Site5 - problems [MegaMerge] - Knowledgebase

Portal Home > Knowledgebase > Articles Database > Site5 - problems [MegaMerge]

Site5 - problems [MegaMerge]

Posted by catfished, 03-31-2006, 02:31 PM
I've had a reseller account with Site5 since January 2005 and never been really happy with them but now it's getting ridiculous. The first few months of last year were pretty good but then I started experiencing high server loads (skylla) and therefore slow site loading. After several weeks of support saying it's fixed but then recurring, they moved me to another server (seafaring). Everything was fine until a couple of months ago I started seeing some fairly high spikes (7-10 or so) but my sites performance didn't seem to be affected so I didn't complain. This week the loads have been hitting 15 and 16 for short spikes and now this morning it's staying above 15 and has spiked to as high as 27. My sites are down to a crawl. Here's the load as I'm typing this: OneMinute: One Minute Load: 27.19 FiveMinute: Five Minute Load: 20.44 FifteenMinute: Fifteen Minute Load: 17.56 I submitted a ticket which support responded to about an hour later with this response: "Hi, We're working on identifying the sources of the load and removing them or minimizing their effects on the system performance. We should get this resolved within a few days." Maybe I'm asking too much but I think it's ridiculous to have to deal with this "for a few days". My clients are not happy and are letting me know about it. I have zero knowledge of how servers work but I thought a high load problem could be diagnosed and corrected in a lot less than "a few days". Can anyone enlighten me?
Posted by ScottJ, 03-31-2006, 02:39 PM
How many CPU server are you on? That load is extremely high, it should not take them a "few days" to resolve the issue. The only reason I can think of is that they notified some people that they are deleting their high usage accounts and they have x amount of days to move them?
Posted by WireNine, 03-31-2006, 02:40 PM
No one here can help you. Maybe they said a few days meaning "It could take upto a few days" not we will look at it in a few days, sometimes it can take longer to pin point the exact problem.
Posted by catfished, 03-31-2006, 02:49 PM
From WHM: Server Load 21.69 (4 cpus) Maybe it's because they're overselling so heavily now that they have way too many accounts on the server which makes it more difficult to find the culprit/culprits?
Posted by catfished, 03-31-2006, 02:54 PM
Where did I say or insinuate that they said: "we will look at it in a few days"? I simply wanted to know if it was reasonable for them to take a few days to resolve the problem. So far I have you saying it is reasonable and SJRHosting.com saying it may not be depending on CPU's. So let's see where this goes.
Posted by Chris_M, 03-31-2006, 03:01 PM
Hey Ed, I just visited catfished.com and it was loading pretty quickly from NJ, on verizon dsl. Is there anychance that the load issues are fixed? Hopefully it doesnt take them a few days to resolve this. Good luck and keep us posted.
Posted by catfished, 03-31-2006, 03:09 PM
Hi ResellerHQ, I should remember your name but my senility is my excuse, note my user title under my username. :-) I doubt that it's fixed, here's the latest: OneMinute: One Minute Load: 22.17 FiveMinute: Five Minute Load: 20.37 FifteenMinute: Fifteen Minute Load: 18.10 The site loading speeds are eratic as are the loads. I notice that they load fine when the loads are dropping regardless of how high but when the loads are climbing, the site loading slows way down.
Posted by CyberHostPro, 03-31-2006, 03:09 PM
loads fine for me from the UK
Posted by cartika-andrew, 03-31-2006, 03:10 PM
yes, your site looks like its loading pretty quickly for me as well. If these are dual xeon boxes, they can actually handle this sort of load for periods of time with sometimes very little impact on performance. Having said this, its obviously not ideal. Site5, in my humble opinion - is one of the best providers in their price bracket - period. However, simply based on their pricing model, they are bound to have problem servers from time to time. However, full marks to their techs, as even a server under this sort of load is still operating prett darn well. Hi catfished - well, this is a tough question to answer. If this issue was service limiting, then yes, I would agree, a few days is certainly too long. However, your site seems to be loading fine and I can navigate through quite quickly. If server loads are more of an issue for you, vs performance (or maybe its both) - you may want to consider a higher budget and find servers with less accounts/server. However, and again I must stress this - in their price bracket, I simply do not believe there is anyone better then site5.
Posted by Chris_M, 03-31-2006, 03:14 PM
Hi Ed, I am Chris I hope things get worked out for you, and that it doesnt take forever. Good luck and keep us posted.
Posted by ScottJ, 03-31-2006, 04:21 PM
Since the server has 4 cpus , you need to divide 27.19 by 4. So the load per CPU is 6.79, which is really high. Since your site is only html it would be hard to determine if the server is overloaded just by visiting your site. If you have a database driven site, then you may be able to see a large difference in different server loads.
Posted by layer0, 03-31-2006, 04:27 PM
The server actually has two CPUs, as it's a Dual Xeon HT. Site5's pricing model forces them to oversell to an extreme and thus most of their servers do suffer. My opinion is that hosts like Site5 should be avoided, their business is based purely on hype (example is all these new product offerings at site5 that have so much initial hype generated...) I classify Site5 amongst hosts like Netfirms, Powweb, Servage, etc. All of those whom which I would avoid.
Posted by catfished, 03-31-2006, 04:33 PM
Thanks for your responses SJR, Well I have several SMF forums which of course have DB's on my and my client's sites. My catfished.com/forum is the busiest and it's been very slow loading this morning. It rarely has more than 15 or 20 visitors at anytime so it's not resource intensive. Of course right now it's just fine: Page created in 0.435 seconds with 13 queries. Like I said earlier, it's intermittent???????????
Posted by catfished, 03-31-2006, 04:39 PM
I agree about all the hype and the extreme overselling but it wasn't that way a year ago. I guess Matt and the gang decided to bring in the big bucks and to he** with their old customers. As far as the server's CPU's I have no idea but here's more info from WHM: Processor #1 Vendor: GenuineIntel Processor #1 Name: Intel(R) Xeon(TM) CPU 2.80GHz Processor #1 speed: 2793.932 MHz Processor #1 cache size: 1024 KB Processor #2 Vendor: GenuineIntel Processor #2 Name: Intel(R) Xeon(TM) CPU 2.80GHz Processor #2 speed: 2793.932 MHz Processor #2 cache size: 1024 KB Processor #3 Vendor: GenuineIntel Processor #3 Name: Intel(R) Xeon(TM) CPU 2.80GHz Processor #3 speed: 2793.932 MHz Processor #3 cache size: 1024 KB Processor #4 Vendor: GenuineIntel Processor #4 Name: Intel(R) Xeon(TM) CPU 2.80GHz Processor #4 speed: 2793.932 MHz Processor #4 cache size: 1024 KB I have no idea if this tells you anything??
Posted by WireNine, 03-31-2006, 04:42 PM
It's a dual xeon with two physical cpus and two virtual, total of 4.
Posted by Chris_M, 03-31-2006, 04:43 PM
Hey Ed, It looks like they have you on a Dual Xeon 2.8 with Hyperthreading enabled.
Posted by catfished, 03-31-2006, 06:25 PM
Well folks, I received another reply from Site5 support: We're working on it and will probably get things fixed sooner than that. However a few days would be a worst case scenario. So the load is now averaging around 2 and my sites are loading fine but stay tuned because I'll bet dollars to donuts (old expression for old folks:-) that the problem will resurface very soon. Thanks everyone for your helpful responses.
Posted by layer0, 03-31-2006, 06:55 PM
Honestly, I consider that very slow. Page created in 0.035 seconds with 10 queries on an SMF forum on one my boxes. It should really never be over 0.2x honestly, and even that is pretty slow.
Posted by cartika-andrew, 03-31-2006, 07:12 PM
I know everyone thinks this is a 4 CPU system, but, every legitimate benchmark shows that hyperthreading yields a 20-30% performance increase - MAX. This is a 2 CPU system with a decent performance benefit from hyperthreading (regardless of whether it is read as 4 processor or not). Im not saying anything negative about this, we run the same systems and they are wonderful.. Hi Elix, you know as a general rule I tend to agree with you. However, it really comes down to the types of customers you are after and the type of hosting you require. I stand by my statement that in that price range, they are much better then most. Whether or not this model is adequate for all customers is a different conversation altogether.. If a customer requires greater performance and is concerned with items like high loads, etc - they need to consider a more appropriate budget.. you cant have $5 hosting, with 5 GB storeage, 100 GB transfer and low loads - it just cant work ...
Posted by catfished, 03-31-2006, 08:34 PM
Where in the he** did you get the idea I'm paying $5 for 5GB/100GB? I'm paying $22.99 per month for 4GB/60GB. They list it as $19.95 but that's misleading since it's only if you pay annually. I assume you were referring to their incredibly oversold shared hosting plans but I figured that since I said that it was a reseller account and this is in the resellers forum you might have known that.
Posted by ZoneServ.com, 03-31-2006, 09:55 PM
In my opinion they are adding more servers to the cluster in order to balance the load. And that's why it may take a few days to sovle Keep us updated!
Posted by catfished, 04-01-2006, 12:21 AM
Well it's been just fine since around 2:00 pm Pacific time. The load has been under 2 everytime I checked it and maybe it will stay that way most of the time but from my past experience with server loads on Site5, I doubt it. I will keep you updated.
Posted by cartika-andrew, 04-01-2006, 01:48 AM
Hello, I wasnt actually referring to you in certain - rather, I was speaking to the concept of overselling specifically.
Posted by Yash-JH, 04-01-2006, 02:24 AM
I believe its closer to 5% from what I have read. That is if you compare performance when HT is turned off and on, in an HT-enabled processor. Of course, when you compare a non-HT processor to an HT-processor, the performance difference would be due to a higher bus speed and more cache on the HT processor.. So as Andrew said, a Dual XEON is really 2 processors and nothing like 4 processors in performance..
Posted by ldcdc, 04-01-2006, 05:14 AM
That's similar to what I read. Maybe that was an average? Maybe that's why they gave themselves that kind of ETA? To have the time to catch the issue when it was occuring? Now, I know most of us are fond of server loads, but I would have really loved to see the CPU and memory usage on that server. Then again, the OP said his site was slow. No matter what the server load says, bad performance is all it takes to make you unhappy.
Posted by FlaNative, 04-01-2006, 07:58 AM
After a year, I moved my reseller account from Site5 to Sonet7 because of server load and downtime issues. Sonet7 is excellent in every way--they are owned by Liquid Web and their servers are not overloaded (current server load is 0.06). Support is available by email, ticket or 800 number.
Posted by layer0, 04-01-2006, 10:43 AM
But Site5 is just a standard cPanel host with some flashy skins Who says they have a cluster?
Posted by ZoneServ.com, 04-01-2006, 11:32 AM
You misunderstood me mate, I wasn't referring to an actual server cluster. I was referring to their group of servers, and used cluster as an expression.
