Right on. :thumbsup

Are there any other providers than can have your box setup for you to start working on within 5 minutes of placing the order? I like quick setup times.

What about cpanel? Is is easy to use for someone who never managed a server? If you use it, please post some feedback.

Jupiter looked at their pricing and didn't want to go there because Juputer insists on supporting their customers. It's clear from the posts above, that Rackshack will not help you with your box other than reboot it.

If you don't use much BW and and don't ever need any admin on your server, go for it.

I too knew basically nothing about managing my own server. So I posted a note on their forum, asking for a tech to update my files, tweak my apache settings...etc. Within 15 minutes I had 6 responses. I hired one of the board regulars. $25 per server and my boxes all run like a dream.

I did have one server crash a few weeks back. I adjusted the maxclients variable higher then one of my boxes could handle. Put in a reboot ticket at 8:03. Tech was rebooting my server at 8:06. They were running a FSCK at 8:13, when the box still wouldn't respond to ping, SSH, or anything else. (I only sent in the 1 trouble ticket for reboot. They did the followup checks and fixes on their own accord).

Server was up and running again by 8:27.... 24 minutes for my own error. That's pretty damn good. And had the server responded right away, the time from trouble ticket to being up again would have been 4 minutes.

And all you have to do is look at their own forum to see that on a whole, their customers are pretty happy bunch.

Do NOT get a Rackshack box if you don't know how to manage a server!

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that what "unmanaged" is suppossed to mean? They provide plenty of support...they just won't do everything for you.

You could also offer the option of unmanaged servers.

Just a thought :2 cents:

1. dont use linux.
2. use freebsd.
3. all you need is here: http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO...ook/index.html
:thumbsup

And there are always other ways at looking at the pricing. Here's how I look at it. With 5 servers, I am getting the equivelent of about 10.1 mbps. ...3500 gigs of transfer. So, instead of having to supercharge one server to handle all of this traffic, I have 5 servers which can each deliver 700 gigs without breaking a sweat. High traffic days...no worries on my end.

Plus, each server I own is on a different subnet...baring a complete datacentre meltdown...chances are if one server was to go down, I would still have 4 servers up and delivering my content.

At the start of this thread, I would have been satisfied to say simply, "I am a satisfied customer of Rackshack". But, when I see the competition slinging mud...then it's only fair that the disinformation gets a fair rebuttal.

I've got a Rackshack box which originally had cpanel...... I couldn't figure out how to use it at all so I got them to reinstall a plain box and I do the admin either with Webmin or from the command line.

Rackshack servers are great if you know what you're doing, but like Groove says if you've never managed a server, Rackshack is not for you.

I just did a price compare, Lens...you guys are way off. But that's just my opinion.

From Rackshack:
DELL DUAL XEON
1 GB RAM
(2) 73 GB Hard Drives / 10,000 RPM SCSI
Un-metered 10 mbps Network Connection!

$499 + $1 setup

From JupiterHosting (Design a custom plan thingy)
DELL DUAL XEON
1 GB RAM
1 80 GB Hard Drive
10 mbps

$1,079 + $98 setup


Can someone explain the benefits of paying twice the price just to have it "managed"?

There is no benefit if you can admin your own server, in fact if you can admin your own server the only thing you need is someone to press the reset button once in a blue moon!

wow did you just say that? haha

Pointless - contact me bro we'll set you up right

I know :Graucho

Was just hoping to hear Lensman tell us why Jupiter is so great that we should pay twice as much for their services. So far I haven't seen anything to back this up.

a good host doesnt have to bash other hosts.... so you all are making yourselves look silly IMHO...

I'm a member of the Rackshack cheer squad. But candyflip, it might have been better if you'd not used the unmetered 10mbps boxes in your comparison since the 10mbps plans ARE cogent, whereas all of the othe plans (ie the plans used by 99% of their customers) are NOT. Also I'm guessing (?) that the Jupiter box is a burstable 10mbps whereas the Rackshack box isn't.

I was just doing a spec for spec setup. I have no issue with the bandwidth being cogent, and a few others don't seem to have issue either.

Lensman said "get a real host", I'm assuming he meant Jupiter. Is a server setup worth twice as much being non-cogent and managed?

Are you comparing their "unavailable" 10mb non-managed Cogent package?

I also see you ignore the "Discount is Available,
contact us here" message on the Jupiter page.

