can it be that i'm losing tons of hits bcz i'm hosting on rackshack - GoFuckYourself.com

gallerypost · 10-20-2002, 02:19 PM

Guys, i was told that bcz i'm hosting with rackshack and their bandwidth sux, and alot of my surfers e-mailing me saying that alot of times they can't reach my sites (but others can on the same time) ...

What are you saying ?

alias · 10-20-2002, 02:20 PM

if something sounds too good to be true it usually is

mrthumbs · 10-20-2002, 02:21 PM

Cheaters Never Win

gallerypost · 10-20-2002, 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by mrthumbs
Cheaters Never Win

rackshack are cheaters ?

Theo · 10-20-2002, 02:26 PM

free porn to masses

Brad Mitchell · 10-20-2002, 03:43 PM

I just lowered my prices... move to SinHost and ride the wave

Cheerio

Brad

m0rph3us · 10-20-2002, 03:46 PM

Yes. Rackshack = Cogent.

beemk · 10-20-2002, 04:05 PM

i went with www.sinhost.com for some of my sites. i have yet to receive an email from an angry surfer that couldnt reach my site.

Calvinguy · 10-20-2002, 04:14 PM

Any other with bad experience with rackshack? I will only use them for TGP postings. Can they handle the traffic?

Planet Bob · 10-20-2002, 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Calvinguy
Any other with bad experience with rackshack? I will only use them for TGP postings. Can they handle the traffic?

This they will do just fine - I take it you know how to setup a server?

.:Frog:. · 10-20-2002, 05:00 PM

Do you people care about quality or just go with the cheapest host you can find?

Shoplifter · 10-20-2002, 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Calvinguy
Any other with bad experience with rackshack? I will only use them for TGP postings. Can they handle the traffic?

I have never had any trouble with them, or any email about anyone being unable to reach my sites.

Can anyone post IP's of clients who say they cannot reach RS?

skitzoe · 10-20-2002, 05:28 PM

rackshack is fucking shit and can only hold like 5000 uniques at once

need some hosting quality in exchange for a little traffic?

icq me on 31196770

Wiredoctor · 10-20-2002, 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by m0rph3us
Yes. Rackshack = Cogent.

Yes exactly, and this is only the beginning of the end for cogent users. Save your businesses, and get the hell off of cogent now.!!

m0rph3us · 10-20-2002, 06:09 PM

You get what you pay for. Some people don't realize that if they were on premium hosting paying twice the money they'd probably triple their income. And considering that income is exponentially relative to bandwidth, you'd make a lot more money.

dantheman · 10-20-2002, 06:17 PM

you build it!
we serve it!
they join it!

as easy as ABC

strainer · 10-20-2002, 06:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Wiredoctor

Yes exactly, and this is only the beginning of the end for cogent users. Save your businesses, and get the hell off of cogent now.!!

According to Rackshack, they aren't using Cogent bandwith for their $99 dedicated servers. As an experiment, I got one of their servers to test for a month or 2.

So far the bandwidth and response has been excellent. Yeah, yeah, I know, a few days isn't much of a test. But so far I can't see any difference between Rackshack and the so called premium bandwidth, at least not from here.

Tipsy · 10-20-2002, 07:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by strainer

According to Rackshack, they aren't using Cogent bandwith for their $99 dedicated servers. As an experiment, I got one of their servers to test for a month or 2.

I use 'em for some stuff and it's fine for what I use it for (mainly TGP stuff) but you only gotta do a tracert on your server. Very cogent.

m0rph3us · 10-20-2002, 07:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tipsy

I use 'em for some stuff and it's fine for what I use it for (mainly TGP stuff) but you only gotta do a tracert on your server. Very cogent.

I'm interested in why you say 'it's fine for TGP stuff'. Sure you don't want to pay premium for a lot of freeloaders, hell you'd even put your galleries on freehosts if they'd be accepted. Point being, if you site doesn't have the uptime, reponse it should, people are going to hit that back button faster than our friendly sniper. You will be losing possible sales (don't even start on europe & asia's connectivity to cogent) and end up with those fucking freeloaders that will wait 15 minutes for a site to load to jackoff.