Posted by layer0, 04-01-2006, 11:37 AM
My response wasn't intended at you really, but more at Site5 in general. Thanks for the clarification, though.
Posted by ZoneServ.com, 04-01-2006, 11:57 AM
Heh alright
Posted by ldcdc, 04-01-2006, 01:28 PM
Glad to read a report about Sonet7. Not many of those around. For verification purposes, please provide the moderating team with a domain that you host there: http://www.webhostingtalk.com/report.php?p=3776445 In elix's defense, I also misunderstood you. Just that I decided not to comment.
Posted by ZoneServ.com, 04-01-2006, 03:21 PM
Alright, then I apologize
Posted by cartika-andrew, 04-01-2006, 03:27 PM
Hi Yash, you might be bang on in actual production environments. All I have ever seen are benchmark tests, which of course arent always indicative of true production environments.. here is a good link for you to read... Let me know what you think and if you have seen anything different (as I must admit, I dont think we have seen the 30% performance benefit reported here, I think we are seeing closer to the 5-10% mark you are talking about) - http://www-128.ibm.com/developerwork...library/l-htl/
Posted by Matt, 04-02-2006, 05:39 PM
Upstreams domain has been verified. Thank you for sharing your review with the community.
Posted by jmweb, 04-02-2006, 09:07 PM
I think you messed up! It should be younger, not older
Posted by azimpact, 04-02-2006, 09:32 PM
After being a Site5 customer for over 3 years, I finally bailed when things took a turn for the worse almost a year ago and I have not seen any improvement in them since then. I now run my own dedicated and knowing how servers work, it should not take several days to figure out what process is using all the CPU resources. I don't care how many accounts are on it. A competent Administrator would be able to identify the processes(s) that are eating all the resources in a fairly short amount of time. That is the problem with having so many accounts on one server. It doesn't take much to gum up the works. Good luck! I know how it feels to have clients screaming at you about their sites not working and your waiting with baited breath for the next email from Site5 support! Although, since moving to my own server almost a year ago I have not had one complaint yet and the clients I moved where more than happy to pay me 20 bucks a month for a reliable hosting platform.
Posted by foobic, 04-02-2006, 10:06 PM
My guess would be that the time is needed for moving some heavy-usage accounts off that server. (Gee, whatever happened to that "RapidReflux" thingie!) I monitor loads closely and see a clear daily cycle with spikes often in the 10s / 20s at a particular time of day. Static and lightweight php sites continue to work ok but forums and heavy cms apps slow down. Whether this is a problem depends on what you're trying to run and what time-zone your audience is in. I think overall they still offer reasonable quality and value but I wouldn't want them as my only host. The apparent move downmarket (especially on the shared accounts) is worrying too. Thanks Upstream for the mention of Sonet7 - I too would like to hear more about them (perhaps "no news is good news" again in this case?)
Posted by catfished, 04-02-2006, 11:23 PM
Well guys and gals, I assume it's been corrected. I haven't seen the load go much over 2 since Friday evening and my sites are loading reasonably well. The only thing I don't understand is why I did not receive a reply telling me that it was resolved, what the problem was and what they did to remedy the situation. They used to follow through like that and they even asked if there was anything else they could do for me, now they evidently just fix it and assume I know about it. Darn lousy support compared to the old days at Site5.
Posted by ZoneServ.com, 04-03-2006, 12:15 AM
Look at the bright side, it's solved now and your sites are loading fine. Slowness for a day or two is not that bad... You had your sites up and to me that is what important in the long run.
Posted by ZenithNZ, 04-03-2006, 01:16 AM
This was a bit of a coincidence. I was just about to post a new thread asking about average expected load values as I have been getting between 4-10 for the last couple of weeks. The coincidence is that I am also a Site5 Resller (Amplex). These high loads have made me look into a VPS solution, but I would like to know what an average reseller server's loads should be for reference...
Posted by cartika-andrew, 04-03-2006, 01:54 AM
Im not sure there is an average with respect to loads as far as the shared hosting market goes. I really believe this is budget dependant... In theory, the more you pay, the less accounts are needed per server and the lower the loads will be. I believe that is what you truely pay for, and hence my input into this thread. Site5 has done better then almost everyone in their price range - and they even seem to get great performance out of servers under relatively heavy load... Personally, I dont think a dual xeon box should ever have an average load over 1 - but, there is a cost associated with that - others run very successful and stable businesses with load averages over 4 - it really depends on what you are after and what you are willing to pay for it...
Posted by catfished, 04-04-2006, 07:09 PM
Well folks, it's really bad today! OneMinute: One Minute Load: 27.07 FiveMinute: Five Minute Load: 30.43 FifteenMinute: Fifteen Minute Load: 23.08 OneMinute: One Minute Load: 32.15 FiveMinute: Five Minute Load: 27.41 FifteenMinute: Fifteen Minute Load: 22.71 OneMinute: One Minute Load: 33.76 FiveMinute: Five Minute Load: 30.60 FifteenMinute: Fifteen Minute Load: 25.01 OneMinute: One Minute Load: 34.76 FiveMinute: Five Minute Load: 31.17 FifteenMinute: Fifteen Minute Load: 25.46 I've had a couple of database error emails from my forums as well. Here's how my forums are loading: Page created in 5.721 seconds with 13 queries. So I guess support meant what they said last Friday: "We're working on identifying the sources of the load and removing them or minimizing their effects on the system performance. We should get this resolved within a few days."
Posted by KnownHost, 04-04-2006, 07:12 PM
You should consider a VPS or even a small dedicated server. Having dedicated resources would allow you to be isolated from others and know your performance is better. In your current setup they are troubleshooting the entire server and need to be extra careful. With VPS's you are in your own little world so a provider can troubleshoot you directly much easier. Good luck. Thanks, Jay
Posted by ScottJ, 04-04-2006, 07:46 PM
There is no reason why catfished would need a VPS or a dedicated server. That would require a lot more extra work and money. As long as the sites are not high usage then they would be fine on a shared server. The problem here is the host let the server become oversold, the same could happen with a VPS (many think its not possible to oversell a VPS, but it is).
Posted by KnownHost, 04-04-2006, 07:50 PM
It can easily be avoided with a VPS. Also, a VPS is a mini server with its own dedicated resources so you can't say it can happen b/c of overselling the server. If you would the MIN RAM is what you would get. So if you get a VPS from someone who crams the server that is one thing. But in general a VPS can alleviate the risk of this issue. It is plain and simple. Make sure it is a Virtuozzo or Xen VPS no Sphera as that wouldn't be true with my comments. -Jay
Posted by KnownHost, 04-04-2006, 07:53 PM
One thing, yes he doesn't need a VPS with the resources he uses but he can sleep better at night. That is for sure. -Jay
Posted by azimpact, 04-04-2006, 07:55 PM
VPS servers can have issues of their own. Your given a set amount of resources to work with and depending on what your doing, you might hit a wall. With a shared, you use what you need which is what causes the high loads. I've found that a VPS is pretty good for one or two sites. I started experimenting with that last year when I had large clients threaten to leave me if I did not do something to correct the situation with hosting that Site5 was causing. I have since graduated to dedicated and have found life much easier. Even on a VPS, someone else on the node can bring the server to a stand still. It happend to me enough to make me make the move to dedicated. Being on my own dedicated has been like winning the lottery! No more complaints, super fast sites and more waiting for support to email me back with some lame as@ response. I feel catfished's pain! Having lived it for many months, it is not something I wish to experience again. If you can afford it, a VPS or dedicated is the way to go .
Posted by KnownHost, 04-04-2006, 08:03 PM
With Virtuozzo a VPS customer CAN'T bring a server to a halt unless there is some sort of high disk activity. This can be monitored easily but this is a risk with a VPS. Using solid controllers would cut back the possible issue that could arise. At the end of the day a dedicated is overkill for most clients but it is the safest way to go but not the most economical. -Jay Last edited by KnownHost; 04-04-2006 at 08:07 PM.
Posted by foobic, 04-04-2006, 08:27 PM
Agree, but s/oversold/overloaded/ - From the plans offered there's no doubt that their reseller servers are much less oversold than the shared ones, and may even not be oversold at all on disk space and bandwidth. That doesn't stop them getting overloaded on CPU / memory by a number of moderately-busy php-mysql sites. The aim, obviously, is to pack in as many clients as possible while keeping the load within acceptable limits. I wonder if the real problem at present may be that the staff are bogged down supporting the new billing system they've just introduced and don't have time to keep the servers running smoothly. The whole debate about shared / vps / dedicated is interesting, particularly if you don't need the freedom to set up special configurations. Given a fixed budget of say $50 per month you could get a high-end shared (semi-dedicated), 256Mb managed VPS or a rock-bottom unmanaged dedicated. Which would offer best performance and reliability?
Posted by KnownHost, 04-04-2006, 08:32 PM
The key thing with a good VPS is the drives and controller are better since the servers for VPS's are higher quality comparing them to your entry level Dedicated server. Thanks, Jay
Posted by ScottJ, 04-04-2006, 09:41 PM
I'm not sure how you determined that. You could put VPS on an entry level server. The OP is on a very expensive server and its not helping much. It all depends on how the host loads the server.
Posted by KnownHost, 04-04-2006, 09:43 PM
So a RAID 10 SCSI or SATA is on an entry level server? I don't think so. Of course a VPS could be on a less quality of server but that is a waste if you're selling VPS's. -Jay
Posted by okihost, 04-05-2006, 05:50 PM
Remember a VPS is probably going to cost you much more (unless you go with a budget VPS which again may leave you in the same situation) and then you may need to worry about management and so on. Sounds more like you just need a stable reseller package for now, have you asked site5 to see if they will allow you to move to a possibly packed server and see how things go on that for a while and if you end up in the same boat just start looking around for other options.
Posted by ldcdc, 04-05-2006, 09:50 PM
Hmm... that's sound advice, no matter the host. Still, it looks to me like he's (sadly) already in the same boat.
Posted by FlaNative, 04-05-2006, 10:11 PM
When I had server problems Site5 moved my account to a different server. Unfortunatelly. it was even worse! I'm now very happy with a Sonet7 reseller account, where support is excellent and the server is not overloaded (present load is .07).
Posted by ScottJ, 04-05-2006, 11:16 PM
You have to be careful if your judging by the load and the server is not full yet. Since it is a reseller server it may not be full for a long time. When the host sells accounts on the server they have to account for future sites that the resellers will add. You should come back in a few months and make a review on them. I hope everything stays good there for you.
Posted by catfished, 04-05-2006, 11:25 PM
This is already my second server with Site5, they moved me from Skylla when it was always having high loads and slow loading, I believe I said that when I started this thread. Anyway it doesn't matter now. My sites are all down now, I don't know how long they've been down, just checked in about 10 minutes ago. I've sent another useless ticket to Site5 to see what they'll say now. THey said it would take a few days to find the problem but instead they just waited until it finally crashed. Great support Site5!