Not commenting on whether or not rackshack uses cogent but using non-cogent bandwidth is more expensive since upstream providers charge higher rates than what cogent charges, hence customers also get higher rates. The managed portion probably affects prices a bit, but that depends on the host, and also depends on what kind of level of managed you are getting for free or inclusive with your monthly fees. But really bandwidth would be the main difference and depending on rates could be twice as much. The other factor is perhaps server rent.

Earlier in this thread Lens was trying to discredit Rackshack by saying that they used cogent bandwidth. Whereas the truth is that (to the best of my knowledge) Rackshack only uses Cogent with their unmetered 10mbps plans.

If you're going to compare prices you should really be comparing apples with apples, ie you should be nominating a plan that is is non-cogent (eg any plan but the 10mbps plans), where the box has identical specs and where they offer identical bandwidth.

Maybe Lens could give us a price on a P4 2.0 Ghz, 512MB RAM, 80GB HD, 700GB bandwidth running Redhat. At Rackshack that'll set you back $129/month with a $1 set-up fee. Then if you want it to be fully managed you can go to easyservermanagement.com and pay an extra $99/month which gives us a total of $228/month plus a $1 setup fee.

What would Jupiter charge for the same deal?

Fact is, the original response to this thread has all the makings of unfair mudslinging and misinformation. A proper business response would have been something to the effect of, " Each company handles different needs. Call us and we can show you why our company might be the best for your needs".

Instead, we have an onslaught of half truths and blatant false statements.

And why make folks call for "discounts"? Rackshack and others already have their lowest price listed...no surprises...no negotiating required.

I just go by what I see. I didn't have to ask Rackshack for a discount.

Fully managed FreeBSD machine with 700gb transfer, $199/mo.

According to their "Custom Plan Designer", Jupiter will do the same setup with 300 GB for $274 + $98 for setup. They want $179 for the 300 GB, so boost the total GB to 600 and you're paying $453 per month plus setup charges...and you're still minus 100 GB of transfer.

That's a nice price :) But why does the Jupiter site say $179/month plus $98 setup with only 300GB?

when I got my first one, I had never managaed a server, and ive had no problems at all... all you gotta do is follow the howto's on there forums and your set!

Thats a nice price. You guys should lighten up on Lens a little, you are comparing a fully managed service here vs. an unmanaged one.

Course, he brought it on himself with his mistatements about Rackshack.:Graucho

The best way for ISPs like Jupiter to compete with Rackshack is to stress the value of the management. In my opinion about half or more of the people with Rackshack servers should have them taken away. They know nothing about Linux, don't keep current on critical updates and jeopardize the whole server farm when they get taken over for spam or DOS attacks.

And invariably they crybaby all over the place when they loose their server.

The industry has a place for both managed and unmanaged servers. When I hear people say how easy it is to manage rackshack servers its a clue they don't know what they are doing.

Proper linux administration takes a lot of time each month. If its totally 100% easy you are skipping some important things.

Although I have a FreeBSD machine @ rackshack which
hasn't had any problems (yet),
rackshack its far from what is this days a good host.
The only thing I like at rackshack its the stability of their network,
the best I've seen so far.
But thats not the only thing that matters, at least from where
I'm standing.
The most horrible stories I've heard come from rackshack.
One of the parts where rackshack sucks is that if you fuckup
on a server your only option is a clean restore,
so think twice before starting to play the admin.
They can unplug your server due to a billing error
or an attack targeted to your server, I surely wouldn't
want that to happen especially when I'm on vacation.
But can I trust rackshack for not fucking up my vacation ?
most certainly not.
This shits happen to maybe only 10% of their customers
but are you ready to be one of them ?
Are you ready to wake one moring with all your shit gone ?
If thats how much your biz worths for you, go for it.
The fact is most of the people would want everything for
as cheap as possible, they wouldn't mind if its free.
its just one thing they keep forgeting:

"YOU GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR" (especially when its cheap).

Exactly...and my question was:

What are the benefits of managed hosting that justify paying 100% more?

Lets face it, RS is more stable (connection wise, estabilished,etc..)!

Comparing RS to XFR is just....funny, XFR is way out of RS league (if you know how to admin a server that is)...

