TinyPortal

Development => Support => Servers & hosts => Topic started by: Xarcell on June 20, 2006, 06:36:18 AM

Title: [PAID] DreamHost
Post by: Xarcell on June 20, 2006, 06:36:18 AM
I'd just like to let everyone know that I use DreamHost and been using them for 3 years now. They are an excellent host, have 99% uptime, 24/7 customer service and a 24Hour respond time.

Here is a minimal package:

1 free domain (domains & renewals at $10 a year)
www.yourname.com
UNLIMITED domains hosted
UNLIMITED subdomains
20 GB Disk, 1 TB Transfer
3000 Mailboxes, 75 Shell/FTP Users

7.95 a month(+ $50 stup) or $94.40 annually(no set-up fee).

I use one of the higher end packages.

They do offer miva merchant for free on higher-end packages, and have 1 click installs. You just click a button and it installs popular types of software for you such as phpbb, wordpress, oscommernce, etc. Thet do not have a one cliock install for SMF though, they feel SMF is a huge secruity risk.

* Please note: Dreamhost may be on of the best hosts out there, but because the way they set up there systems, they are not SMF friendly. There extra secruity messes up SMF sessionID's(because of the ; in url). ZYou have to disable it. They also doesn't work well with certain RSS scripts. As in the RSS Rejector mod at SMF and TP Rss blocks.

Other than that it's fine.

I just wanted tro give everyone the heads up with this host.

www.dreamhost.com

------------------------------
My TP/SMF Sites Running On This Host:

www.xarcell-studios.com
www.feyorin.com
www.xboxnarc.com
www.xarchology.com
www.veoclan.com (merged with xboxnarc)
www.xtmclan.com (merged with xboxnarc)


Title: Re: [PAID] DreamHost
Post by: redone on June 20, 2006, 07:46:24 AM
I find it odd that they feel SMF is a security risk. Given that there is know known vulnerabilities and so many hosts support SMF via Fantastico one click install strikes me as odd.

I don't see much in your review that would make me use them to be honest. Its good that you have had three years good service from them but I would personally look for a more SMF friendly host and I also doubt the 1tb of bandwidth they offer as well.

Personal opinions aside a good review.

 ;)
Title: Re: [PAID] DreamHost
Post by: Xarcell on June 20, 2006, 03:51:15 PM
Ya, it's more of a warning post. I don't recommend DreamHost for SMF users.

I got into the middle of a debate between unknown/grudge and dreamhost about the secruity issue. Grudge proved them wrong, but they haven't done anything about it.
Title: Re: [PAID] DreamHost
Post by: redone on June 21, 2006, 05:57:11 AM
Sadly in most cases hosts don't know what they are talking about. Maybe someone could define security for me in a world where once you have ftp access for your domain you can pretty much upload whatever you like! Where is the security in that? lol

Besides which no one has ever provided any valid reason why SMF should not be installed on a server.
Title: Re: [PAID] DreamHost
Post by: Xarcell on June 21, 2006, 06:30:22 AM
They don't have a problem with it being installed. It's there "extra secruity" that interferes with the ";" in the URL on sessionID's. You have to disable the "extra secruity" mod.
Title: Re: [PAID] DreamHost
Post by: Skal Tura on June 22, 2006, 11:55:12 PM
As part of market research study i tried dreamhost. That account is still in use for low importance websites.

But i wouldn't recommend DH for anything else than at tops a personal website or low importance website.