Posted by cartika-andrew, 04-05-2006, 11:30 PM
You should be careful because this isnt a global statement - once we shut off a server for new signups, NO new accounts are added on that server - a resellers end users could and are spread across multiple servers... and new accounts would be added on new servers.... Sorry catfished, thats horrible news - I have alot of faith in site5 and I am sorry to hear they have let you down....
Posted by catfished, 04-05-2006, 11:30 PM
Well here's my answer from TOTALLY USELESS SITE5 SUPPORT: Hi, It should now be back up. ------------------------------------ Best regards, Robert Bush System Administration Site5 Internet Solutions, Inc. http://www.site5.com BUt my sites are all still down!!! Edit: my sites are back but they're slow as molasses and the load is above 15 GRRRRR This is unbelievable!!!!!!!!!!! Last edited by catfished; 04-05-2006 at 11:38 PM.
Posted by ofthecross, 04-06-2006, 12:22 AM
I can relate to your frustration, I really hope everything works out for you and quickly for that matter.
Posted by The3bl, 04-06-2006, 01:57 AM
Are you on a reseller account or a shared account with them? After 6 days of high loads you might want to consider just making a move by finding a new host and getting some sleep at night. The stress will kill you.
Posted by Aussie Bob, 04-06-2006, 02:34 AM
The site5 admins have got their backs up against the wall, no doubt about that. I like the crew from Site5, and regulary converse with Matt etc, but the extent of overselling and the amount of clients per server required, will always result in overloaded servers, and this puts more strain on the admins. I believe that the huge overselling model can only work with a clustered distributed platform, and not on single cpanel servers. It just won't work as servers are pushed too hard with too many clients wanting to do too much, with that server's finite resources, and you end up with threads like this.
Posted by ldcdc, 04-06-2006, 02:59 AM
Well, you certainly have a point when it comes to their shared hosting packages and the overselling they do there, but this thread is about their reseller hosting, which is differently priced. Sure, it's not exactly expensive, but it doesn't even compare to shared.
Posted by rois, 04-06-2006, 04:09 AM
Ed/catfished did mentioned he was on a $22 a month reseller account.
Posted by Aussie Bob, 04-06-2006, 05:19 AM
Aye you have a point, although the same principals apply, albeit there's no huge overselling as with the shared, but the reseller model kicks things up a few notches. You can't get away with that much overselling with the reseller model, as you can with the single domain model. It's a more unforgiving and harsh environment. I guess the point is, catfish is on a server that is not delivering expected performance, over an extended period. Last edited by Aussie Bob; 04-06-2006 at 05:22 AM.
Posted by Jedito, 04-16-2006, 07:44 PM
They resellers price are not bad, not extremelly cheap, not overselling needed at all either, you can easily buy a dual Xeon 2.8, 4 GB RAM, 2 x 300 GB HD for about $2k and and put about 60-80 reseller accounts at $22 per month and still be profitable even if they use all their bandwidth (thing that we know that usually does not happen). Some people choose to get more profit per account and some other prefer to work with volume.
Posted by cartika-andrew, 04-16-2006, 07:57 PM
1) good quality hardware will run you more then $2k (this unit is around $4k from Dell 2) your calculations do not include items like cost of colo (power, bandwith), cost of software (ie control panel), cost of management (ie actually having staff to manage the environment), cost of support (support staff to answer tickets), cost of backup, etc 3) 60-80 resellers? sure, if all they sell is static sites. You would have a heck of a time putting 60-80 resellers on a single box each of them even utilizing 20% of their allocated bandwith towards dynamic sites... the pricing model you outlined does not work - at least not in todays environment and especially not if you want to achieve a redundant environment running at low loads...
Posted by Jedito, 04-16-2006, 08:10 PM
You can get quality hardware for less, not needed to be Dell. if you buy good memories, good HD, a good rackmount chassis, motherboard, etc, you can get a great server for half that if you buy it from dell. Cpanel can be get at $40 per server, colo costs, varies, but you can colo with 10 Mbps at $200, costs not changes too much, about the staff, you already have it for working on other servers, you may hide more, but not 1 per server, that is ridiculous.
Posted by Jedito, 04-16-2006, 08:31 PM
I forgot to answer one part Let's say that 60 resellers are too much, then, put 40, or even 30, still is profitable, you get $600 per server (being veeeeeeeeery conservative), in 4 months you cover the server cost, and let's say that you have about $200 on server expenses (bandwidth and control panel) you still get $400 per server with only 30 customers on it (I don't mean accounts or domains, just customers) One tech can easily support 10 or more servers. But you already have them hired to support your shared customers as well.. so I don't include them on the calculation. Or even better, rent a dedicated (can get dual xeon with 2 GB RAM and 2 x 160 GB and 2000 GB Bandwidth) for about $300 per month, and still get $300 profit per server Last edited by Jedito; 04-16-2006 at 08:42 PM.
Posted by cartika-andrew, 04-16-2006, 08:45 PM
Your calculations and assumptions are interesting. You cannot survive in this business long term with these profit margins. additionally, what quality of service are you trying to provide? Sure you can go cheaper then Dell, sure you can get 10 MBps for $200, sure you can have 1 tech per 10 servers - but really, what type of service are you really providing here - not to mention $400 revenue/server (using your calculations) is not a sustainable model (unless of course you are speaking 1000's upon 1000's of customers, and even then they would certainly go for higher margins which will result in overloading, etc)
Posted by Jedito, 04-16-2006, 08:48 PM
No, sorry, I just been in this business for 5 years, I'm such a newbie BTW, you can even outsource support, there are plenty of good companies, that may do it, and still cover cost and you only get involved in sales/billing. 10 servers $4000 per month (as I said, only from resellers servers, and being very conservative and putting only 30 resellers per server), not a bad number just for work in sales and lurk in this forum. Last edited by Jedito; 04-16-2006 at 08:54 PM.
Posted by jmweb, 04-16-2006, 08:56 PM
I second this!
Posted by rois, 04-16-2006, 10:05 PM
I do believe that site5 does not colo their servers instead they just rent dedicated servers from datacenter. And they just backup to a secondary hdd. So no extra cost of backup. And as for the support staff, they do have more than a dozen that handles over 50 servers. So not a bad ratio IMO.
Posted by cartika-andrew, 04-16-2006, 11:36 PM
For the record, I was never commenting on site5 in certain nor their business model - I was commenting on a certain persons cost/revenue perspective
Posted by Yash-JH, 04-16-2006, 11:41 PM
I would be very surprised if a larger company was renting their servers instead of colocating. Colocation is not only cheaper than renting servers, there is asset creation as well. Also, while Andrew has quite a bit of experience with hardware and is a respected member on this forum, I'd like to disagree with him a little. Unless you buy your hardware from Dell, it is very much possible to get good hardware at those costs. We build our servers ourselves (i.e. buy quality hardware components in bulk and assemble). We use reliable supermicro 1U barebone, opteron processors, seagate SCSI hard disks, quality RAM and good adaptec Raid cards. We are able to build a Dual Opteron with 4GB of RAM, 3 73GB SCSI hard disks in RAID5 for around $2300.. You do need to purchase some parts in bulk though. But very much possible Dell doesn't manufacture its own servers either, it assembles them, puts a little of their own proprietary hardware (such as their remote access cards), packages them, puts their label and sells them at a higher price. IMHO
Posted by Yash-JH, 04-16-2006, 11:47 PM
Also $200 per month for bandwidth and cpanel for 10 servers is crazy Our servers on average use about 1 to 1.5mbps per server. Good quality bandwidth is going to be priced at around the $50 per mbps mark. So you would really be paying somewhere around $750/mo just on bandwidth Last edited by Yash-JH; 04-16-2006 at 11:51 PM.
Posted by cartika-andrew, 04-16-2006, 11:48 PM
Hi Yash, thanks for your kind words, and fair enough, you raise some excellent points as always You are of course correct, Dell is simply an assembly company - however, their economies of scale, quality control and lean assembly practices make it possible to get "tier1" hardware at a much reduced rate (ie compared to IBM, HP, etc) - however, you are absolutely correct - you can certainly build this gear, maintain quality and save some money on pricing - I think I was referring more to the "budget" situation outlined by a poster above, which included this sort of hardware (ie $200 for 10 mbps pipes, etc - ).. Anyway, no offence was meant and I certainly agree with your statements...
Posted by cartika-andrew, 04-16-2006, 11:49 PM
This is more of what I was referring to
Posted by Jedito, 04-17-2006, 01:11 AM
That's depend of how much do you buy too I don't want to disclose my costs, but you can also see some offers in this forum. I remember to see Internap BW at $20 per Mbps However, still, basing the assumption on site5, 30 resellers of the smaller package (paying $22 per month) can't use more than 1800 GB per month (60 GB x 30 resellers) EDIT: I just re-read your message, I was talking of 10 Mbps per server per month
Posted by Yash-JH, 04-17-2006, 01:23 AM
Internap bandwidth at $20 per mbps!! You must be getting a massive discount there..
Posted by Jedito, 04-17-2006, 01:38 AM
No, I'm not getting that price, indeed, I don't use Internap at all I said that I saw an offer like that, never used it though, however, you can colo on HE and get 10 Mbps for about 300-400 and at least 10U space
Posted by Mini, 04-28-2006, 04:47 AM
Why don't you just goto a host that doesn't oversell in the first place, and no problems like this will happen Don't you agree? Mini
Posted by Jedito, 04-28-2006, 04:50 AM
Why do you people (not directly pointing to you Mini, but I read it already too many times) have that mania of keep confusing people?? is not the same oversell than overload, the problem is not oversell, that's just fine, every host does it, the problem is when a host overload servers.
Posted by foobic, 04-28-2006, 05:01 AM
Interesting advice from a host offering $5 reseller accounts...
Posted by Mini, 04-28-2006, 05:19 AM
Jedito, Most of the hosts who oversell, result in their servers being overloaded. Why? Well because the hosts who oversell normally put alot of accounts on one server, this results in less resources available for clients to use. When was the last time you had *multiple* clients of a single hosting company who doesn't oversell complain about them being suspended for excessive resource usage? There is, of course advantage in overselling. For instance, if a company who doesn't oversell, allocates clients on a server. If that server has 80GB space and 1000GB, and that has been allocated, and only 20GB Space and 100GB bandwidth is being used, then it is okay to put more clients on, aslong as the server hasn't started to slow down. Mini
Posted by Jedito, 04-28-2006, 05:29 AM
Not true. Not true again. Many, specially in this forum.
