Choice of two VPSs

[Evan Leibovitch]

Thanks all,

By the time I got Tim's email, the deal was closed at VPS.NET, using the
Montreal server.

(As it turns out both the choices I indicated had one negative review each.)

Some downtime is acceptable, but 12 hours stretches are a bit much. I'll
let you know how it goes.


On 4 February 2014 09:19, Tim Tisdall <tisdall-DXT9u3ndKiSh7up9GtFB90EOCMrvLtNR at public.gmane.org> wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 7:39 PM, CLIFFORD ILKAY <clifford_ilkay-biY6FKoJMRdBDgjK7y7TUQ at public.gmane.org
> > wrote:
>
>>  On 02/03/2014 09:38 AM, Tim Tisdall wrote:
>>
>>  On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 2:15 AM, Evan Leibovitch <evan-ieNeDk6JonTYtjvyW6yDsg at public.gmane.org> wrote:
>>
>>  I've been a long-term customer of VPS.NET for about 3 years now.  I
>> hate them.  :)  But I also still use them.  In the past I had a lot of
>> issues with downtime and just a few weeks ago I had two instances be down
>> for over 12 hrs.  I'm not hosting any critical applications with them
>>  (where I did in the past and lost a lot of money).  They have a SLA that
>> basically says if they're down long enough (and you reported it quick
>> enough), you can get your money back.  But getting back $20 isn't much of a
>> comfort if your mission critical site is down for 20hrs.
>>
>>
>> If your site is really "mission critical", you should be prepared to
>> spend the money that it takes to increase reliability and durability.
>> $20/month gets you cheap and cheerful hosting with no fault tolerance and
>> minimal support. You get what you pay for and don't get what you don't pay
>> for. To get increasingly higher levels of reliability, expect your costs to
>> increase exponentially. Like almost anything you look at, the last tenth
>> can be exorbitantly expensive so you have to decide how much down time you
>> can actually tolerate. Clearly, tolerating outages of 20 hours is fine for
>> you because you're still there.
>>
>
> Yes, my needs changed.  While the down time is still annoying, my websites
> are more hobby sites than "mission critical" (okay, not mission critical at
> all).  When I did need more reliability we had multiple instances across
> different clouds and a load balancer to try to mitigate the downtimes.
>  However, what annoyed me was that the marketing on their site claimed
> things like "100% Uptime - Auto-healing and auto-scaling for your website
> or VPS ensures 100% availability." (
> https://web.archive.org/web/20110923152239/http://www.vps.net/?). Why I'm
> still with them is I'm only paying $10/month for my one instance (a Black
> Friday deal in 2012).
>
> Looking back at support tickets, another big issue was finding my server
> off several times.  They'd have to do some emergency restart of a cloud and
> for some reason the instances weren't automatically restarted.  So, it
> wasn't until I discovered myself that it was down and started it that it
> was actually back and running.
>
> Regardless, I've found http://uptimerobot.com/ very useful for keeping an
> eye on my servers.
>
>


-- 
Evan Leibovitch
Toronto Canada

Em: evan at telly dot org
Sk: evanleibovitch
Tw: el56
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://gtalug.org/pipermail/legacy/attachments/20140206/12d1292e/attachment.html>