Walmart has cheap prices so "you get what you pay for."?? Hasty generalization but I can't disagree 100% with your opinion on this one. I am learning about the non-profit world of IT and the challenges are all around me. :)
-- Later, Joe On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 12:27 PM, Bob Evans <b...@fiberinternetcenter.com> wrote: > > Gee, for $3.49 for a website hosting per month , it's a real bargain. > While the network person inside me says, Wow that's a long outage. The > other part of me is really wondering what one thinks they can really > expect from a company that hosts a website for just $3.49 ? Such a > bargain at less than 1/2 the price of a single hot dog at a baseball > stadium per month. That price point alone tells you about the setup and > what you are agreeing too and who it's built for. Goes along with the ol' > saying, "you get what you pay for." > > If they are down for 10 hours a month out of the average 720 hours in a > month - thats a tiny percentage 1-2 of the time it's unavailable - in > service terms of dollars it's roughly a nickel they credit each customer. > Do I need more coffee or is my math wrong about a nickel for 10 hours of > website hosing ? > > However, maybe that is all many companies /sites really need. In which > case, it should be easy enough to build in backup yourself using two cheap > hosing providers and flip between them when the need arises. Or pick a > provider that manages their routing well and works with you quickly, but, > you'll have to pay more for that. > > Yep, the math spells it out - "you get what you pay for." > > Thank You > Bob Evans > CTO > > > > > > remember folks, redundancy is the savior of all f***ups. > > > > :) > > > > On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 2:21 PM, JoeSox <joe...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> I just waited 160 minutes for a tech call and the Bluehost tech told me > >> he > >> was able to confirm that it wasn't malicious activity that took down the > >> datacenter but rather it was caused by a "datacenter issue". > >> So my first thought is someone didn't design the topology correctly or > >> something. > >> Some of our emails are coming thru but Google DNS still lost all of our > >> DNS > >> zones which are hosted by Bluehost. > >> At least the #bluehostdown is fun to read :/ > >> -- > >> Later, Joe > >> > >> On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 10:04 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer > >> <bortzme...@nic.fr> > >> wrote: > >> > >> > On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 08:41:55AM -0800, > >> > JoeSox <joe...@gmail.com> wrote > >> > a message of 9 lines which said: > >> > > >> > > Anyone have the scope on the outage for Bluehost? > >> > > https://twitter.com/search?q=%23bluehostdown&src=tyah > >> > > >> > The two name servers ns1.bluehost.com and ns2.bluehost.com are > awfully > >> > slow to respond: > >> > > >> > % check-soa -i picturemotion.com > >> > ns1.bluehost.com. > >> > 74.220.195.31: OK: 2012092007 (1382 ms) > >> > ns2.bluehost.com. > >> > 69.89.16.4: OK: 2012092007 (1388 ms) > >> > > >> > As a result, most clients timeout. > >> > > >> > May be a DoS against the name servers? > >> > > >> > bluehost.com itself is DNS-hosted on a completely different > >> > architecture. So it works fine. But the nginx Web site replies 502 > >> > Gateway timeout, probably overloaded by all the clients trying to get > >> > informed. > >> > > >> > The Twitter accounts of Bluehost do not distribute any useful > >> > information. > >> > > >> > > > > >