Posted by rois, 04-28-2006, 05:36 AM
I think you are kind of contradicting yourself (if I have read correctly). A host that does not oversell, allocates clients on a server but if clients have not used its allocated then they can put more clients, doesn't it mean that the host is overselling already? And yes I agree with one of the post. Overselling does not equal to high server load. For all you know a host can place 500 static (brochure like) website and have the server performing very well and yet another host could be hosting only 10 forums and server performance would be very low. And looking at your reseller plans, where would you be placing those clients? unless you are overselling or placing clients on a P3 server, it is not so possible to sustain a server with those costs
Posted by Mini, 04-28-2006, 05:41 AM
Jedito, How is it not true that there are less resources available for clients if you oversell? Lets say a host has 200 clients on one server, and that is WITHOUT oversell. Those clients pay enough for the server prices to be covered AND for profits; No problem. But lets say an overselling hosting company has a hosting plan of 2GB Space and 200GB bandwidth for $5/month. Obviously that is overselling. Lets just deal with bandwidth. Lets say their servers have 1000GB bandwidth. Now, with 200GB bandwidth on each plan, without overselling you can put 5 people on each server, but 5X$5=$25, so obviously they need to put at least 50-100 people on a single server for profits. Now this will mean that clients have less resources to use seeing a non overselling host would of put 5 people on a server, not 50. You see my logic now? Mini
Posted by rois, 04-28-2006, 05:44 AM
So are you saying that overselling is ok? or not? And are you saying overselling equals to overloaded server?
Posted by Mini, 04-28-2006, 05:47 AM
If it is a plan like 20GB space and 800GB bandwidth for $5/month, then yes. Not neccersarily, depends what you host. If you host 10,000 sites with just plain HTML, then no. If they are forums with 100+ users online @ once (if that can be done ), then yes. Mini
Posted by rois, 04-28-2006, 05:53 AM
I see. Cause your reseller plan seems to suggest overselling too which is not always the problem. And how are you to control what your reseller does? he/she could be selling to clients who only host forums. What would you do then? suspend their account for overloading the server?
Posted by Mini, 04-28-2006, 06:01 AM
There is nothing I can do to to stop a reseller from making 10,000 accounts. If they do then I'd suggest a dedicated server for them because opening 10,000 accounts is not really acceptable in a reseller/shared environment. Mini
Posted by ldcdc, 04-28-2006, 10:28 AM
Where is that written exactly? If the host gives "unlimited accounts" then there can be no limit besides the usage of space, or the eventual high load that might occur. The number itself of accounts that the reseller creates cannot be used as a measure of overusage in the above scenario.
Posted by Jedito, 04-28-2006, 12:48 PM
That depend of what kind of site do you put on each server, if you balance the load per server, then not. 200 Clients on a server not overselling? almost impossible. So, what's the problem if the customer who use all that does not have any problem? I mean, if the customer buy that plan and does use it all without any complain, I don't see anything wrong That's depend how do you buy bandwidth, usually, big companies does not rent servers comming with X bandiwdth per server, does buy BW per Mbps, you can get good bandwidth at $20 Mbps, or premium at $50 Mbps, and after 5 years in this industrie I realized that only an small % use all their resources. So you can safely oversell Depending how do you balance the charge per server still don't
Posted by Neyland, 04-28-2006, 01:58 PM
When they restored our server earlier this week, they restored 944 accounts. Oversold? As a server yes, but who's responsible? Probably a mix of both resellers and Site5.
Posted by BrandonSCSN, 05-05-2006, 01:08 AM
Disagree. Site5 allows for unlimited accounts on their reseller accounts. Therefore, they are responsible for how there are so many accounts on that single server.
Posted by icoso, 05-05-2006, 10:07 AM
Having a the same problem with the Seafaring server at Site5. It is going down DAILY!!!!! My customers are screaming and I have Less than 20 accounts on my reseller account. Is anyone else on seafaring? What about Antinous? Is anyone on that server having problems? Site 5 needs to set limits on Reseller accounts.
Posted by UH-Matt, 05-08-2006, 10:22 PM
Find a host which DOES impose reasonable limits and you wont have a problem. Simple.
Posted by BrandonSCSN, 05-08-2006, 10:24 PM
Anybody else think this thread has gotten too long?
Posted by cywkevin, 05-08-2006, 10:30 PM
No we need to keep posting our sigs.
Posted by BrandonSCSN, 05-08-2006, 10:35 PM
Yep. I love posting my sig...
Posted by catfished, 05-08-2006, 11:55 PM
I was on Seafaring until I finally got away from Site5 a couple of weeks ago. The loads on seafaring were the main cause of my leaving. Site5 support said it would be resolved in 4 or 5 days but it was even worse when I left 3 weeks later. Good luck to you if you decide to ride it out.
Posted by foobic, 05-09-2006, 12:24 AM
It's been a rough ride for the past couple of months on several of their servers, but worth remembering that they have many more not giving trouble. IMO they're also to be commended for publishing the status and loads of all their servers - I don't see many other hosts doing that. Hopefully now they're finally getting the problem servers under control...
Posted by zerodamage, 05-09-2006, 11:33 AM
Site5 has decent server uptime. My site almost always worked with little down time and issues. The issues I have is the piss poor customer service. This is from their contact page at site5.com: http://img314.imageshack.us/img314/1...board015nr.jpg That is untrue. The other day it took a day to receive an email inquiry and as of today, I can not reach anyone on the phone. All I get is an answering machine. Great company, terrible customer/technical service. This is hurting them bad as I am no longer a customer. I've been with them for almost a year. Last edited by zerodamage; 05-09-2006 at 11:37 AM.
Posted by WireNine, 05-09-2006, 12:00 PM
Did you get a response within 24 hours? Because they guarantee a 24 hour maximum response time guarantee http://www.site5.com/hosting/guarantees.php If the response time was within that time, I do not see how it's poor service. They delivered what they promise
Posted by DaKine, 05-09-2006, 12:14 PM
I just tried calling their sales department and after being on hold for about 5 minutes it rolled over to voice mail. Either their sales department is inundated or they are not accepting anymore new customers. One thing I noticed is that their trouble tickets that are open is 151. I have never seen that many trouble tickets open at one time before with them. I went through their server status page and it shows all servers up and most everything working fine. Going through their announcements and there does not seem to be any reason for them not answering their phones. Maybe the sales people double up as administrators? Just a thought......
Posted by ACcomunica, 05-09-2006, 12:20 PM
As you can read above they do not provide phone support. You shouldn't be calling them if you are a current customer unless you want to buy something. The best way to contact support is e-mailing them at customer (dot) service (at) site5 (dot) com.
Posted by marsrc, 05-09-2006, 12:49 PM
I have the opposite complaint. I find their email support top notch. They respond within an hour to all of my requests. My problem is their frequent outages! Usualy they only last for 15 minutes or so, but I can't handle this!
Posted by marsrc, 05-09-2006, 12:52 PM
I'm on site5 seafaring and my sites are down. This is happening too frequently for me. It's too bad, because their support is so good...
Posted by ScottJ, 05-09-2006, 06:00 PM
24 hour responses is not what they used to advertise when most of these people signed up with them. I remember seeing something on their homepage that said the average support response time was 15 odd minutes now its up to 1440 minutes? I do not think it is an issue with their support, I think its an issue with their servers being overloaded and everyone having to contact the support department, because their server is down. Site5 is really in a place no host wants to be. Either hire more support staff (which would require more sites on a server) or lessen the amount of sites on each server and get rid of some support staff to equal out the bill. Oh and the third thing they could do is raise their costs and then lessen the amount of accounts per server, which is probably the best solution IMO. Thats just my two cents Last edited by ScottJ; 05-09-2006 at 06:03 PM.
Posted by rv_irl, 05-09-2006, 06:36 PM
Like SJR said, I remember too when they advertised 15 minute average response. Now I don't see any mention of that so it's obvious they have grown too rapidly and are more or less not in full control.. They do massively oversell by the looks of it and it's probably now that they are seeing the effects of such massive overselling...
Posted by daviddunn, 05-09-2006, 09:56 PM
My site was down on and off all day yesterday....along with the ftp and finally the email. Every time i sent a email........hours later i get a reply saying "lookis like its running ok now, please let me know if there continues to be problems". Well....of course hours later it was up......but it was going up and down and every time i resent a email when it went down....the above process happened again.....with the EXACT same reply. I am now forced to move to a new host and am looking at lunar pages, I asked for a sitd backup and they said 3 hours at 9am this morning......i emailed at 5 asking what seeems to be the delay........they said it will be in my main directory in an hour.......its 10 pm here now and nothing is there...... I can honestly say over the last 3 months i have sent 2-3 support emails a week concerning downtime.......and all were answered with either "we were rebooting the server"......(for 30 mins).....or "it looks like its running now, let me know if it happens again" (or something along those lines). Anyway, this is my 1st post in 2 years here and i felt it was nessessary to help out others so they dont experiece what i did......it almost cost me my job because i am the one who talked my boss into switching, and we actually lost a few client due to this
Posted by daviddunn, 05-09-2006, 09:59 PM
By the way, if anyone wants to read over all the emails i sent and replies i received I kept them all, almost 20, all in the last 60 days.....and all regarding the exact same situation posted above........DOWNTIME
Posted by WireNine, 05-09-2006, 11:08 PM
Sorry to hear about your bad experience. They should have provided you with more details on the issue instead of the reply you were given. They have been getting a lot of negative feedback lately for downtime, I guess you and the other users who have posted could have been on the same server with the issue. Best of luck with Lunarpages, let us know how it goes with them
Posted by Lev, 05-10-2006, 12:20 AM
Try asking them to be specific when you contact them, that may work better. Not to say that would be quality service but maybe it would be better than you have received.
Posted by db09, 05-10-2006, 12:29 AM
all these site5 threads are hilarious... you kind of get to the point of not feeling bad for these folks. if you did *any* research and still chose them as a host: blame yourself. if you didn't research, quit flooding this site with 'omfg site5 screwed me blah blah etc'. if you take 3 seconds to read the 1st page of this forum, you'd see that any thread/post regarding site5 is negative. quit beating a dead horse and quit giving them your business.
Posted by Jedito, 05-10-2006, 12:30 AM
Why don't you ask to lunarpages to move your account over?
Posted by zyzzyvas, 05-10-2006, 01:00 AM
Many of the posters are long-time customers who have been blindsided by a sudden, apparent implosion of services at Site5. I've been with Site5 for a year...when I signed up I did tons of research. They were the cream of the crop.
Posted by daviddunn, 05-10-2006, 01:01 AM
hey bud.......people post here to help out others....if ya dont like it dont read it....simple...cappish?
Posted by db09, 05-10-2006, 01:03 AM
people post here to help out others' without bothering to search? without bothering to research? without bothering to read the front page of this forum? right. i read it because it makes me giggle and i respond because it seems the number of people who fall for their crap (regardless of how 'good' they 'used to be') is endless.
Posted by UH-Matt, 05-10-2006, 01:16 AM
db09 Site5 did used to have a great service. It has only been literally the last few weeks that has turned into a rapid downhill spiral. Funnily enough when they started to super-oversell was the turning point. People who have been with them for more than 6+ months would have done their research and see that site5 was reputable. Only people signing up over the past few weeks could be blamed for a lack of research.