Here are couple reasons:
A) Their servers are slow, they have oversold by too large factor
B) Network is slow, they have again oversold by too large factor
C) Lagging -> sometimes it takes 10-20s just to connect & data to start transferring
D) broken network, see this:
Code: [Select]
ping homer.artichost.net
PING homer.artichost.net (72.232.48.11) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from homer.artichost.net (72.232.48.11): icmp_seq=1 ttl=53 time=47.3 ms
Warning: time of day goes back (-1127542us), taking countermeasures.
64 bytes from homer.artichost.net (72.232.48.11): icmp_seq=2 ttl=53 time=50.4 ms
64 bytes from homer.artichost.net (72.232.48.11): icmp_seq=3 ttl=53 time=61.3 ms
Warning: time of day goes back (-1138575us), taking countermeasures.
64 bytes from homer.artichost.net (72.232.48.11): icmp_seq=4 ttl=53 time=0.000 ms
64 bytes from homer.artichost.net (72.232.48.11): icmp_seq=5 ttl=53 time=66.8 ms
64 bytes from homer.artichost.net (72.232.48.11): icmp_seq=6 ttl=53 time=34.5 ms
64 bytes from homer.artichost.net (72.232.48.11): icmp_seq=7 ttl=53 time=34.1 ms
64 bytes from homer.artichost.net (72.232.48.11): icmp_seq=8 ttl=53 time=52.9 ms
64 bytes from homer.artichost.net (72.232.48.11): icmp_seq=9 ttl=53 time=33.7 ms
64 bytes from homer.artichost.net (72.232.48.11): icmp_seq=10 ttl=53 time=33.6 ms
64 bytes from homer.artichost.net (72.232.48.11): icmp_seq=11 ttl=53 time=34.0 ms
Warning: time of day goes back (-1135308us), taking countermeasures.
64 bytes from homer.artichost.net (72.232.48.11): icmp_seq=12 ttl=53 time=0.000 ms
Warning: time of day goes back (-1107532us), taking countermeasures.
64 bytes from homer.artichost.net (72.232.48.11): icmp_seq=13 ttl=53 time=0.000 ms
64 bytes from homer.artichost.net (72.232.48.11): icmp_seq=14 ttl=53 time=36.4 ms

--- homer.artichost.net ping statistics ---
14 packets transmitted, 14 received, 0% packet loss, time 17193ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.000/34.697/66.898/20.889 ms
or longer time statistics:
Code: [Select]
--- homer.artichost.net ping statistics ---
69 packets transmitted, 69 received, 0% packet loss, time 77794ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.000/119.039/1247.855/273.644 ms


I find these lines very intresting:
 Warning: time of day goes back (-1138575us), taking countermeasures.
WHAT? Excuse me? Lol, i've never ever anywhere seen something like that.
That causes rtt min to be 0.000

I find it also very curious that the latencies change this widely for a server this close,  it's just a few hops from  gblx network (what dreamhost uses) to savvis network (where homer.artichost.net resides)
E) Periodic technical problems. Some i have encountered are: periods for random internal error (500) on websites, sometimes when you try to take a new connection via SSH it won't let you login. GD, ImageMagick etc. periodically broken etc. misc problems like that.
F) VERY poor support. For a time sensitive server error (basicly: websites wasn't working like they should, but internal server errors etc.), i had to wait for an answer from support for over 2 days! And then they denied that any problem would have existed!

Their pros:
 - you can kind of resell their space.
 - No hard limits
 - You get lots of resources assigned per buck (if i just could utilize these, lol!)

I'm sure even 1&1 is better. Goto webhostingtalk.com for more info on hosts :)

Title: Re: [PAID] DreamHost
Post by: redone on June 24, 2006, 07:42:06 AM
Certainly interesting feedback. I have to be honest and say I am yet to come across a host that oversells and does a good job of it.

Overselling from what I have seen simply does not work in the long term. As the hosting industry continues to mature from the 99c and 8gb of bandwidth to more reasonable prices and specs I would say look for a host that is upfront about not overselling and is happy to tell you they are not the cheapest.

Title: Re: [PAID] DreamHost
Post by: Omniverse on July 25, 2006, 11:56:04 AM
I currently use DH myself. I was wondering what you mean by disabling the extra security mod?
Title: Re: [PAID] DreamHost
Post by: akulion on July 25, 2006, 12:26:47 PM
well im a happy customer

as for the internal mumbo jumbo and milli seconds and number of queries, i couldnt be bothered, im satisfied with DH
Title: Re: [PAID] DreamHost
Post by: Skal Tura on July 26, 2006, 08:31:22 AM
well im a happy customer

as for the internal mumbo jumbo and milli seconds and number of queries, i couldnt be bothered, im satisfied with DH

The times are just exact numbers, don't you ever feel your site is slow on DH? ;) I sure do so.

