[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
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."
> remember folks, redundancy is the savior of all f***ups.
> On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 2:21 PM, JoeSox <joesox at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I just waited 160 minutes for a tech call and the Bluehost tech told me
>> 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
>> Some of our emails are coming thru but Google DNS still lost all of our
>> 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
>> <bortzmeyer at nic.fr>
>> > On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 08:41:55AM -0800,
>> > JoeSox <joesox at 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.
>> > 220.127.116.11: OK: 2012092007 (1382 ms)
>> > ns2.bluehost.com.
>> > 18.104.22.168: 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.