The OTHER hosting thread...

[Ludvig]

One easy example: Hotmail have low (and here we are discussion LOW) downtime compared to that amout of data their servers are serving each day. Why?

Whois output from Internic.net showing number of nameservers @ hotmail.com

[Techie Media]

Hey Brad, you know I don't post on any Hosting related threads, but in this case I had to stop in and say you are right on. Like usual your thoughts are very well written and very true and valid.
I can't wait to see you in Vegas, and this time we need to sit down for a bit.....
Once again, great thread.

[49thParallel]

Originally posted by LBBV


I'm curious. It sounds to me that you like your current host (as evidenced by your last paragraph) yet you are sending email to other hosts looking for quotes?

I am VERY!! happy with my current host. But, I always prefer to have my dedicated servers on more then one network. Then, if they go down for any reason, my entire business doesn't come to a halt. Plus, for my key Search Engine pages and member site, I also mirror all of my material on completely different networks.

But then again, why am I giving an explanation. I have sent emails to various hosts explaining in detail my requirements...that would make me a serious potential customer... Instead..I see them posting on this board...and jumping on little Virtual hosting orders...apparently they have never heard about the 80/20 rule in business.

[LBBV]

Originally posted by Ludvig
One easy example: Hotmail have low (and here we are discussion LOW) downtime compared to that amout of data their servers are serving each day. Why?

Whois output from Internic.net showing number of nameservers @ hotmail.com

In the grand scheme of things, name servers have very little to do with overall redundancy. For instance, unless I have two different locations, if my network is down, having a name server somewhere else does no good at all. While you may be able to resolve my domain names, you still can't get to the sites.

In a properly set up name server environment, the secondary name server is automatically updated by the primary. Should the primary go down, the secondary will answer requests. Also, anyone who is serious about redundancy will have a spare primary server set up ready to put in place should the primary fail. This can be achieved very easily.

As for your hotmail question...if you do a traceroute on those 4 name servers, you will see that they all wind up on the same network. While you may occasionally see a company that has their name servers on two different IP blocks, there are very few that actually have their name servers on entirely different networks located in different facilities (for the reason I explained in my first paragraph).

Name servers are just hardware. Keep spares around and all is good. Making sure that the sites and network are always up is the most important part, and that's done through an overall plan.

[LBBV]

Originally posted by 49thParallel


I am VERY!! happy with my current host. But, I always prefer to have my dedicated servers on more then one network. Then, if they go down for any reason, my entire business doesn't come to a halt. Plus, for my key Search Engine pages and member site, I also mirror all of my material on completely different networks.

But then again, why am I giving an explanation. I have sent emails to various hosts explaining in detail my requirements...that would make me a serious potential customer... Instead..I see them posting on this board...and jumping on little Virtual hosting orders...apparently they have never heard about the 80/20 rule in business.

I'm not sure if this last paragraph was directed at me, but if you have sent an email to our sales email address, because of the holiday, my sales people may not have checked their email (although I contacted one of them and they didn't have anything in their box that they hadn't already responded to). If you would like, you can send an email to me at bill AT national-net DOT com, however, I can tell you that I can't come close to $400 dollars for a 10 meg line and won't even try.

[HQ]

Originally posted by SleazyDream
I pay a lot more than that but my site is NEVER down..........

Me too.

Please show me under $1/gig with the reliability of Rackspace (not my only host, but one of many) with all of its full redundancies and countless measures to ensure 99.999% uptime.

[TheFLY]

Phil is a pimp.

[49thParallel]

Originally posted by LBBV


I'm not sure if this last paragraph was directed at me, but if you have sent an email to our sales email address, because of the holiday, my sales people may not have checked their email (although I contacted one of them and they didn't have anything in their box that they hadn't already responded to). If you would like, you can send an email to me at bill AT national-net DOT com, however, I can tell you that I can't come close to $400 dollars for a 10 meg line and won't even try.

Nope, this wan't directed at you. Sorry for the confusion. And no, I haven't in any of my emails indicated the current price I am paying or the network that I am hosting on now. Nor, do I expect to receive non-cogent bandwidth for anywhere near the price that I am paying now.

To add additional cogent servers would defeat my main goal of ensuring redundancy, so I am looking for non-cogent hosts.