Besides, not the latency times aren't much to worry about, but the skewed portions, these:
Warning: time of day goes back (-1127542us), taking countermeasures.
Are the ones which make you wonder how broke is their network actually? OR what the HECK is going on here?
Title: Re: [PAID] DreamHost
Post by: akulion on July 26, 2006, 08:39:29 AM
no, it seems to run just fine

compared to other sites i would say its loading up pretty fast and well

and havent had any complaints from people ether to be honest
Title: Re: [PAID] DreamHost
Post by: yeshaib on August 10, 2006, 09:18:29 AM
Just add this CODE
the code is : best
and get 1 full year for 22.40$ with a free domain
(https://www.tinyportal.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg116.imageshack.us%2Fimg116%2F8346%2Fdearmrr7.jpg&hash=a6a2375a9289de400c81d001853755f09ac66c30)
or
http://forums.slickdeals.net/showthread.php?t=151376

I will stay with servage! a few more $$$ but I know it works :)
Title: Re: [PAID] DreamHost
Post by: yucky smurf on August 22, 2006, 06:27:12 PM
since day 1 of using smf, it was and has been hosted on dream host.

personally i chose dreamhost for its cost / bandwidth transfer ratio.

i never had an issue thus far with them.
my smf members download large files quickly,
i get emails from people asking how on earth does the forum load so fast.

my ftp connect and transfer/download is never a program.

everyone has their own experiences and opinions.......

Title: Re: [PAID] DreamHost
Post by: yeshaib on August 22, 2006, 06:35:47 PM
That's true.

But when you are with someone and it works for you it's a big hassle to move 4 sites to a new server
Title: Re: [PAID] DreamHost
Post by: Skal Tura on September 26, 2006, 05:44:32 AM
uh...
I tried dream host also as part of market study, and my impressions is that it's amazing how they manage to get people to pay for that poor service...

Somewhere here should be some of my posts about problems with dreamhost... and there's a lot of them... They cause an problem on almost a weekly basis, shutting down sites, dowtime, panel outages, network outages... you name it, they've got it! problem wise...
Title: Re: [PAID] DreamHost
Post by: JPDeni on September 26, 2006, 06:43:57 AM
They were having some real problems, I guess, but the only thing I noticed was that my site was a bit slow. They've done some upgrading and it's working fine now for me.
Title: Re: [PAID] DreamHost
Post by: Skal Tura on September 26, 2006, 07:02:48 AM
I've had mainly only problems with them.
One month: 3 server swaps! oO;
2 weeks after opening the account: Panel has been always slow, and pages quite slow too mainly.
Title: Re: [PAID] DreamHost
Post by: JPDeni on September 26, 2006, 07:04:29 AM
Maybe I just got lucky and ended up on a good server. With everything, YMMV. :)
Title: Re: [PAID] DreamHost
Post by: akulion on September 26, 2006, 08:07:57 AM
A lot of people also make the mistake of not evaluating the size of their site

like before i went with dream host I read a review by some guy completely dissing dreamhost about how terrible their service is etc etc and he was using their basic plan

i visited his site it has 85+ people logged in

obiviously thats a task for a VPS or Dedicated server not a shared host!

for me DH has been great and no problems...once my site gets too big ill have no option but to switch over since DH currently dosent have any more dedicated servers available or VPS ones either

otherwise id prefer to stay with them
Title: Re: [PAID] DreamHost
Post by: Skal Tura on September 26, 2006, 10:07:25 AM
Are you sure he didn't mean customer service? That's their weakest point.
Title: Re: [PAID] DreamHost
Post by: Xarcell on September 26, 2006, 10:25:10 AM
I haven't had a problem with thier customer service. It's always been good. Its' thier server issues...