My phylosophy is: treat your galleries like your tours/members' area. Uptime & speed are a must. Sure you might be paying twice the price for bandwidth but to tell you the truth, it's going to be pocket change with the increase you'll notice in income.

Don't believe me? Do a test.

1 month on cogent. 1 month of premium.
Check the CTR of gallery to tour and sales.

strainer · 10-20-2002, 07:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tipsy

I use 'em for some stuff and it's fine for what I use it for (mainly TGP stuff) but you only gotta do a tracert on your server. Very cogent.

How can I tell exactly that its Cogent, from a tracert? Here is a tracert I just did from a server in R.I. to my test server at Rackshack:

traceroute 207.44.150.113
traceroute to 207.44.150.113 (207.44.150.113), 30 hops max, 38 byte packets
1 208.167.104.1 (208.167.104.1) 1.376 ms 1.313 ms 1.304 ms
2 bar10-serial4-0-0-3.Boston.cw.net (208.174.249.97) 5.894 ms 5.208 ms 5.13
7 ms
3 acr1-loopback.Boston.cw.net (208.172.50.61) 5.486 ms 5.580 ms 5.825 ms
4 acr2-loopback.Chicago.cw.net (208.172.2.62) 26.039 ms 25.840 ms 25.951 ms
5 williams-communications-inc.Chicago.cw.net (208.172.1.130) 26.154 ms 25.87
2 ms 25.909 ms
6 chcgil1wcx2-oc48.wcg.net (64.200.103.73) 57.180 ms 57.543 ms 56.941 ms
7 dllstx1wcx2-oc48.wcg.net (64.200.240.26) 57.030 ms 57.430 ms 57.135 ms
8 dllstx1wcx1-intcomm-pos.wcg.net (64.200.111.178) 56.605 ms 56.481 ms 56.3
36 ms
9 64.200.162.2 (64.200.162.2) 57.501 ms 56.306 ms 56.484 ms
10 207.218.223.39 (207.218.223.39) 56.489 ms 56.225 ms 56.067 ms
11 207.44.150.113 (207.44.150.113) 57.210 ms 56.260 ms 57.480 ms

S.T.

m0rph3us · 10-20-2002, 07:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by strainer

How can I tell exactly that its Cogent, from a tracert? Here is a tracert I just did from a server in R.I. to my test server at Rackshack:

traceroute 207.44.150.113
traceroute to 207.44.150.113 (207.44.150.113), 30 hops max, 38 byte packets
1 208.167.104.1 (208.167.104.1) 1.376 ms 1.313 ms 1.304 ms
2 bar10-serial4-0-0-3.Boston.cw.net (208.174.249.97) 5.894 ms 5.208 ms 5.13
7 ms
3 acr1-loopback.Boston.cw.net (208.172.50.61) 5.486 ms 5.580 ms 5.825 ms
4 acr2-loopback.Chicago.cw.net (208.172.2.62) 26.039 ms 25.840 ms 25.951 ms
5 williams-communications-inc.Chicago.cw.net (208.172.1.130) 26.154 ms 25.87
2 ms 25.909 ms
6 chcgil1wcx2-oc48.wcg.net (64.200.103.73) 57.180 ms 57.543 ms 56.941 ms
7 dllstx1wcx2-oc48.wcg.net (64.200.240.26) 57.030 ms 57.430 ms 57.135 ms
8 dllstx1wcx1-intcomm-pos.wcg.net (64.200.111.178) 56.605 ms 56.481 ms 56.3
36 ms
9 64.200.162.2 (64.200.162.2) 57.501 ms 56.306 ms 56.484 ms
10 207.218.223.39 (207.218.223.39) 56.489 ms 56.225 ms 56.067 ms
11 207.44.150.113 (207.44.150.113) 57.210 ms 56.260 ms 57.480 ms

S.T.