Posted by Kimmikat, 05-10-2006, 02:12 AM
Did Site 5 go under new management or something? I just got a new client and she want's out of Dodge (or Site 5) fast.
Posted by ThirstyGrunt, 05-10-2006, 02:12 AM
db09, just out of curiosity, have you ever had an account with site5? No? Then why are you trying to review their level of service? Like you said, if people want to know about site5's reviews on this forum, they can search.. Then perhaps they can find people that have actually had experiences with site5.
Posted by MyDigitalHost, 05-10-2006, 08:29 AM
With all the negative posts regarding Site5, one has to certainly wonder what the heck is going on over there.
Posted by fiend, 05-10-2006, 08:34 AM
Their service as gone downhill, that's a fact, and your probably on nauplius server, that has been awry for about a week, and support is as usual very sorry, but just say anything that comes up, like "a account overload", "disk problems", "networks problems", or just that the box "had" to reboot, and everything is ok...until it goes down again just 30 min later. Lousy service, inefficient support.
Posted by douglashanna, 05-10-2006, 08:37 AM
Kimmikat, not sure if your question is rhetoric or not, but as far as I know, their management is the same as it's always been. http://www.site5.com/about/ lists: It's been that for quite a while, so I don't think they've had any changes lately.
Posted by Aussie Bob, 05-10-2006, 08:40 AM
Yeah, we've got a lot of site5 clients in the last mth or so. Transfers are next to impossible though, from servers with very high loads.
Posted by icoso, 05-10-2006, 12:51 PM
I have a resller account wth SITE5 and have had nothing but constant problems with the server going down, email being inaccessible. After every account that I transferred to them, the email services ont he server had to be restarted, because authentication failed. My accounts are on Seafaring, and this server is not worth the money at this point. My websites are down, email doesn't work, customers are getting upset. I cant say that would recommmend them. The only thing I can say positive aobut them is that the server has not been blacklisted once since I signed up with them. I NEED A GOOD RESELLER HOST that can keep their servers running, stable, good email services, provides SPAM Assassin,and provides proactive monitoring to defeat SPAMMERS so their servers aren't listed every other day. SITE5 does not meet this criteria.
Posted by MrMcGoo, 05-10-2006, 12:52 PM
OK, so the big question is...what do you need/want for features and allowances and what is your budget ?
Posted by icoso, 05-10-2006, 01:08 PM
Budget doesn't matter to me right now. I'm not some low-end budget anything at a minimal price, sell anything to anyone type of person or business. I have a legitimate busness to run and I need a stable server that doesn't allow a bunch of pornographic jerks (pun intended) or spammers on their servers. A VPS won't work for my accounts - I don't even want to go there. There has to be someone out there that can provide a reseller account in a stable environent that doesn't allow some two-bit kid to sell 100's of sites for $2.95. There should be some limits on reseller accounts to prevent loading problems! I can see paying $30 or $40 per month for a reseller account that is limited to 20 or 25 accounts as long as the number of resellers is limited on that server! Don't allow PORN on those servers either. Lock the server down so some idiot can't use the server as a mail relayer and spew SPAM to half the world either. Who does this?
Posted by FHDave, 05-10-2006, 01:12 PM
An opened ticket does not mean unanswered ticket. A ticket can be opened for many reasons, e.g. waiting for customer responses, currently being worked on, being escalated, and any other reasons, including somebody forgetting to close the ticket. How many customers do Site5 have? 151 tickets opened for the company of their size may not be too large.
Posted by DaKine, 05-10-2006, 01:26 PM
I do understand what you are saying. However, I never meant to imply that. All I did was quote directly from their website about how many open customer support tickets there were at that time. My opinion was that it seemed awfully high at that time. And while I was watching (at that time) it got to 178. Normally I see around 50-60 as an average and right now I checked it is at 43. As I said before, it seemed to be a large number of open tickets at that time. Regards,
Posted by MrMcGoo, 05-10-2006, 01:30 PM
Adult content doesn't equal spamming and server load issues. Instant activation, gross overselling and a total lack of pre-activation review are all usually very very bad signs. Any server with a Photo Gallery site these days seems to be exploitable because the end user just loves to have ANYONE upload pictures, etc...to their site and give the folders 777 Universal read-write-execute permissions (maniacs). Of greater concern is not if the server will be exploited, but how does the provider react when it is...do they clear the spamcop list ASAP, do they suspend the site immediately so no further damage can be done, delete the site and if need be the reseller if it is a recurring issue with them...etc. And do they oversell....If you oversell you open yourself up to be overused. We allow adult content on our reseller servers and have not had any issues with that because we do not oversell our reseller servers...and if a site gets exploited we are right on it and minimize the damage so we can all get back to normal. If the reseller is a constant source of issues they get a few warnings and then walking papers. I would also look at the resellers policies...do they allow unlimited SSH access (yellow flag), anonymous FTP (YIKES...HUGE red flag). Read their TOS and AUP...Do they sound like the mean business and properly state they will restrict server abuse. Think of it like you were not the purchaser but already ON the server...would you want policies like that for the next person you had to share the server with...? Your budget and expectations for that budget are quite reasonable, but I would not let Adult Content to be a deal breaker.
Posted by icoso, 05-10-2006, 01:53 PM
I think I'm in the ball park with my prices, I'm currently paying for 4 different reseller accounts and a VPS. I would move to a dedicated, but I am not smart enough to manage and or secure a dedicated box. I also don't like the idea of having ALL of my customers going down at the same time if there was to be a server problem. I have some moral standards that I prefer not to have my accounts on a server that supports porn, and yes I believe that porn sites do create larger traffic loads use up more resources than other typical informational only websites use, attract hackers and other unsavory types, and causes more problems than normal on a server. My customers wouldn't appreciate having their websites on a server that supports porn, and I don't either. Do you have servers that you do not allow porn to be on them? If yes, then I might look into your services, otherwise, I simply don't want to deal with it.
Posted by MrMcGoo, 05-10-2006, 02:12 PM
You are being very reasonable in your budget...I would look for a reseller out of Atjeu...They do not allow adult content )one of the few that I know of that has that restriction. Maybe Atjeu can offer some recommendations...... They are a good NOC and nice and stable servers.
Posted by Jedito, 05-10-2006, 02:17 PM
There are plenty of host that does offer managed dedicated server, probably that may been a final solution to you. Unfortunately, I can't recommend any because I don't use them, but search on the advertise forum.
Posted by daviddunn, 05-10-2006, 04:08 PM
just an update.......i never did get the backup at all yesterday........and finally today at around 10am i was pissed and emailed them......no reply, so at 11 i again emailed and finally at 1230pm (27 hours after my request, and 19 after they said it would be done) they replied with this: The site isnt even half that big.....not sure wtf they are looking at.....lol, all i know is this place is in SERIOUS trouble.
Posted by ponchos, 05-10-2006, 04:55 PM
I'm currently on seafaring too, the downtimes are really frustrating atm, not to mention the lack of explanation of why its down. I wish site5 would explain the cause for downtimes rathen then just explain to us that they're sorry about it and that they're working on the problem.
Posted by KnownHost, 05-10-2006, 05:00 PM
When you say downtime how long is this and how consistent? Way too strange for a reputable company. -Jay
Posted by ntfu2, 05-10-2006, 05:55 PM
Its kind of sad actually, im just glad i got out of there last august and didnt stick around for this crap storm to hit, good for them to and i hope they loose every customer they have
Posted by zerodamage, 05-10-2006, 08:15 PM
Over 24 hours later and no return phone call or email. Typical Site5.
Posted by cartika-andrew, 05-10-2006, 09:22 PM
Lots of companies offer reseller accounts with hard limits who also undersell their resources. This is one of the HUGE benefits of an hsphere cluster. You can have all of your clients with a single provider, however, they would be spread across multiple servers.
Posted by icoso, 05-10-2006, 09:57 PM
Consistent? - about every other day. How long? It varies sometimes 10 to 15 minutes. What usually happens is email stops responding then the websites go down. Typical response from Site5: 1. Once the server is online we check for any hardware failures and abusive users generally. I believe we also have been working on the kernel with this server to further improve stability of the server. 2. we are working on the load now. 3. I apologize for the inconvenience, I assure you we are working to resolve any issues with seafaring. 4. This has now been rectified earlier, if you continue to have any further issues with this here, please let me know. 5. The load and outage have been caused by user accounts who are abusing system resources and causing stability problems on the server. We have disabled a number of accounts on this server to address the load issues. We are monitoring the server closely to identify any further problems before they arise. 6. This server was overloaded by a user account and that account has been disabled. We have been monitoring the performance of this server for some time since and it has been stable. 7. We are very much aware of these ongoing issues and we are working towards a full time solution. At present the server is back up and running without trouble. I apologize for the inconvenience, we hope to have this completely resolved within the very short term. 8. I apologize, we are closely monitoring this server. Things seem to be stable now and we will keep a close eye on things. 9. I am personally working with this server right now to keep the loads down, we have taken care of a user whom was causing the problems. I will keep a very close eye on this. 10. The Seafaring server has been experiencing issues due to a few high demand users as well as a couple of compromised user accounts. It is my understanding that this issue has been straightened out and we are continuing to monitor the system and will take action on any further issues that arrise as is necessary. Sorry for the inconvenience. These were their repsonses for outages from today through 4/19/06 -
Posted by catfished, 05-11-2006, 12:11 AM
Here's one for seafaring back at the end of March: On Fri, 31 Mar 2006 13:00:33 -0500, *******@****.com wrote: > A FEW DAYS??????????????? I have to continue to have slow loading sites and > angry clients for A FEW DAYS???? Hi, We're working on it and will probably get things fixed sooner than that. However a few days would be a worst case scenario." It's May 10 and they still haven't resolved the problems on seafaring?? Amazing!!!
Posted by chamelion, 05-11-2006, 05:47 AM
what makes you guys stay? there are plentiful other hosts in that budget who give awesome services. site5 has basically gotten themself into a rut which i doubt they'll climb out of, and right now they are in the same category as gazzin, which would be class D hosting. It literally takes a few hours to move hosts, why are you guys dealing with all this suffering?
Posted by cywkevin, 05-11-2006, 02:22 PM
I believe the high loads are preventing people from generating site backups and complicating moves.
Posted by fiend, 05-11-2006, 03:36 PM
Well it's not just the site, it's the mysql/mail and whatever else is on the account...
Posted by FlaNative, 05-11-2006, 03:39 PM
If you're riding a dead horse, get off.
Posted by chamelion, 05-11-2006, 04:30 PM
i think what pixelized is saying is that everyone knows the horse is dead, but they're either too lazy to get off, or strapped down on it or trapped under it... i don't know why people settle for such subpar hosting!
Posted by catfished, 05-11-2006, 08:33 PM
Site5 was above par hosting a year or so ago. There was no way to predict that they would totally go downhill. I'm sure happy I finally bailed.