For example: my websites when down everyday, 19 days in a row, for an ahour or 2 and 43 times in a 180 peroid.

They said they just replaced the server. Hopefully everything is resolved. However I'm still getting e-mails saying cannot connect to DB.

They blame it on the software, and SMF blames it on the host.
Title: Re: [PAID] DreamHost
Post by: akulion on September 26, 2006, 10:44:31 AM
Are you sure he didn't mean customer service? That's their weakest point.

no the guy was talin about downtime etc

personally never had a problem with their customer support even once

I think im just lucky to be on one of their better servers im guessing

because another one of my friends also hosts with them using nearly the same stuff as me (smf + joomla) and he is always complaining his site is running slow and he gets downtime more often than me too - but then again joomla does run pretty slowly for me everytime ive been to a joomla based site

but with over 120000 customers im sure they must have some pretty awful servers too with porn sites etc eatin up all the resources lol

but hey jsut going off topic a bit here: do you know how 1 on 1 is? is it good? cos they seem to be givin out managed dedicated servers from $99 onwards which sounds like a good deal to me
Title: Re: [PAID] DreamHost
Post by: Skal Tura on September 26, 2006, 01:33:04 PM
1on1? i know 1and1, and they are your average enterprise, not that good offerings, not that good customer service, but quite stable servers and hell of a marketing without "trickery"

I can do the same too on special occasions / on promotion basis ;) on managed dedicated servers i mean.

[shameless ad]
Let's say, the celeron box i have for ~84-89€ comes with management if a Tinyportal member with atleast 500 posts :) (want to utilize this? remind me of this message! lol)

I'll throw the basic configuration, securing, optimizations, regular updates etc.

If needed to Netherlands, atm i can offer approximately the same from there for 75€
[/shameless ad]
Title: Re: [PAID] DreamHost
Post by: Skal Tura on October 15, 2006, 12:47:48 PM
Now i'm really get arsed with dreamhost.

They've been bouncing me around constantly, i was the 2nd time on necco, seeing loads as high as 430 (naturally: no websites loaded during those loads, shell was lagging behind minutes, even uptime took a lot of time), and asked for transfer... they transferred me BACK to tequila. Oh yeah, they took a week to do that server change alone...

After which, they shut down one of my websites, because it was "hogging" resources, while in fact, it was hogging bandwidth mainly (video streaming), and was strict on the fact that they won't ever set it back up due to it hogging resources. So, basicly, they denied the right to use what they promise as the specs.

Check out http://www.skaltura.net for my blog entries about it...

For one, i know i ain't going to renew with them when the time comes ;)

Oh, and as i'm writing this, i've been waiting for quite some time for answer why my e-mail forwarders broke on the server transfer... Now i'm not catching any e-mails coming to domains on DH >_<
Fortunately, they all are low priority, and nothing else than spam really comes to those addresses
Title: Re: [PAID] DreamHost
Post by: G6Cad on October 15, 2006, 12:54:51 PM
Sounds like you have a hard time SkaI Tura  :-\  I really do hope you will get a break soon so you can enjoy being a host, and not just have a hard time with it all the time.
Title: Re: [PAID] DreamHost
Post by: Skal Tura on October 15, 2006, 01:28:27 PM
Oh G6 you got it wrong, i've got a dreamhost account because of market study

No way i would resell their space, i would have headaches 24/7/365 with them!

Hosting been fine since the performance problems got solved :)
Tho, i would prefer to see a lot more revenue(=sales)
Title: Re: [PAID] DreamHost
Post by: Blunt on October 15, 2006, 02:19:25 PM
I'm glad I read this thread - I was seriously considering swapping over to DH.  Not any more :)
Title: Re: [PAID] DreamHost
Post by: Skal Tura on October 15, 2006, 03:28:39 PM
I'm glad I read this thread - I was seriously considering swapping over to DH.  Not any more :)

Wise choice indeed!