They seem to be multihome with Cogent & WCG. Here's what I get:
4 198.32.146.21 12.235 ms mae-la.above.net [AS226] Los Nettos origin AS
5 208.185.156.10 11.892 ms pos3-3.mpr2.lax2.us.mfnx.net [AS6461] Primary AS for Abovenet
6 208.185.156.125 12.003 ms pos2-0.mpr1.sjc2.us.mfnx.net [AS6461] Primary AS for Abovenet
7 208.184.102.202 12.381 ms so-1-1-0.mpr4.sjc2.us.mfnx.net [AS6461] Primary AS for Abovenet
8 208.185.175.162 11.942 ms pos6-0.mpr2.pao1.us.mfnx.net [AS6461] Primary AS for Abovenet
9 64.124.11.181 14.288 ms 64.124.11.181.cogentco.com (DNS error) [AS6461] Primary AS for Abovenet
10 66.28.4.149 14.806 ms p6-0.core02.sfo01.atlas.cogentco.com (DNS error) [AS16631] Unknown
11 66.28.4.133 53.308 ms p14-0.core02.dfw01.atlas.cogentco.com (DNS error) [AS16631] Unknown
12 66.28.4.25 59.616 ms p15-0.core01.dfw01.atlas.cogentco.com (DNS error) [AS16631] Unknown
13 66.28.4.98 56.189 ms p13-0.core01.iah01.atlas.cogentco.com (DNS error) [AS16631] Unknown
14 66.28.66.238 53.459 ms g8.ba21.b000605-0.iah01.atlas.cogentco.com (DNS error) [AS16631] Unknown
15 66.28.28.210 54.282 ms Everyones-Internet.demarc.cogentco.com (DNS error) [AS16631] Unknown
16 207.218.223.39 54.061 ms DNS error [AS13749] Everyones Internet
17 207.44.150.113 56.664 ms DNS error [AS13749/AS5705] Everyones Internet / ViaWest Autonomous System Number

Also, WCG is good (much better than Cogent) but it's not really premium. It's only about $40/Mbit raw.

strainer · 10-20-2002, 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by m0rph3us

They seem to be multihome with Cogent & WCG. Here's what I get:
4 198.32.146.21 12.235 ms mae-la.above.net [AS226] Los Nettos origin AS
5 208.185.156.10 11.892 ms pos3-3.mpr2.lax2.us.mfnx.net [AS6461] Primary AS for Abovenet
6 208.185.156.125 12.003 ms pos2-0.mpr1.sjc2.us.mfnx.net [AS6461] Primary AS for Abovenet
7 208.184.102.202 12.381 ms so-1-1-0.mpr4.sjc2.us.mfnx.net [AS6461] Primary AS for Abovenet
8 208.185.175.162 11.942 ms pos6-0.mpr2.pao1.us.mfnx.net [AS6461] Primary AS for Abovenet
9 64.124.11.181 14.288 ms 64.124.11.181.cogentco.com (DNS error) [AS6461] Primary AS for Abovenet
10 66.28.4.149 14.806 ms p6-0.core02.sfo01.atlas.cogentco.com (DNS error) [AS16631] Unknown
11 66.28.4.133 53.308 ms p14-0.core02.dfw01.atlas.cogentco.com (DNS error) [AS16631] Unknown
12 66.28.4.25 59.616 ms p15-0.core01.dfw01.atlas.cogentco.com (DNS error) [AS16631] Unknown
13 66.28.4.98 56.189 ms p13-0.core01.iah01.atlas.cogentco.com (DNS error) [AS16631] Unknown
14 66.28.66.238 53.459 ms g8.ba21.b000605-0.iah01.atlas.cogentco.com (DNS error) [AS16631] Unknown
15 66.28.28.210 54.282 ms Everyones-Internet.demarc.cogentco.com (DNS error) [AS16631] Unknown
16 207.218.223.39 54.061 ms DNS error [AS13749] Everyones Internet
17 207.44.150.113 56.664 ms DNS error [AS13749/AS5705] Everyones Internet / ViaWest Autonomous System Number

Also, WCG is good (much better than Cogent) but it's not really premium. It's only about $40/Mbit raw.