[Ludvig]

LBBV: I am with you, completely. Thats what I meant with,

And last.. more than a single nameserver have no effect unless the complete serverpark is clustered. Different nameservers pointing to the same webserver dosent protect me from downtime.

Downtime is our biggest enemy - in fact the whole internets weakest point. Why should it be so hard for hosts to understand that? And even if they do.. redundancy must not fail in any level!

[TheFLY]

Originally posted by LBBV
As for your hotmail question...if you do a traceroute on those 4 name servers, you will see that they all wind up on the same network.

So can you shut down Hotmail? I dare ya. Hehe...

LOL

[LBBV]

Originally posted by TheFLY


So can you shut down Hotmail? I dare ya. Hehe...

LOL

LOL!!! Well, the last time I shut down hotmail, they weren't very happy with me

Seriously though, for a service like hotmail, I would bet that the name servers are actually a very small part of their whole redundancy and security plan. I can only imagine the number of people that they have working on that particular service!

[LBBV]

Originally posted by Ludvig
LBBV: I am with you, completely. Thats what I meant with,



Downtime is our biggest enemy - in fact the whole internets weakest point. Why should it be so hard for hosts to understand that? And even if they do.. redundancy must not fail in any level!

I'm glad we agree.

One of the things that some of our customers have heard me say is "knowing what I know about the internet and how it works, what with 1000's of networks, routers, servers, switches, then throw in the human element, I'm amazed that it even stays up at all!"

All it takes is one fat-fingered network engineer to cause a whole bunch of problems.

[Jak]

SinHost uptime:
SinHost support:

Two thumbs up.

Jak

[L0stMind]

Originally posted by LBBV


In the grand scheme of things, name servers have very little to do with overall redundancy. For instance, unless I have two different locations, if my network is down, having a name server somewhere else does no good at all. While you may be able to resolve my domain names, you still can't get to the sites.

In a properly set up name server environment, the secondary name server is automatically updated by the primary. Should the primary go down, the secondary will answer requests. Also, anyone who is serious about redundancy will have a spare primary server set up ready to put in place should the primary fail. This can be achieved very easily.

As for your hotmail question...if you do a traceroute on those 4 name servers, you will see that they all wind up on the same network. While you may occasionally see a company that has their name servers on two different IP blocks, there are very few that actually have their name servers on entirely different networks located in different facilities (for the reason I explained in my first paragraph).

Name servers are just hardware. Keep spares around and all is good. Making sure that the sites and network are always up is the most important part, and that's done through an overall plan.

I just have to say... this is how I feel about the subject. Multiple spares when it comes to networking hardware (switches et al), a spare primary nameserver just sitting there waiting... $10k in spare inventory so I can throw a server together or fix a broken one in no time.

We are a smaller company... our salaries are only around $20K per month. Bandwidth still is our biggest cost.

In descending order:

bandwidth
salaries
rackspace
harwdare
office space (and everything included like insurance and whatnot)

We have put together a pretty solid product - we haven't had a network outage in two years. Sure we have had some servers go thru a hardware issue or a wild home made script eat up all available file handles or something but those problems are all easily resolved.

Webmasters are just easily fooled by glitz and glam.

[Brad Mitchell]

This has been a fun thread, I always enjoy when us hosts can toss some thoughts around Sometimes I see you good guys sitting threads out when I think everyone would like to also hear what you have to say.

With regard to the DNS server question, LBBV answered it appropriately I thought. I have two DNS servers on the same network that update one another. If I was offline, it wouldn't matter if I had a nameserver in some other far off place. The practical reason to have two nameservers is to protect against hardware failure in at least one unit and also so that it is okay to do a reboot on a nameserver if in fact one is needed.

NatNet is infinitely larger than me, unequivocally. You're absolutely right about the costs of redundant routers, equipment, employees and the million other things being exceptionally high. Me, I'm running a newer hosting operation. While I am not as sophisticated or large as your operation I believe that in time I probably will be. Entering the market as a host this year allowed me to take advantage in negotiations with my facility, upstream provider, decreases in hardware costs and much more. I simply pass these savings along to my customers.