And to anyone who wants the feel the pain of using DH: just PM me and i'll create you an account there. (So so so not recommended, so you gotta have a damn good reason the feel that misery & grief they cause)
Oh yeah, forgot to mention, today they've had problems with DNS too (unreported on their status site)

Oh yeah Blunt, checkout my services too, there's a banner on the block on left, or go to http://www.artichost.net
When hosted by me, you can be sure of that my consciousness can't take providing poor services. Ask Bloc if you want ;)

/me heads to bed now (midnight here)

Title: Re: [PAID] DreamHost
Post by: JPDeni on October 15, 2006, 08:04:34 PM
Skal Tura, I do think you should make it clear that you are a competitor of Dreamhost. Your opinions are still valid, of course, but people ought to be able to decide for themselves whether or not you might have an ulterior motive in posting negative stuff about Dreamhost.

I think that every host has those that like them and those that don't. I like Dreamhost a whole lot. I'm sharing my account with several of my friends and we have had very few problems.
Title: Re: [PAID] DreamHost
Post by: Skal Tura on October 16, 2006, 02:28:34 AM
Skal Tura, I do think you should make it clear that you are a competitor of Dreamhost. Your opinions are still valid, of course, but people ought to be able to decide for themselves whether or not you might have an ulterior motive in posting negative stuff about Dreamhost.

I think that every host has those that like them and those that don't. I like Dreamhost a whole lot. I'm sharing my account with several of my friends and we have had very few problems.

If i recall correctly, i've already said in this thread about being a competitor.

Yes, i do have a motive to "blackpaint" them, but infact, i won't need to, they make themselves non-reputable, and there's simply no need or idea to exaggerate.

If you know business well, you should know that exaggerating, lying and blackpainting is simply  BAD BAD BAAAD business, it takes out of my reputability, and that isn't EVER good, even how strongly would the competitor suffer. If it takes out of my pocket, it's never worth it.

If a customer can't think i'm reputable and honest, they won't give me their business, thus, lost customers, lost revenue, lost profits.

Altho, that doesn't mean that i wouldn't be reporting problems more readily ;)
As i said that, i haven't even reported about all the problems, misery and grief they have caused for those sites i've been running there. (All my private websites plus one friend's website which i'm sponsoring, which is going to be transferred to a new server i just acquired this week)


Fortunately, you've been lucky, or run low traffic websites... Try using tens of gigabytes of HDD, and hundreds of gigs transfer per month.
Well, ok, still 2 weeks ago, i was using there 9gb of hdd, and average monthly transfer was 150Gb. This month a little bit more. One day peak 160Gb transfer, 99% static content and they shut the site down... It brought the server down. Oh yeah: it was video streaming. First loads a cached(=static) page containing that video stream. I had setup cache for guests to 60minutes between site updates. So all PHP did was checking do we have fresh cache page, and showing that, a 0.1ms job. Unique visitors, just couple thousands that day, and about 15k pageviews.
So we are still talking about VERY low pageviews & visitors amount. Just lots of BW used.
I noticed that their connection to storage died, and that was the cause, it couldn't handle a little bit of traffic. (160gb/day comes to 1941k/s, so under 2M/s, and 100MBps can handle 10-11M/s, and we are talking about read, modern hdds read about 30-40M/s)

Their infrastructure couldn't survive even one website on a single server using that 2Tb/month. (No, won't bring down other servers, just that particularly)
Only time when it could survive is when you serve static content.
Title: Re: [PAID] DreamHost
Post by: Skal Tura on October 16, 2006, 02:30:35 AM
Oh yeah, that's modern CONSUMER hdds, not server/enterprise HDDs. Hell, modern HDDs probably can read faster than that.
Title: Re: [PAID] DreamHost
Post by: JPDeni on October 16, 2006, 05:51:32 AM
Quote
If i recall correctly, i've already said in this thread about being a competitor.
I'm not sure if you have or not, but not everyone will read every post in the topic. It might be a good idea to casually mention your competitor status when you suddenly add to this topic after it's been silent for a couple of weeks. I know that when I first read your posts here, I didn't understand that you are a competitor with Dreamhost. Just a suggestion.