Well, I just tried another trace from my server at Rackshack to home on my cable modem:

traceroute www.fcs-usa.com
traceroute to www.fcs-usa.com (68.84.34.47), 30 hops max, 38 byte packets
1 207.44.150.1 (207.44.150.1) 0.402 ms 0.162 ms 0.142 ms
2 207.218.223.1 (207.218.223.1) 0.305 ms 9.352 ms 0.690 ms
3 everyoneint-1.s2333b.usdlls2-j20c.savvis.net (64.243.79.13) 7.078 ms 6.474
ms 6.480 ms
4 sl-gw20-fw-3-2.sprintlink.net (144.232.194.13) 7.376 ms 7.390 ms 7.256 ms
5 sl-bb20-fw-4-1.sprintlink.net (144.232.11.125) 8.017 ms 8.217 ms 7.843 ms
6 sl-bb22-pen-10-2.sprintlink.net (144.232.18.78) 37.655 ms 37.671 ms 38.18
6 ms
7 sl-bb23-pen-15-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.8.177) 37.913 ms 37.713 ms 37.67
3 ms
8 sl-bb20-pen-14-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.16.25) 38.396 ms 38.013 ms 37.71
1 ms
9 sl-gw37-pen-9-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.5.42) 37.545 ms 37.414 ms 37.476
ms
10 sl-comca-12-1.sprintlink.net (144.223.44.10) 43.898 ms 46.972 ms 45.032 m
s
11 68.80.0.233 (68.80.0.233) 48.418 ms 40.677 ms 39.502 ms

Looks like Sprint to me???

Which is exactly what I was told by RS, that Cogent bandwith is used very little on the dedicated servers and that they are multi-homed through a bunch of carriers...

All I can say is so far I am seeing good quality bandwith to my test server there - I have a lot more testing to do...

S.T.

artware · 10-21-2002, 01:37 AM

Strainer,

Rackshack uses several connections. Most of it is Verio (two GigE connections), others are Time Warner, Williams, Allegiance and Cogent (one GigE each).

Most of the people claiming "premium bandwidth" offer Verio, too. The Cogent link with Rackshack is mainly used for the "10 Mbit for $400" deal.

I think Rackshack offers a great deal, if you know how to run your own server very well and are not looking for the best response times in all cases.

If you are looking for the best connections, or need more than very basic service, Rackshack is not the place to be.
I would not host my stuff there for that reason, but I could see myself having a backup server there, or using them to host "bonus stuff" for my users.

Greetings,

Art

UnseenWorld · 10-21-2002, 01:51 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by gallerypost
Guys, i was told that bcz i'm hosting with rackshack and their bandwidth sux, and alot of my surfers e-mailing me saying that alot of times they can't reach my sites (but others can on the same time) ...

What are you saying ?

Well, if surfers can't reach your sites...what do YOU think, rocket scientist?

Herb Kornfield · 10-21-2002, 05:29 AM

www.likewhoa.com

check out the new fall specials for moving over to them. They got it all

Va2k · 10-21-2002, 06:03 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by skitzoe
rackshack is fucking shit and can only hold like 5000 uniques at once

need some hosting quality in exchange for a little traffic?

icq me on 31196770

Haha ya so full of it

49thParallel · 10-21-2002, 06:18 AM

Just to dispell the myth that cogent can only handle 5000 uniques at a time...I host my servers at the same data center as a number of Cogent hosts on this board. Cologroup, phatservers.....I have my own rack, so I rent directly from the datacenter and not from a host.

One of my servers, at the low point of any day goes down to 4 mbps sustained. At the high end, it sits at about 7.2 mbps sustained. So it is definately pumping out more then 5,000 uniques at any given time.

On the other hand, the resolve time at 4 mbps (running html tests from 10 locations worldwide) is roughly half of the resolve time when the server reaches 7.2 mbps. Whether this is a factor of cogent or just that my server peaks at the same time that the rest of the internet peaks, is unknown. Perhaps, over the next couple of days I will run parallel tests on one of my sites and compare it to a non-cogent site.