Posted by icoso, 05-11-2006, 09:28 PM
Has anyone noticed that Seafaring server at Site5 now appears to having DNS issues. My customers or myself can't email anyone outside of that server. W're getting message like: A message that you sent could not be delivered to one or more of its recipients. This is a permanent error. The following address(es) failed: rick@someplace.com unrouteable mail domain "someplace.com"
Posted by ldcdc, 05-11-2006, 10:08 PM
I agree. They were good, and uptime for me was consistently at 100% for months. Things started to be not so good (on the server I monitored) some 8 months ago. Still, the uptime was more than decent. I don't have an account with them anymore, so I don't know how things have been these past two months, though I get the feeling that not all their servers go through the same amount of trouble.
Posted by Aussie Bob, 05-11-2006, 10:50 PM
Depending on how they populate their servers with new accounts, I'd hazzard a guess that the new servers (over the last 9mths or so) would be the ones with the most problems. That was about the time the new pricing and plans were introduced.
Posted by UH-Matt, 05-11-2006, 10:53 PM
Crickey 17,000+ posts Aussie bob... take a holiday!
Posted by Aussie Bob, 05-12-2006, 12:47 AM
Only when I beat Dennis and Jan.
Posted by daviddunn, 05-12-2006, 01:16 AM
There are no mysql's, only 1 folder and the normal html pagaes for the site.......I am downloading it myself now and its 2.7 gigs........
Posted by shiro5678, 05-12-2006, 06:23 AM
The load on Copernic is also unacceptable, sites go down about every other day, my clients are screaming too ! I've pre-paid for about 2 years so I requested switching to a different server (I see that some servers has been up for 300+ days), but it's been more than a week and no one has get back to me yet... Also, Copernic is down again as we speak.
Posted by mripguru, 05-12-2006, 09:36 AM
Kim, nope - still owned by Matt. Just, I think the overselling and hardware issues caught up with them.
Posted by Cooleo, 05-12-2006, 11:41 AM
Their ambitions are too high. If they spent the money they spend on 'amazing' new features on enough servers (lets not forgot that they sell hosting, and aren't a development company) then these problems wou;dn't occured; such as rapid reflex (did that ever happen, i didnt get it when i signed up then) and flashback (is a joke really, still can't imagine how they will be able to mirror all of these copies of files without increasing the price (new hd needed?, heavier load on the cpu?). Site5 is great when the servers are online - they are fast and everything works well; its just the high server loads catch up on themselves and cause too much downtime. I can only hope the situation with site5 will get better, Matt and his team are more than capable of sorting it out. I agree you get what you pay for, but some people need the money - and if someone offers it with a good track record (which they did have about a month ago) people are going to come. My 2c.
Posted by mripguru, 05-12-2006, 11:44 AM
I agree - it's all about price to performance ratio and how much downtime/problem time your willing to accept.
Posted by catfished, 05-12-2006, 12:43 PM
I've said something similar to this before on one of the many Site5 threads but I'll repeat: They aren't in trouble, they don't care about a few hundred disgruntled customers. They're too busy counting the money!!! That's why they don't show up on here anymore.
Posted by icoso, 05-12-2006, 12:51 PM
The Seafaring server has been having problems for the last month now. It is down again today and I have several accounts on that server. Site5 support has been given me the same old answers when there has been a problem. It appears now that the server is dead! I can no longer recommend Site5 for any services. Their ability to provide a quality reseller service has diminished so greatly that I have no other choice but to move my customers away from them.
Posted by browneye253, 05-12-2006, 12:55 PM
I am also on Seafaring and have been kicking myself daily for switching to them for hosting. Since moving a month ago I have had nothing but trouble with this server! I'm currently looking for a new home.
Posted by rv_irl, 05-12-2006, 01:00 PM
Well it seems site5 have been having a lot of problems recently. It is not suprising considering the price of what they are selling. A reliable web hosting could not offer so much at such a low price. Maybe you two could provide more details on your requirements so we can provide some accurate recommendations?
Posted by catfished, 05-12-2006, 01:07 PM
I've said this several times now but obviously no one is getting it: Site5 reseller accounts are not that cheap. I was paying $22.99 per month for a 4 gb/60 gb account. This is the reseller hosting forum, not the shared.
Posted by browneye253, 05-12-2006, 01:12 PM
That's roughly what I'm paying now with them. I currenlty host about 25 accounts, cPanel and would like some sort of account management software, unless there is an open source one that I just haven't found to manage my clients.
Posted by JohnCrowley, 05-12-2006, 01:39 PM
But how can they spend more money on servers when they are selling hosting for pennies (relatively speaking)? Also note that they develop these new technologies mostly in-house, so the prices are not that high in this aspect of their business. IMNSHO, Site5 could do very well by drastically raising their costs, courting a higher level of client with all those great features, cut down the resources to a reasonable level, and return to their focus on great support. But alas, the owners are looking to build it up quickly, get easily bored with the mundane world of hosting (ask Aussie Bob about slow and steady) so resort to these "new fangled" technologies, and a large number of customers suffer. The only money they will be counting is maybe when they sell. With their low costs for shared hosting, coupled with the number of employees they employ, servers they maintain, etc... there is not a lot of profit for the owners (again "a lot" being relative). I used to have a lot of respect for Site5 as a "competitor" (very loose interpretation of competitor on my part), but their recent shenanigans have eroded much of that respect. - John C.
Posted by sash, 05-12-2006, 01:57 PM
Yes, it's all real pity. The load averages of the server i'm on at the moment: 59.41 38.45 16.33 And the screenshot of the server status... Quite clear, speaks for itself, all services down. Sad sad story... Attached Thumbnails
Posted by ldcdc, 05-12-2006, 02:00 PM
Interesting perspective. If the couple of hundred of customers are just a few % of their customer base, then yes, they (as a company) are not in any immediate trouble. Apparently forums are not exactly their favorite places for interaction. In all honesty, now that I think about it, Matt had been a member here for a lot of years and didn't have a huge post count by any means. The complet silence is something new though. I guess we can just hope they're concentrating fully on getting things corrected on their servers...
Posted by daviddunn, 05-12-2006, 02:33 PM
Another interesting update: I get a email today from a customer service lead as follows: I say that i could really use the backup and that i have cleaned and double checked the size and its only 2-2.5 gigs.......and to pelase let me know ASAP if they can handle this becasue if not i will get started doing it myself. I get a Reply asking if the site is still 10 gigs..........im like wtf, I jsut said in the previous email that its 2-2.5.......and reaply this again......saying to let me know asap PLEASE. Well.......its now 4 hours since the initial email and no reply.......go figure....lol, it is like a kick while im down becasue i could have just started downloading this morning and maybe even had it done by now. Guess its my own stupidity to actually think they might actually help me out.
Posted by rv_irl, 05-12-2006, 03:11 PM
Yes I realise this. I'm talking about site5 in general
Posted by WireNine, 05-12-2006, 03:34 PM
Their shared hosting packages are outrageous: 27 GB disk space, 750 GB bandwidth for $16 In general, things are getting out of control. If the staff is unable to handle the shared hosting customer load, how do you suppose they are handling reseller customers load? Basically if a ship has a hole, the whole ship sinks not just half of it. I think thats what stealthdevil meant I am not at all saying Site5 is a bad company. I wish them the best, and I hope they are able to get these issues resolved with their servers. Last edited by WireNine; 05-12-2006 at 03:37 PM.
Posted by CyberHostPro, 05-12-2006, 03:42 PM
anyone who offers high disk space for a low prices are clearly over selling, its not worth going for these types of host, in the long run you will only be kicking yourself! Find a new host who can offer you the service you deserve.
Posted by cartika-andrew, 05-12-2006, 04:08 PM
Catfished, that is still inexpensive for reseller hosting. Especially once you factor in unlimited accounts, unlimited domains, overselling enabled.. Add to this the overall increase in application hosting, single server environments and it is no doubt that the occassional server will cause them grief. Overall, I still think site5 is a quality provider, however, they have some problem servers - no doubt about it - and I am not sure this wont always happen with that business/pricing model.. What is surprising, is how few problem servers they actually have -
Posted by RackFleet, 05-12-2006, 05:48 PM
Just a quick question.. Are the shared clients and reseller clients on the same servers throughout their network?
Posted by catfished, 05-12-2006, 05:51 PM
So everybody is clear on this, I was not defending Site5, quite the contrary in fact. I'm saying that for $22.99 per month, they should be providing decent service. It's obvious that they can't do so on their highly oversold shared accounts but you would think they could do so on their resellers. I left Site5 and moved to Dotable.com, I'm sure glad I did.
Posted by db09, 05-12-2006, 07:19 PM
i did. i research things on here. then give a lot of the bad ones a go for a week or so. i post tickets with common questions to see what response i get and how fast. oddly enough, the quickest response i got (still took about a day) was when i requested a refund. which they promptly did. i've done it with a bunch of them: dreamhost, surfspeedy, aplus, etc, etc.. most of the ones that get canned on here. worse case i'm out 10 bucks or so. so.. yes. i have =) Last edited by db09; 05-12-2006 at 07:29 PM.
Posted by Chris_M, 05-12-2006, 07:29 PM
I was wondering where you were going to go, Ed. I hope things are better for you.
Posted by SEOKing, 05-12-2006, 08:05 PM
My question is, what happened to Site5? They were doing very well for a while. Then it seems everything went downhill very fast. Their executive board seems to be the same, although has ownership changed?
Posted by ntfu2, 05-12-2006, 08:08 PM
hate to tell you thats not hosting a site, depending on them for your site to be up, getting answers to emergency support tickets. try that, then write your reviews
Posted by db09, 05-12-2006, 09:40 PM
i guess you're right. it's more of 'how much bandwidth can i use before they shut me down' =D
Posted by shiro5678, 05-12-2006, 11:49 PM
Funny, are Seafaring and Copernic competiting for the "Worst Server @ site5" award? Copernic was down for an hour yesterday, and as usual, site5 decided to hide the truth from the whole world (especially to potential customers I would think) and refused to post any service announcement on the forum. And when someone posted a thread asking about this on the feedback forum, the thread (again, as usual) got locked. Anyway I think I'm pretty much done with site5 too. Emailed management and heard no response for a whole week. I'm going for a VPS next. @ icoso, please do let us know where you land, because I got some PM's on the site5 forum telling me they wanna leave site5 but don't know where to go; it would be great that you share with us your experience with the new host
Posted by shiro5678, 05-13-2006, 12:30 AM
Actually, many many server disruptions have happened without any service announcements being made. And you won't find any complaints on their forum either because they remove all the negative posts. So actually maybe they WERE busying trying to fix a server or two (I'm guessing Copernic and Seafaring)....
Posted by Jeff - Exceed, 05-13-2006, 09:16 AM
Am I the only one here that hasn't had any problems with site5 shared hosting? Never seen a site I host with them down once. maybe I'm on a good server though?