Inevidably, as I grow, many costs will increase. As that happens I will respond as needed. In the interim, I am proud that the end result of my efforts is in fact a high performance network for my clients and uptime that is easily in the 99.999% range. I've got spares for hard drives, cpus, fans, power supplies, routers, switches, cat5, fiber and a list of other things too. Shit inevidably happens, it's only prudent to be prepared.

I do run a small operation! I keep costs low by doing most of the sales myself and paying a huge comission to other people that refer sales so that I don't have to have the carry of a sales staff. Honestly, most of my new clients are referrals from satisfied customers. I don't know how many employees one would think I need but I can assure everyone that the two full-time tech support people I have now in addition to other contractors is plenty. When my volumes increase, I'll add more.

I rarely worry about my "trade secrets"... My SinTalk program has been copied over and over again yet I still lead the industry with my phone sex business. If anyone else wants to go through the headache to get into the hosting business, they're damn welcome. As far as I'm concerned, it's virtually impossible for any new company to break out and succeed in today's market unless they're really savvy.

People can laugh and poke fun at my pricing for dedicated being lower than many... but at the end of the day I'm delivering the same tangible result, even if the way I got there was a little bit different. Nothing in my hosting business is financed and now that I'm over the first "hump" it's turning into the cash machine I knew it would. Having everything bought and paid for means that my monthly math has become really simple. <lol>

In the midst of many bad hosts, there are alot of great hosting companies to choose from. This is a buyer's market, no doubt. As with any other business that evolves inevidably some giants will fall and some small companies will never break out. One thing is for sure though, the "retail" and "wholesale" cost of ANY industry never stays the same year after year. Technology is smarter, quicker, cheaper and so are good employees... if you haven't noticed, we're in a recession. It only seems appropriate that some of these things would lead to a savings for customers.

Oh, I might as well babble some more.

I don't allow any spammers on my network... and I've always paid my upstream providers. I'm a perfect fucking client for Verio and they know it. Today they sell me 200mbit, 1st quarter 2003 it'll be 500mbit and by the end of next year it'll easily be far beyond a gigabit. Doesn't seem big enough? Oh well, I'm plenty happy with those figures and wouldn't be surprised if I exceed them. Included with growth will be other service enhancements, hardware upgrades, staffing increases. I might never be the biggest fish in the pond but I have no doubt that I'll continue to grow my six digit hosting salary while always improving service to my customers. For me, that's enough.

Someday... someday... there will be a piss and moan thread on GFY about SinHost. We're bound to trip, eventually, everyone does. When it happens, I'll take the flames and told-you-so's that are probably due to come my way. However, I can guarantee you that when we do I'll not only own up to it but commit every possible resource to communicating with our clients and resolving the problem ASAP. That's all any one of us good hosts can do.

At $1500 for 10mbit and a server I'm way cheaper than some hosts, more expensive than some others. Ultimately, I'm plenty happy with my margins. If I wasn't doing something right, I wouldn't own every piece of hardware at the colo. Does anyone else have a debt free hosting company

Cheers,

Brad

[picindex]

Originally posted by LBBV


LOL!!! Well, the last time I shut down hotmail, they weren't very happy with me

Seriously though, for a service like hotmail, I would bet that the name servers are actually a very small part of their whole redundancy and security plan. I can only imagine the number of people that they have working on that particular service!

Most of the large sites (Yahoo, Hotmail, Google, etc., etc.,) are hosted in multiple locations that are all built like rocks. These guys spend MILLIONS on their hosting per month. I know Yahoo is in at least 6 different data centers across the United States with 3 different providers. Same with Google. Big bucks for this stuff and how often do they go down?

[LBBV]

Brad,

I've followed your posts and your progress the last few months, and I would definitely have to say that you are in the select group of people who I feel truly understand the hosting business and the importance of doing it right While you may be smaller than us, because of the way you approach the business makes you a great fit for many webmasters.

There is still plenty of room for good competition, but my concern is that while there are a few good hosting companies out there, for every 1 good hosting company, there are 6 more that are looking for a quick buck instead of looking at the long range "big" picture. Thus the reason for so many ugly hosting threads on this board, which of course, sometimes makes the entire hosting industry suspect.

The bottom line is that when everything is running great, no one ever hears a word about a particular company, but when things are NOT running great, they are in everyone's eye. It's the old "what have you done for me lately" mentallity...