If anyone wants to offer up a gallery URL to test, please do. It should be on a server hosted on a non-cogent line...the server should be doing at least a compariable bandwidth to mine described above..and the page should be roughly 90 - 110K in size. I will run side by side tests over the next 48 hours and post the results.

strainer · 10-21-2002, 06:31 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by artware
Strainer,

Rackshack uses several connections. Most of it is Verio (two GigE connections), others are Time Warner, Williams, Allegiance and Cogent (one GigE each).

Most of the people claiming "premium bandwidth" offer Verio, too. The Cogent link with Rackshack is mainly used for the "10 Mbit for $400" deal.

I think Rackshack offers a great deal, if you know how to run your own server very well and are not looking for the best response times in all cases.

If you are looking for the best connections, or need more than very basic service, Rackshack is not the place to be.
I would not host my stuff there for that reason, but I could see myself having a backup server there, or using them to host "bonus stuff" for my users.

Greetings,

Art

Thanks that is kinda what I am saying. There seems to be a weekly "fuck RS" post or 2, inspired I suspect by some other hosting companies having a hard time with the $99, 400 Gig deal.

I have no problem with the fact they don't supply any service - its a dedicated server and they basically give you the keys and say "go fuck yourself", which is just the way I like it.

That said, I put in a trouble ticket last night for a new domain DNS entry, and within 45 minutes it was completed. That is not too bad for a company that doesn't provide any service.

As far as the bandwidth I am going to test for a month but so far a practical matter I am not seeing ny difference between theirs and my $4/gig host at this moment...

S.T.

UncleRanch · 10-21-2002, 06:52 AM

I never knew rackshack was okay with adult content...

artware · 10-21-2002, 07:05 AM

UncleRanch,

It's not allowed for shared hosting, but they are OK with it if you get a dedicated server..

Greetings,

Art

CaroMark · 10-21-2002, 08:09 AM

Hello gallerypost,

In the adult industry the load and snap of your web site is very important. If you built a two million dollar dragster you would not expect to run it on regular, so what kind of site do you have?

Candid Hosting can offer Virtual or Dedicated solutions to meet your specifications. Just contact me and let me know what you are looking for.

May I suggest that you take the short virtual tour of our data center and NOC at http://www.NeuTelligent.com and select the STREAMING tab. Compare our infrastructure to the competition and I feel confident you will be impressed. Currently our pipes are averaging 3.5Gbps!

The BW is Burstable and multihomed. (IP = 64.159.80.1)

Tech Support is LIVE Remote-Hands 24/7/365

Good luck with your search.

patmccrotch · 10-21-2002, 11:52 PM

I like it when someone uses a discussion thread to spam an ad for their company. Their site will be the next one I go to after that excellent mortgage company that has spammed my hotmail account 6,000 times.

I guess you have to look at it as best bang for the buck. Take into consideration every aspect of your hosting experience and compare it to your needs + cost. If your hosting co give you top notch service and cogent bandwidth that gets the job done for a good price, then you are coming out on top.

While I have no doubts that the technical facts posted above are accurate the results seem to be based on something that too many variables are a part of. "My traffic went up 40% when i switched to verio". In the time of transition, did you start new advertising? Did you put up a hot new skat tgp that half of china went buck nuts over? To say that this one thing made your site 40% more popular just seems to general.

Please remember that I am not trying make a point against their routes and peering arrangements as I have no base to argue that case, just the general statements seem so dramatic yet have a very fragile foundation.

I've experienced both Cogent and Verio bandwidth and while I had some routes that were better with Verio, I also had others that were better with Cogent.

Jamie · 10-22-2002, 12:20 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by m0rph3us
Yes. Rackshack = Cogent.

Get your facts straight

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

I love how people just jump on the anti cogent b.s.. Rackshack knows more about hosting than 3/4's of the hosts who spam this board.

Take a close look at their network graph.. Time warner, Verio, Williams, Cogent, Eli... etc...Rackshack is doing something right.

Cogent allows the entrepreneurial Adult Webmaster a cost effective means to be VERY profitable. We've been using Cogent for over a year now and have been VERY pleased with the reliability.