Is this what you call "fully managed" ?:

"Included Monthly Services:
24/7 support via Trouble Ticket
Up to 10 hours of Systems Administration work per month per server
5 hours are allocated automatically to security and service monitoring.
Installation of Modules as per requirements of 3rd party software
Consultation via Trouble Ticket regarding future hardware/software purchases
Assistance with installation of many third party software (list to be provided soon)


Overage:
In any month when time is to exceed the 10 hour package:
Prior written approval will be required from the client unless a pre-authorized "not to exceed" time period has been established. All additional hours will be billed at the normal shop rate of $65.00 USD/hour. "


Or did you even read the specs of their package ?

this gives an idea how much of a clue you have about the things
you're saying.

I've got 2 Rackshack servers and they are great for uptime. I had a 3rd with Enism, but that was like learning another OS. I just get the plain RedHat servers and tweak them the way I want them.

I don't know why you guys think I am misrepresenting them? All I said was they supply Cogent, I didn't say the only supply Cogent.

Like I said, if you don't need much BW and can take care of yourself all the time, go for it. If you're capable with Unix, it looks like a great deal.

If you need more than a couple of megabits, you should look around.

On another note: Candyflip, stop comparing a Cogent price to non-Cogent. It's starting to annoy me.

I directly reported a spammer to them and they did nothing to take down their site.

well, this thread should put an end to the RS slandering...By now all can see that they have:

1) A good strong network with good uptime
2) Pretty ok support, though not managed
3) No cogent, not from or to box (only cogent in the 10mbs box).
4) Prices that are hard to match

If anyone can give me a DELL server with:
Dual XEON
1 gig ram
2x 73gb SCSI disks
Cpanel
and 1200 gb of non cogent traffic
24/7 support/reboots
Price $259/month
Setup $1

Then tell me, id be happy to check it out (no shit, i dont like to put all my egs in one basket, and i need new servers all the time)

I have ZERO interest in hosting other peoples' sites. I currently do not compete in this market, and have nothing to gain or lose if you go with rackshack. Frankly I really don't care either way.

HOWEVER,

I had such a bad experience at Rackshack I would never recommend them to anyone. I pulled my sites from rackshack and moved to Webair and they are humming along quite nicely. And a real host doesn't cost that much more in the long run. If Jupiter is only a couple hundred bucks more, go with it. Webair's probably in the same ballpark, I'd recommend them. Hell, Natnet is probably a little above that too, I'd look at them also.

And for the record, I never saw a big problem with the Cogent, my problem has always been with rackshack's facilities, their support, and billing. We had severe outages. They were in fact the fault of rackshack. I did a risk assessment and pulled the plug.

Look at rackshack's links - you have almost all their bandwidth on cogent, williams, TW, and verio. None of them are very good. The best of that bunch is Verio and they're a sinking ship. They laid everyone competent off - I have a T1 with them and you should call support there sometime during an outage. True you gain stability when you bgp them together but there's still latency on failure. None of their uplinks have any respectable international peering except for Verio, who does well only with Japan. They're not using any good providers like Global Crossing, Sprint, AT&T, or C&W. Those are the hitters with the reliability and international peering.

I've been in the industry for 8 years now, and I do know a thing or two about hosting. When you scale up to a size where hosting becomes an issue, you will too. The downside is that you have to be vigilant in your decisions or you won't get over the hump everyone faces. And one of the worst things you can do is get blacklisted due to server issues.

The server that was initially mentioned was non-cogent, and you made the remark above. We love you Lens, but you're the one who put your foot in your mouth here.

Cogent is only on their 10mbps servers. You point out to me that they didn't have any available. The last prices I quoted were for non-cogent. You were still more than twice the price. Sorry if I'm annoying you...you're the ones who are overcharging. I'm just trying to figure out why someone would pay 100% more just to have it managed. You're not going to ban me for "annoying" you are you?

I read on the Rackshack board that the 10mbps plans weren't all Congent, but they reserve the right to make them so if they desire. This was from Headsurfer himself.

Lensman - like was said Congent is only used if its the fastest route available and in the 10Mbps servers!

BTW since you are comparing yourself as RS (and ofering a better solution) can you tell us what BW providers u use for the backbone of XFR?

And if its better than this ;) :

http://www.rackshack.net/english/aboutus/networks.asp

There i can see:
Time Warner
Verio (5 gigabit links)
Allegiance (2 gigabit links)
MFN (3 GigE links)
Savis OC3
ELI D3 link...

guess what there is only 1 Cogent pipe ....so guess your teory is flawed!

interesting read