Quote
Fortunately, you've been lucky, or run low traffic websites... Try using tens of gigabytes of HDD
I don't think that Dreamhost is designed for websites with a great amount of traffic. If someone has that much traffic he or she ought to think of something besides low-budget hosting. I doubt seriously if most of the members here would have sites that are large enough or busy enough to come close to what you're talking about.
Title: Re: [PAID] DreamHost
Post by: Skal Tura on October 16, 2006, 06:19:55 AM
Quote
If i recall correctly, i've already said in this thread about being a competitor.
I'm not sure if you have or not, but not everyone will read every post in the topic. It might be a good idea to casually mention your competitor status when you suddenly add to this topic after it's been silent for a couple of weeks. I know that when I first read your posts here, I didn't understand that you are a competitor with Dreamhost. Just a suggestion.

Quote
Fortunately, you've been lucky, or run low traffic websites... Try using tens of gigabytes of HDD
I don't think that Dreamhost is designed for websites with a great amount of traffic. If someone has that much traffic he or she ought to think of something besides low-budget hosting. I doubt seriously if most of the members here would have sites that are large enough or busy enough to come close to what you're talking about.

Well, in that case, why do they offer 200Gb HDD and 2Terabytes of traffic, if customer shouldn't use it? At the moment, customer CAN'T use it, even they PROMISE that to you.

Don't you see a contradiction there? Saying that they ain't bullshitters when they offer 200Gb HDD and 2Tb traffic, yet the same time saying, that one shouldn't host a site with couple hundred gigs of traffic on their services?

and it all boils down to what kind of traffic: pageviews (10 to 100k each) or video streaming (4 to 200meg each)? At the moment, they don't allow you to even use the 2Tb for the data type which consumes the least amount of CPU & RAM, static content, which video streams are.

So basicly, what they are doing, is selling thin air... Wait a minute... Not even air... Not even VAPOR! They are selling cute(ridiculous) promises.

Never mind the fact that their business plan isn't for long term, it's short term, their intent is to get as many clients as possible in shortest possible time. Now, let's see where that usually leads to... Yes, that's right: Selling the company :)

Now, they've been around since 96 or something like that... I was shocked when i found out that they don't even have real redundant power supply!

And as for the think about something else than low-budget hosting: It all comes to ROI, Return On Investment.

In other words, please correct if i'm wrong:
- You think that Dreamhost ROCKS
- You think their offer ROCKS
- You think their support ROCKS
- You think that one shouldn't use it to the degree they promise you?

Please, think about it, you are paying for 200Gb and 2Tb traffic, shouldn't
you be able to use all what you pay for? :)

If you think, no you shouldn't be able to use all of what you have bought, i hope almost everyone would be like that! Then i would start selling 20terabytes hdd, and 200Petabytes transfer hosting, and only give clients 1Mb HDD and 2MB traffic or start my own gas station and sell them a liter (1/4 gallon) of gas for 10cents, but only give them 0.1 desiliters (1/40 of gallon) making the real liter price to 10euros/dollars :)

Disclaimer:
Haven't been reading this thread? Dreamhost is a competitor to me, i run Artichost.net
Title: Re: [PAID] DreamHost
Post by: Skal Tura on October 16, 2006, 06:42:00 AM
Here's the e-mail i got from dreamhost support:
"Hello,

I'm really sorry but I had to disable the website XYZ. I'm
not sure what you had running with that server, but it was jamming up
networking for the entire server, which was causing NFS to fail, and thus
was driving up load on the entire server. As soon as I disabled the
website the load came down and the server was able to talk to the file
servers again.