10-20-2002, 02:19 PM	#1
gallerypost Confirmed User Join Date: Nov 2001 Posts: 711	can it be that i'm losing tons of hits bcz i'm hosting on rackshack Guys, i was told that bcz i'm hosting with rackshack and their bandwidth sux, and alot of my surfers e-mailing me saying that alot of times they can't reach my sites (but others can on the same time) ... What are you saying ?

10-20-2002, 03:43 PM	#6
Brad Mitchell Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Southfield, MI Posts: 9,812	I just lowered my prices... move to SinHost and ride the wave Cheerio Brad __________________ President at MojoHost \| brad at mojohost dot com \| Skype MojoHostBrad 71 industry awards for hosting and professional excellence since 1999

10-20-2002, 03:46 PM	#7
m0rph3us Confirmed User Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Principality of Sealand Posts: 2,033	Yes. Rackshack = Cogent. __________________ <font size="2" face="Tahoma"><a href="http://www.18blowjobs.com/webmasters/?640" target="_blank">Get paid $25 per signup</a> listing over <a href="http://galleries.18blowjobs.com/hosted.html" target="_blank">100 free hosted video galleries</a> - <a href="http://www.18blowjobs.com/webmasters/?640" target="_blank">Check it</a> » </font>

10-20-2002, 04:05 PM	#8
beemk CLICK HERE Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 20,829	i went with www.sinhost.com for some of my sites. i have yet to receive an email from an angry surfer that couldnt reach my site. __________________ I host with Vacares

10-20-2002, 05:00 PM	#11
.:Frog:. Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: ~ C A N A D A ~ Posts: 2,123	Do you people care about quality or just go with the cheapest host you can find? __________________ <a href="http://www.pornopayouts.com/?rid=pp3076">PornoPayouts</a> Tons of Hosted Galleries.

10-20-2002, 02:20 PM	#2
alias aliasx Join Date: Apr 2001 Posts: 19,010	if something sounds too good to be true it usually is

10-20-2002, 02:21 PM	#3
mrthumbs salad tossing sig guy Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: mrthumbs*gmail.com Posts: 11,702	Cheaters Never Win

10-20-2002, 02:26 PM	#5
Theo HAL 9000 Industry Role: Join Date: May 2001 Posts: 34,515	free porn to masses

10-20-2002, 04:14 PM	#9
Calvinguy Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: European Union Posts: 1,752	Any other with bad experience with rackshack? I will only use them for TGP postings. Can they handle the traffic?

10-20-2002, 05:28 PM	#13
skitzoe Registered User Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Melbourne, AUSTRALIA Posts: 56	rackshack is fucking shit and can only hold like 5000 uniques at once need some hosting quality in exchange for a little traffic? icq me on 31196770

10-20-2002, 06:09 PM	#15
m0rph3us Confirmed User Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Principality of Sealand Posts: 2,033	You get what you pay for. Some people don't realize that if they were on premium hosting paying twice the money they'd probably triple their income. And considering that income is exponentially relative to bandwidth, you'd make a lot more money. __________________ <font size="2" face="Tahoma"><a href="http://www.18blowjobs.com/webmasters/?640" target="_blank">Get paid $25 per signup</a> listing over <a href="http://galleries.18blowjobs.com/hosted.html" target="_blank">100 free hosted video galleries</a> - <a href="http://www.18blowjobs.com/webmasters/?640" target="_blank">Check it</a> » </font>

10-20-2002, 06:17 PM	#16
dantheman OG Industry Role: Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 3,308	you build it! we serve it! they join it! as easy as ABC __________________ M3server.com VPS>Get your 2nd month free Ded>$100 off your 2nd month since 1996 icq-25135623 dannyh at~m3server DOT com

10-21-2002, 01:37 AM	#23
artware Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: the Netherlands Posts: 268	Strainer, Rackshack uses several connections. Most of it is Verio (two GigE connections), others are Time Warner, Williams, Allegiance and Cogent (one GigE each). Most of the people claiming "premium bandwidth" offer Verio, too. The Cogent link with Rackshack is mainly used for the "10 Mbit for $400" deal. I think Rackshack offers a great deal, if you know how to run your own server very well and are not looking for the best response times in all cases. If you are looking for the best connections, or need more than very basic service, Rackshack is not the place to be. I would not host my stuff there for that reason, but I could see myself having a backup server there, or using them to host "bonus stuff" for my users. Greetings, Art

