergeek is all about. Being a webmaster does entail certain knowledge. ASO is no different with their Knowledge base and support from other webhosts I have used. If you aren't quite capable, then hire someone else to do the job or read up quickly.

  12. #12
    I know but i feel better if i see that company have newer and stronger server with higher memory.
    My experience with ASO is not great. Support is good by ASO but if response and load time of server is pretty high then i can conclude only that they servers or server where my site was hosted is/are oversell.
    Since i moved site by DTH i did not faced such a problem.
    Wow terrible idea. Dual core meaning a lower quality service then a provider with quad cores? That is... I'm not even sure what to say about that lol, other then wow. Less customers per server in a shared environment means higher uptime because there is less chance one account or even one domain can bring down loads of website. One single PHP script in a endless loop can bring down a quad core server if Apache & PHP are not configured correctly. Same goes for a dual core server. On average, you will have less domains & accounts on a dual core server, meaning that there is less of a chance that you will have that one "script" that will bring down the server.
    At the very least, equate it to higher performance... but you would still be wrong lol.
    Back on topic, after having personal experience hosting with ASO for over a year for a few personal websites with a reseller account, ASO was a great provider however unfortunately we was on the the server "desmond" at the time which unfortunately within the year of hosting with them, desmond experienced at least 3 occurrences of 2+ days of downtime. Lots of hardware related failures. Maybe we was just unlucky. However then we had downtime on regular occurrences as well that didn't last near as long. Honestly TIm is a great guy and worked his butt off for us, but their servers honestly can't seem to handle the websites hosted on them. Note I only have experience however with one of them, and that is desmond. Support was great however except for when the server was down, and then support kind of became transparent

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    1,729
    I absolutely hate it when people equate a dual core server with a "low quality server". Less cores/ram just means less customers can "fit" on that server which is generally OK because the server costs less to operate.
    Being smarter about it, you can also see that being hosted on a dual core server an individual site can experience a period of business and overload a dual core server a lot more easily than it can an 8 core machine. That is to say, a better, more well-equipped machine leaves more headroom for sites to experience bursts in traffic.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    277
    Wow terrible idea. Dual core meaning a lower quality service then a provider with quad cores? That is... I'm not even sure what to say about that lol, other then wow. Less customers per server in a shared environment means higher uptime because there is less chance one account or even one domain can bring down loads of website. One single PHP script in a endless loop can bring down a quad core server if Apache & PHP are not configured correctly. Same goes for a dual core server. On average, you will have less domains & accounts on a dual core server, meaning that there is less of a chance that you will have that one "script" that will bring down the server.
    You have make totally wrong conclusion. It is not remark as idea and i'm not sure where you read it and also where you read that i said that service is lower because of that. Please read it again. What i said about ASO based on my experience of 24h. Thanks but never again with ASO.
    by the way Dual core does not meaning a lower service but lower power and lower performance comparing with Quad Cores .
    I know but i feel better if i see that company have newer and stronger server with higher memory.
    My experience with ASO is not great. Support is good by ASO but if response and load time of server is pretty high then i can conclude only that they servers or server where my site was hosted is/are oversell.
    Since i moved site by DTH i did not faced such a problem.
    Then take a time and read last reply from dazmanultra where i absolutely agree.
    Being smarter about it, you can also see that being hosted on a dual core server an individual site can experience a period of business and overload a dual core server a lot more easily than it can an 8 core machine. That is to say, a better, more well-equipped machine leaves more headroom for sites to experience bursts in traffic.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    3,982
    You have make totally wrong conclusion. It is not remark as idea and i'm not sure where you read it and also where you read that i said that service is lower because of that. Please read it again. What i said about ASO based on my experience of 24h. Thanks but never again with ASO.
    by the way Dual core does not meaning a lower service but lower power and lower performance comparing with Quad Cores .
    Then take a time and read last reply from dazmanultra where i absolutely agree.
    ASO may have overloaded their dual core servers. This does not means it is having lower power/performance. A dual core with lets say a 100 website will generally be much better than an 8 core with 2000 websites assuming that the resources usages are the same. It is sad to say that most providers will try to cram as much accounts as possible to a server especially if it is of high specs.
    Besides CPU and RAM, there are also other important factors like the hard drive, where most provider will use the big is size but low in performance SATA drives.

Related Posts from theWHIR.com

Posting Permissions

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