I apologize for the inconvenience, but when a website breaks a server
this badly, there's no way we can re-enable it.

Thank you for your understanding, and again I'm so very sorry about this.

Terri"

replied:

"Hi,

  That website servers up large files also (40 to 350mb) which might be cause of
the problem, seeing all drives are networked at you guys (a weakness i do here
see)l

 I'll look into it, but i'm disappointed on the weak solution you guys apparently
have. Did you check was it all I/O wait? Seen the same happen here too, tho
those times, just too slow HDD. (Checkout SAR for i/o monitoring, CentOS does
have package... package name i cannot remember)

- Aleksi "

with SAR i was meaning iostat, remembered the name wrong :( and yes that one mention is intentionally Joda speak.

thei replied:
"Hello,


When we notice a site crashing a machine, we have no choice but to
disable it. We cannot allow one user to overconsume system resources and
bring down a machine. It's not fair to other user on the machine. If you
have any additional questions please let us know.



Thanks!
Brian S."

The 2nd reply is completely legitimate, honest, and outlines good support, he mentioned the problem, action and why.

Now, the thing here is that they are denying usage of what they give to me, because of bottlenecks in their infrastructure (too slow connection to network storage, and/or network storage device too slow to handle that many concurrent users and/or websites).

It's OK imho that they disabled the website, infact, i would prefer that way if there's a real problem. What they are doing although, is denying the right to use it to the full degree. Seeing as the most traffic consuming part is static content.

Here are google analytics statistics for that site:
8th day: 5,962 pageviews and 2,065 visitors
9th day: 2,981 pageviews and 846 visitors
10th day: 2,091 pageviews and 502 visitors
11th day: 52pageviews, 36visitors ** WEBSITE DISABLED **

DH Panel BW usage, 01/10 to 11/10: 145321.2 MB
So i remembered incorrectly, it was about ~140Gb for that period.
Not that much really. Cycle estimate: 396330.545 MB or ~394Gb

and as you notice, they clearly state that network was bogged down.
So basicly, that little amount of traffic got their server jammed :O

Quite little, eh? another intresting thing is that the spike was dimming already and everything getting back to normal.
I would think that's rather intresting, seeing that clearly it will use less than 1/4th of the assigned bandwidth allotment.

Now, i know for a fact, that any of my servers could handle that kind of spike, with increased loads, yes, but decreased responsiveness? Highly doubtfull.
Btw, linux load means just running processes, not real usage, but it's a very good indicator.
Title: Re: [PAID] DreamHost
Post by: JPDeni on October 16, 2006, 07:18:49 AM
Quote
Well, in that case, why do they offer 200Gb HDD and 2Terabytes of traffic, if customer shouldn't use it?
I don't know. And, for my purposes, the question is completely beside the point, because I will never in my lifetime come even close to using what the account gives me. At the moment, I've got five websites in my Dreamhost space and I'm using 0% of both the disk space and the transfer allotment.

I'm really not interested in arguing with you about it. The bottom line is that it works for me and it didn't work for you. If it stops working for me, I'll find another place. I've done it before.
Title: Re: [PAID] DreamHost
Post by: Skal Tura on October 16, 2006, 07:47:49 AM
Quote
Well, in that case, why do they offer 200Gb HDD and 2Terabytes of traffic, if customer shouldn't use it?
I don't know. And, for my purposes, the question is completely beside the point, because I will never in my lifetime come even close to using what the account gives me. At the moment, I've got five websites in my Dreamhost space and I'm using 0% of both the disk space and the transfer allotment.

I'm really not interested in arguing with you about it. The bottom line is that it works for me and it didn't work for you. If it stops working for me, I'll find another place. I've done it before.

Yes, it works for you.
But what you were saying, that you shouldn't even expect to get to use it all.

Btw, try to video stream from there ;)
Title: Re: [PAID] DreamHost
Post by: G6Cad on October 16, 2006, 07:57:14 AM
I think this have gone out of hand and to far, so this thread is now locked.