10-21-2002, 05:29 AM	#25
Herb Kornfield Is on the 1 Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Philly Burbs Posts: 4,996	www.likewhoa.com check out the new fall specials for moving over to them. They got it all

10-21-2002, 06:18 AM	#27
49thParallel So Fucking Banned Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 1,197	Just to dispell the myth that cogent can only handle 5000 uniques at a time...I host my servers at the same data center as a number of Cogent hosts on this board. Cologroup, phatservers.....I have my own rack, so I rent directly from the datacenter and not from a host. One of my servers, at the low point of any day goes down to 4 mbps sustained. At the high end, it sits at about 7.2 mbps sustained. So it is definately pumping out more then 5,000 uniques at any given time. On the other hand, the resolve time at 4 mbps (running html tests from 10 locations worldwide) is roughly half of the resolve time when the server reaches 7.2 mbps. Whether this is a factor of cogent or just that my server peaks at the same time that the rest of the internet peaks, is unknown. Perhaps, over the next couple of days I will run parallel tests on one of my sites and compare it to a non-cogent site. If anyone wants to offer up a gallery URL to test, please do. It should be on a server hosted on a non-cogent line...the server should be doing at least a compariable bandwidth to mine described above..and the page should be roughly 90 - 110K in size. I will run side by side tests over the next 48 hours and post the results. Last edited by 49thParallel; 10-21-2002 at 06:19 AM..

10-21-2002, 06:52 AM	#29
UncleRanch Registered User Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 5	I never knew rackshack was okay with adult content...

10-21-2002, 07:05 AM	#30
artware Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: the Netherlands Posts: 268	UncleRanch, It's not allowed for shared hosting, but they are OK with it if you get a dedicated server.. Greetings, Art

10-21-2002, 08:09 AM	#31
CaroMark Confirmed User Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Tampa, Florida Posts: 1,357	Hello gallerypost, In the adult industry the load and snap of your web site is very important. If you built a two million dollar dragster you would not expect to run it on regular, so what kind of site do you have? Candid Hosting can offer Virtual or Dedicated solutions to meet your specifications. Just contact me and let me know what you are looking for. May I suggest that you take the short virtual tour of our data center and NOC at http://www.NeuTelligent.com and select the STREAMING tab. Compare our infrastructure to the competition and I feel confident you will be impressed. Currently our pipes are averaging 3.5Gbps! The BW is Burstable and multihomed. (IP = 64.159.80.1) Tech Support is LIVE Remote-Hands 24/7/365 Good luck with your search. __________________ Mark M, 727-433-0745 [email protected] Support is everything! ICQ# 40467849, AIM MMemmer333

10-21-2002, 11:52 PM	#32
patmccrotch Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: edinburgh Posts: 655	I like it when someone uses a discussion thread to spam an ad for their company. Their site will be the next one I go to after that excellent mortgage company that has spammed my hotmail account 6,000 times. I guess you have to look at it as best bang for the buck. Take into consideration every aspect of your hosting experience and compare it to your needs + cost. If your hosting co give you top notch service and cogent bandwidth that gets the job done for a good price, then you are coming out on top. While I have no doubts that the technical facts posted above are accurate the results seem to be based on something that too many variables are a part of. "My traffic went up 40% when i switched to verio". In the time of transition, did you start new advertising? Did you put up a hot new skat tgp that half of china went buck nuts over? To say that this one thing made your site 40% more popular just seems to general. Please remember that I am not trying make a point against their routes and peering arrangements as I have no base to argue that case, just the general statements seem so dramatic yet have a very fragile foundation. I've experienced both Cogent and Verio bandwidth and while I had some routes that were better with Verio, I also had others that were better with Cogent. Last edited by patmccrotch; 10-22-2002 at 12:05 AM..