Posted by shiro5678, 05-13-2006, 09:53 AM
No Jeff, you're not the only one, it's just that the OP is not one of the lucky ones, neither am I.... (-_-')..... Good to hear that you're on a stable server, trust me, you don't wanna know what it's like to be on Copernic....
Posted by Biju, 05-13-2006, 10:32 AM
that is really good , site5 is really doing a worse thing and people are going to run away from them.
Posted by kevn@hosterdirect, 05-13-2006, 11:40 AM
what is happening with site5. It seems that site5 needs own forum at WHT.
Posted by shiro5678, 05-13-2006, 12:41 PM
Sorry about the OT, but that smilie is cute !
Posted by DaKine, 05-13-2006, 01:29 PM
Yes, I have personally had posts removed from their forums. Actually, I was posting in a thread and I was not the one posting negative comments. I was the one defending them! The entire thread was removed due to the negative comments. Ironic. Actually, I am on another server (Dione). This server's hardware was replaced completely (or so I was told) about a week ago. About 3 months ago the hard drive was replaced. I have had numerous outtages (http and MySQL problems) due to spammers and users who take up more resources than they should and then do not release them. Lately my outtages occur on an average of once a week. Right now I am fighting with their customer service people because I am trying to do my weekly backups through cPanel and it is not working. All I am getting from the reps for the last 16 hours is duplicate questions and an explanation that my browser can cause a timeout situation so the backup will not complete. I have asked for a detailed explanation about how that occurs.
Posted by daviddunn, 05-13-2006, 01:33 PM
cayster for us......what a disaster
Posted by daviddunn, 05-13-2006, 01:38 PM
Again.......I get a email from there support this morning out of nowhere...i have already told them i will take care of the backup myself since they cant seem to get their **** together. The support guy give the usual excuses, that site 5 is getting known, for but says he is doing the backup for me. Another email comes and says this: well....that just great work........after i was downloading the files all night (took 15 hours to get 2 gigs) they finally decide to help......GREAT WORK. but...............wait............. I go and look in the home directory and guess what.......NOTHING THERE.....am i surprised, not in the least.
Posted by blindsided, 05-13-2006, 03:15 PM
clevedot.com has shut down many a time, only one i've used that has been reliable has been hostgator.com, haven't seen it go down once since I started using it 5 months ago. we shall see...
Posted by shiro5678, 05-14-2006, 01:12 AM
LOL sorry to hear that David, did you ask them where it went?
Posted by shiro5678, 05-14-2006, 01:15 AM
Hey Dave, That totally sucks if you can't even do your backup... are you thinking about switching to another host?
Posted by mripguru, 05-14-2006, 05:40 AM
Somehow, I don't think so - I think it might partially be due to PEBKAC (Problem Exists Between Keyboard and Chair). *shrug*.
Posted by mripguru, 05-14-2006, 05:45 AM
Actually, that's not true - I have them on record (in a trouble ticket) as saying that the backup system was DISABLED on my system (and probbably yours too) due to load issues. When I migrated out, I had them create a cPanel backup for me that was restored at the new host and then did an rsync for the changes and an "offline" MySQL db backup.
Posted by DaKine, 05-14-2006, 10:34 AM
Yes it does suck! I have already figured out who. I just need to sign up on Monday. Fortunately, there is a website like this that helps make the decision process easier. I did my research and sent out my list of questions and made my decision based on the one thing every experienced reseller here keeps saying. Don't go with a host that oversells and don't cheap out. The host I picked this time responded to my sales question Satuday afternoon within 2 minutes of my sending it. And they have a lot of good feedback here. They are more expensive than Site5 but nothing is worth the aggravation I have been going through! That figures! It also explains why they are dancing around my question as to when it will be fixed. I have had my trouble ticket in for over 36 hours now with no resolution and no explanation. Why didn't they just tell me that? I would have had them do the backups for me and I wouldn't be stressing. Thanks everyone here on WHT! I appreciate all the advice I have received.
Posted by zerodamage, 05-14-2006, 11:09 AM
I dropped them. Horrible service.
Posted by DaKine, 05-14-2006, 11:47 AM
I asked them to backup all of my sites for me and place the file in the home directory of each site. So this morning I got the e-mail that it was completed and the files are ready to download. I tried to download them and when I do I get a permission denied error. Can't they do anything right?
Posted by shiro5678, 05-14-2006, 11:55 AM
obviously no !
Posted by chamelion, 05-14-2006, 01:16 PM
thats jsut a simple issue of chmod. by default backups cannot be downloaded via the web.
Posted by shiro5678, 05-14-2006, 03:02 PM
Since I've been discussing about this with some current site5 customers via PM / email, I thought I'd just start a new thread for the purpose of :Sharing our views about site5Give each other updates on where we're going nextShare our experience on the new hostI hope WHT doesn't mind me doing this Although I'm a reseller myself, I thought it's better to post in this forum so that shared hosting customers can see it too. Ok I'll start first, Currently @ site5 =================== Server : Copernic Package : RX-S Special Price : USD19.95 Storage : 4GB BW : 60GB Since : Feb 2006 =================== Main complaintsUnacceptable uptime99% FTP / 99.5% HTTP uptimeServer down EVERY OTHER DAY AT LEASTUnprofessional supportKeep telling support about the server down, and all they said were, "It looks fine here" (90%), "We've just restarted the server and it should be fine now" (5%) and "Copernic is currently having XXXXX problem and we're fixing it" (5%).One day the connection failed 35+ times within 24 hours, emailed support everytime the failure occured, and support actually said something like, "Is there anything we help you with?" HELLO?? My sites are down ! What do you think ??Email management requesting to switch to another server, no response in a whole week.DishonestNo announcements were made on the forum regarding the downtime.Whenever someone posts on the forum complaining or even just asking about the poor performance, the threads got deleted.OthersDon't take their server status page too seriously ! A lot of times when my WHM shows red alerts on the server load it still shows as normal on the server status page !What I'm planning to doSwitch to another server (since I've pre-paid 1 year), orGet a refund, andSwitch to a new hostWhere I'm going =================== Host : DEHE Package : Starter Plan Price : USD39.95 + USD7 cPanel Storage : 10GB BW : 200GB =================== Other site5 threads for reference Anyone having problem with site5? Never choose site5 Another site5 thread Site5 a real disappointment Site5 my sites slow due to high server load Site5 - I can't take no more Site5 cencored posting Site5 site down, no response, suggestion? Can't connect to site5.com (or my sites) My server on Site5 is down again My site on site5 down again Stay away from site5, neverending downtimes Site5 worst hosting ever? Site5 : bad support Site5 Hosting Well, there are more, but you can always use the search function to see them yourself So, what about you fellow ex / current site5 users? What are your views? If you're switching host than where? Please share !
Posted by Trip, 05-14-2006, 03:19 PM
What is the URL of the site you host with site5?
Posted by shiro5678, 05-14-2006, 03:23 PM
Hi Trip, Since I'm a reseller, I'd prefer not to reveal it... may I ask what you need the URL for?
Posted by Trip, 05-14-2006, 03:30 PM
Credbility?
Posted by layer0, 05-14-2006, 03:39 PM
You can open up a ticket at the WHT helpdesk http://www.webhostingtalk.com/helpdesk/ referencing this thread including your domain. This way your domain will remain private but the thread will be marked as authentic
Posted by shiro5678, 05-14-2006, 03:43 PM
I'm sorry I didn't think of that, it's done, thanks for the reminder !
Posted by MaxCrandale, 05-14-2006, 03:46 PM
hava look (wrong url given editted) http://www.crucialp.com/ i like their attidued... even they are somehow same train with me... they are good... it terms of service and uptime... but always backup Last edited by MaxCrandale; 05-14-2006 at 03:52 PM.
Posted by whtmem1, 05-14-2006, 06:00 PM
I couple of my sites are still with site5 ( for the best) and another, more important one, I also moved to DEHE. Very pleased with DEHE so far.
Posted by Jedito, 05-14-2006, 06:08 PM
Be careful, you're getting a VPS with only 256 MB RAM, you'll have problem to run almost everything with such small amount of RAM
Posted by Apoc, 05-14-2006, 07:30 PM
cPanel (and all of its components) will run perfectly with 256mb ram (and it comes with 1GB burstable ram).
Posted by daviddunn, 05-14-2006, 11:53 PM
I sent an email Sat asking where it is..........its almost midnight sun and no reply.' The good news.........I did the download myself and uploaded.......the download took forever because their server was so slow i was getting between 30-45 kb/s....but that not surprising....lol Upload went perfect to out new dedicated server and now I will get my refund and get the hell away from site 5....lol ....thank god. I give this advice to everyone, spend the extra money and go with quality rather than budget crap like site 5.....as you can see from my experience and many, many others on this forum....... a bad host can make you life a living hell with it comes to business.
Posted by Project X, 05-15-2006, 12:10 AM
hahahaha out of the frying pan and into the fire!
Posted by shiro5678, 05-15-2006, 12:12 AM
Hey David, good to hear that, would you mind to let us know what your new host is in this thread? A couple of current site5 customers asked me if I had any recommendations, so I thought maybe those of us who have already decided on the new host could share our experience with them
Posted by shiro5678, 05-15-2006, 12:47 AM
Jedito Thanks for the advice @Andre Thanks for the comforting information
Posted by katesk8, 05-15-2006, 12:58 AM
Grrr, I'm feeling you right now! My site has been having a problem for about 36 hours now (me thinks mySQL needs to be restarted), and I haven't heard anything from CS. I submitted a ticket earlier today, and nothing. I finally submitted another, maybe that slows things down, but i got sick of waiting. I'm getting bombarded by emails from people complaining about the site being down. I've been with Site5 FOREVER, and they totally suck now. Their biggest selling point used to be their customer service, but no longer. I agree with everything you said in the original post. It's almost always a waste of time to send tickets through. I WILL be switching hosts very soon, I can just never find the time to do it (it will be a pain to move over everything). Also, I have had my posts deleted out of their message board on a couple of occasions -- they were always thoughtful and detailed, but the mod seemed to think they were negative enough to get rid of :/
Posted by jjp-hp, 05-15-2006, 07:54 AM
In the 7 years of maintaining web sites and having used 6 different web host, Site5 is the first web host to give me problems with uptime. I've used them for 9 months now. But then they are the first "budget" host I've ever used. Never put all your eggs in one basket worked for me this time. Last edited by jjp-hp; 05-15-2006 at 08:06 AM.
Posted by mwatkins, 05-15-2006, 09:35 AM
I've had exactly the opposite experience with Site5 - after having problems with "budget" hosts, I paid a little more with Site5 and have had a very good experience with them... have been a client since 2001 if memory serves me correctly.
