2008 NAMM Report - Page 3

bammbamm · #31 01-23-2008, 10:02 AM

These guys have a huge amount of bandwidth pretty cheap, and I've never had an issue with down time or server outages. 1and1.com
Business accounts start at $5/ Mo 250GB space 2.5 TB bandwidth.
I know you have a LOT of traffic.

**jemsite** · #32 01-23-2008, 10:06 AM

amazing it's still down.

rich do you even have FTP access? (i'm assuming yes i know their servers are up, they just blocked the site due to traffic spike. not nice.)... glen

ps - thinking about it more, any isp short of a dedicated server would have blocked the site too.

the bandwidth spike within 10 minutes of posting that URL was probably 1000x normal daily, metered traffic, triggering an auto-shutdown). in hindsight having rich post the NAMM galleries here for the first week would have been a good idea. still no excuse why they don't have it restored yet... or if it will handle the load upon restoration.

HDS · #33 01-23-2008, 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bammbamm

These guys have a huge amount of bandwidth pretty cheap, and I've never had an issue with down time or server outages. 1and1.com
Business accounts start at $5/ Mo 250GB space 2.5 TB bandwidth.
I know you have a LOT of traffic.

I told Rich about them also but I think he likes Yahoo. Only grandma's use yahoo

I was with yahoo about five years ago for my website stuff and had nothing but crap with them. Been with 1and1.com for 4 years now, never a problem.

bammbamm · #34 01-23-2008, 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HDS

I told Rich about them also but I think he likes Yahoo. Only grandma's use yahoo

I was with yahoo about five years ago for my website stuff and had nothing but crap with them. Been with 1and1.com for 4 years now, never a problem.

My Grandma switched to 1and1 when she wanted to go Linux.

Paul Warren · #35 01-23-2008, 11:57 AM

I went through this with Rich years ago when I hosted his site, so I empathize. I've had numerous, reputable companies tell me "oh yeah, you can have X amount of bandwidth and it'll be fast and virtually no downtime etc." only to find out that it's a pack of lies. Obviously, most hosting companies make their money off of small websites with normal bandwidth and just advertise these large amounts to suck you in. However, once they realize that you eat more bandwidth than they are comfortable with, they will kick you to the curb and screw your business over. It's happened to me with Petrucci's site as well. I just don't believe any web hosting company anymore and you really just have to try a company out with a large, bandwidth heavy site before you truly know if they mean what they print. So not to be super negative or anything, but it's hard to say a company is good for Rich's site until Rich actually has his site on their server and then see how they react to all of those photo galleries. For some reason, they say yes, yes, sign up with us, and then when you switch to them, they can become really weird about it all and give you hassles. Those companies are reliable for normal traffic sites but Rich really has a unique site to deal with.

paul

HDS · #36 01-23-2008, 12:10 PM

There isnt anything unique about his site. My site host tons of photos, hell I even have a subdomain hosting my bands music running on the same server (linux). I also have a php database running when I was hosting a forum. I bounce very large files off my ftp for work and play =)

Paul Warren · #37 01-23-2008, 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HDS

There isnt anything unique about his site.

Well I understand what you're saying, but trust me, it's unique in the world of web hosting. 95% of the sites out there are small, receive a few hits a day, type ventures. Rich's isn't that way and that makes it much more unique in the eyes of a web host. When hosting Petrucci's site I would tell the webhost the bandwidth and they would say "sure man, no problem". Then I make the switch, and all of the sudden they have a problem with the bandwidth even though they were equipped to handle it. JP's site is only like 12 pages or something, but it gets 2000 unique visitors a day with lots of media downloads during those visits. And I'd bet that Rich's site not only gets a ton of visitors, but has a ton of direct linking to images going on. We may all have similar sites in the amount of information on there, but it's the traffic and direct linking that is going to make it unique to a web host, regardless of what they say in their marketing. They seem to market towards the 95% and then just deal with the 5% of "problem" sites in various ways, such as shutting their sites down so they move elsewhere, lol. I hope you find a good solution Rich. It sux, I know.

paul

Rich · #38 01-23-2008, 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Warren

I went through this with Rich years ago when I hosted his site, so I empathize. I've had numerous, reputable companies tell me "oh yeah, you can have X amount of bandwidth and it'll be fast and virtually no downtime etc." only to find out that it's a pack of lies. Obviously, most hosting companies make their money off of small websites with normal bandwidth and just advertise these large amounts to suck you in. However, once they realize that you eat more bandwidth than they are comfortable with, they will kick you to the curb and screw your business over. It's happened to me with Petrucci's site as well. I just don't believe any web hosting company anymore and you really just have to try a company out with a large, bandwidth heavy site before you truly know if they mean what they print. So not to be super negative or anything, but it's hard to say a company is good for Rich's site until Rich actually has his site on their server and then see how they react to all of those photo galleries. For some reason, they say yes, yes, sign up with us, and then when you switch to them, they can become really weird about it all and give you hassles. Those companies are reliable for normal traffic sites but Rich really has a unique site to deal with.

paul

Absolutely the problem. Everything is fine for a few months, or maybe even until NAMM, but once it's NAMM report time I end up with the same headache.

I went with Yahoo because I thought it might possibly be different being a giant like they are. It's been 18 months and last years NAMM report had no problems. Quite probably it's because I made the decision to post 1024 pics this year that made the difference.

Either way, my FTP says "transfer over limit", Yahoo says no, but I think we [Glen] know they're trying to hide why it's down, and it may be time to move on, again.

1and1 may be a good host but who using them has big bandwith draws? If you're using them, how much "exactly" are you drawing a month?

**jemsite** · #39 01-23-2008, 01:20 PM

imagine if you went with 1600x1200

out of curiousity, on your local PC, how many MB does the 2008namm folder on your drive take up (right click, properties)... glen

Rich · #40 01-23-2008, 01:31 PM

I loaded 89meg when I was out there. The htm's are nothing.

**jemsite** · #41 01-23-2008, 01:35 PM

and what spread over 10 pages?

12 visitors hitting the entire gallery ~ 1GB transfer

do the math, but still it's amazing they ripped down your site for this (going on what 24 hours?)... glen

Rich · #42 01-23-2008, 01:38 PM

Spread further, about 20 pages I think, but still the same. 100 users = 9 gig, if 1000 hit it, we know they say you get 200gig but bottom line is bandwith costs money and they're loosing money this way.

bammbamm · #43 01-23-2008, 01:39 PM

1and1 has the reputation of being one of the largest purveyors of hosting services. They also offer a 90 day money back guarantee.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it, if it is, as was said, the only way you'll know is try it out. Might be worth kicking the tires and seeing at this point.

Rich · #44 01-23-2008, 01:45 PM

Nothing is "worth" just kicking the tires when it's a business site. If somebody here is using them and drawing 50gig/month with spikes to 100+ [like January is for me] then I'd be interested in hearing it. But Yahoo [say what you will] host over 140 million sites, I'm not sure you could find "bigger", and was a main reason in "kicking their tires".