Posted by shiro5678, 05-15-2006, 09:46 AM
Hi katesk8, Are you on Copernic also? Sorry to hear about your bad experience ! If you've found a new host, please do share with us, since many current site5 customers wanna leave too but no idea where to yet ps. To be fair (so that non-site5 customers don't misunderstand them), I think B&T and Steven have been very helpful (helping with scripts questions on the forum for example), it's the management who made them kill our posts. Poor guys, just doing their job
Posted by mripguru, 05-15-2006, 09:50 AM
Oh, I agree - Steven and B&T are great guys, just caught in a bad situation at present .
Posted by shiro5678, 05-15-2006, 09:55 AM
Yup ! And B&T's scripts are brilliant !
Posted by anon-e-mouse, 05-15-2006, 10:03 AM
Maybe you need to do it again and actually hit submit?
Posted by Biju, 05-15-2006, 10:45 AM
well a thread like this , interesting and why is site5 silent.
Posted by ashras99, 05-15-2006, 10:51 AM
Daviddunn, site5 is worst now. and when ever you will asked for reason of downtime then they replied " everything is working fine now, if you have any problem then please reply", when you ask more specifically then they will say "some abusive users create problem and that's why down"
Posted by shiro5678, 05-15-2006, 11:03 AM
Oops... didn't hit submit on the second page coz I didn't notice the small print on top... sorry about that, please check again !
Posted by anon-e-mouse, 05-15-2006, 11:13 AM
Thanks, we have confirmed your domain is hosted with site5
Posted by daviddunn, 05-15-2006, 11:21 AM
Another Update: well....finally got a reply (2 days later) as to where this backup they said they did sat morning was......since it wasnt there.....lol i am lost for words on this pathetic support and how they just act like "oh well" and dont even give a ****. Its funny too, in my email asking where the backup was, i told them not to worry about it now, they couldnt seem to handle it and i have done it myself.....lol, and this guy is so out of it he says he will do it........COME ON MAN, GET WITH THE PROGRAM.
Posted by zyzzyvas, 05-15-2006, 11:22 AM
I asked Site5 about this and the (unofficial) reason for why no reponse has come from Site5 was that they thought no matter how they responded they'd get flamed and abused here. I thought it was a lame excuse. The thread about this was itself hidden from public view in their forum. This morning I replied to another thread on the Site5 forum and moments later saw the whole thread deleted. Vaporized. I am getting really, really annoyed, and I'm not even on one of the worst servers. Not the greatest, either. If Site5 continues to ignore all the public complaints, then even users whose servers ARE NOT acting up (the majority, I'm sure) will have to wonder if this is a host they really want to be dealing with. As I recently told a Site5 user via PM in the Site5 forum:
Posted by shiro5678, 05-15-2006, 11:27 AM
anon-e-mouse : thanks for your help ! @ zyzzyvas : u know, it's funny that even after all these, i still kinda hope that we (site5 and us) could go back to where we were, the good old days when servers ran fine and we absolutely loved site5....
Posted by whtmem1, 05-15-2006, 11:31 AM
I wonder if a hosting company has ever actually raised costs and cut down their packages after lowering their costs and overselling. That would be odd wouldn't it? Even though it would be the right thing to do, IMO.
Posted by zyzzyvas, 05-15-2006, 11:34 AM
So do I...the thought of moving my sites gives me a headache. I'd much rather stay in one place. Servers can be fixed, customer service can be improved, trust can (slowly) be regained. What remains to be seen is if Site5 has any interest in doing those things.
Posted by bear, 05-15-2006, 11:39 AM
Not directed at anyone in certain, just thinking out loud but: I wonder if those receiving low costs and high packages would see the move as a good one and stay, or if they would cry "price gouging" and leave anyway?
Posted by whtmem1, 05-15-2006, 11:44 AM
Not at all. I'd see the move as a positive step. But I'd have to see results as well, raising costs and offering realistic packages alone won't cut it. Servers would have to be what they were, stable and fast. Same with support and all the other aspects of web hosting.
Posted by jwardell, 05-15-2006, 12:30 PM
I've been experiencing problems with my site5 server as well (muses) since last tuesday. A few times a day, it would become very slow, then completely unresponsive, sometimes rebooting on its own. I emailed customer service when I first discovered it, and it took 5 HOURS to get a reply, which at that point was "it seems fine." Nothing like starting things ticking me off. Anyone knows they should have: -received an immediate reply saying they are investigating -received a second reply when things were resolved, along with an explaination of the problem and what was done to resolve it. -emailed all muses users of the outage and situation, and also posted in the site5 server status forum The next morning, it happened all over again. Customer service was a bit faster to respond. Then, AGAIN, on thursday, both in the morning and afternoon. Site5 told me it was an abusive account taking resources, and the account had been suspended. Yet, friday morning, the problem was back. I wrote a long email to management@site5. (I have yet to receive a response) Finally, this morning, muses was down for good. Emailed CS again. When I did get a response this morning, this time their tune had changed, and said it was a memory controller issue and they were replacing the motherboard. They also FINALLY posted in the forum. Of course, I can't post to that thread even in the interest of helping them diagnose the issue. I had been seeing physical memory on the server near 100% all week (and notified them several times..) I haven't had a good experience with site5's customer service once, but I didn't care because the serving was excellent. But after this issue I don't know what to do. It's one thing when I can't even get in to read my email, but when I have people complaining they can't access my site, and a downright embarrasment to all the people I had recommended site5 to and they switched on my recommendations.
Posted by maniakaz, 05-15-2006, 02:08 PM
I am a current customer... ---- Server:nereids Packagehbasic price:7 $ storage:5000 Mb BW: ~~ since December 2005 ----- No problems for the last months. Server uptime is normal, no problems, just our buggy forum (but it is our fault). I will stay with site5 as far as it would be physically possible - the same I did with TCH. I was with them untill I lost my patience and then I changed my host.
Posted by jmweb, 05-15-2006, 03:57 PM
Ouch, sounds like an interesting roller coaster you guys are on! Hope it gets straightened out soon for those who stay!
Posted by jmweb, 05-15-2006, 04:13 PM
Was wondering the exact same thing.
Posted by DaKine, 05-15-2006, 04:27 PM
The problem with this is that I don't have the rights to change the permissions on the back up file. I tried and the error message I received was that I did not have permission to open (or make changes) to the file. So no matter what I was stuck until 2am this morning when they sent me an e-mail apologizing and saying they changed the permissions for me. I'll find out tonight when I get home from work. I signed up with an Advanced Plan from ResellerZoom today. I wanted to avoid the issues I was having with Site5. ResellerZoom claims that their Advanced Plans have 50% less users than their Budget Plans. So hopefully I will not have as much downtime due to spammers and resource hogs like I did with Site5. Their price for the Advanced Plan plus $2/IP Address is slightly higher than what I am paying now. But the price difference should be worth it if I don't have any more issues. I'll write a review in a few months and let everyone know how it is going.
Posted by sawz, 05-15-2006, 07:07 PM
Copernic server stats show over 99% WebSite Pulse i have two other trackers that show Copernic around 98%
Posted by OddLaW, 05-15-2006, 07:13 PM
I am on NOTUS..... I can not reccommend Site5 anymore either. Please go somewhere else...and also if anyone has any suggestions for me! I NEED HELP SWITCHING! Thanks
Posted by Orien, 05-15-2006, 07:17 PM
I'm on the nocsmasher server and I'm not experiencing any troubles with the server or support. So, you could say that I'm just lucky.
Posted by DaKine, 05-15-2006, 07:21 PM
I am currently going through the same thing you are. If you want to keep in touch I can let you know what mistakes I make and what worked well for me. Just PM me through the forum.
Posted by whtmem1, 05-15-2006, 07:56 PM
Too often I see loads like this on my server. Sorry for the poor quality, max 100k upload here.
Posted by layer0, 05-15-2006, 08:16 PM
Ouch. I'm surprised that page even loaded with such a high load...
Posted by Apoc, 05-15-2006, 08:42 PM
Either that server is getting attacked or they are hosting 100k websites on that server, a load like that is insane on a shared hosting server.
Posted by sawz, 05-15-2006, 09:24 PM
check out these loads: Attached Thumbnails
Posted by layer0, 05-15-2006, 09:28 PM
Decent, but I honestly wouldn't be happy with a load like that 24x7, IMHO. If that's what they tend to run at ( or heck if that's a 'low' for them ) then that's quite sad.
Posted by shiro5678, 05-15-2006, 09:53 PM
Hi OddLaW, Sorry to hear about your bad experience You can check out this thread and see where the others are going
Posted by db09, 05-15-2006, 10:35 PM
dang, those machines are getting wrecked. just for comparison's sake: the wirenine machine i am on.. Attached Thumbnails
Posted by Project X, 05-15-2006, 10:39 PM
sigh* what did people expect?
Posted by sawz, 05-15-2006, 10:45 PM
those are normal for me, sometimes the load is even heavier.
Posted by UH-Matt, 05-15-2006, 10:50 PM
We have our machines running watchdog which would reboot a box if it ever spiked over 50 or so, thats a last resort level!!
Posted by db09, 05-15-2006, 11:59 PM
for doo-doos and giggles: http://forums.site5.com/showthread.p...6872#post66872
Posted by shiro5678, 05-16-2006, 12:01 AM
What is it? How come I can't view it?
Posted by jmweb, 05-16-2006, 12:04 AM
I can't view it either, I assume it was professional?
Posted by Jedito, 05-16-2006, 12:07 AM
Honestly, nothing wrong on those loads with a dual xeon as server..
Posted by shiro5678, 05-16-2006, 07:36 AM
Here it goes again, just now...
Posted by douglashanna, 05-16-2006, 07:46 AM
By putting their costs at the level they are, I would say a lot of their customers would cry "price gouging" and leave. From what I can tell, they've positioned themselves for that low end market, where a majority of their customers don't really care if their site is down an hour per day. I think that's the customer level they're going for, but of course, there'll be who do care that signup. Just my opinion.
Posted by sawz, 05-16-2006, 07:51 AM
can't view this, how about a screen cap
Posted by zurnik, 05-16-2006, 08:02 AM
I'm running a forum which is hosted by site5, everything was fine.. But on these days, site5 really sucks.. MySQL always gets down, every 10 hours and now MySQL is down again, it's been 2 hours. I sent numerous emails but no respond from site5 team.. So, if you need a MySQL working always, NO to Site5! Site5 uptime is o.k.
Posted by Mxhub, 05-16-2006, 08:06 AM
Probably due to too many sql connections by other sites on the same server. Try ask them whether they can move your site to a less crowded server.
Posted by anon-e-mouse, 05-16-2006, 08:26 AM
Please contact site5 support channels. It is clear they have no interest in responding to the multiple threads here.
Posted by bear, 05-16-2006, 08:52 AM
you do not have permission to access this page" Apparently removed from public viewing.
Posted by sawz, 05-16-2006, 08:55 AM
that is why i asked for a screen cap
Posted by jwardell, 05-16-2006, 09:14 AM
To me, I don't care how cheap it is--there is no excuse for the server being down. They have always had bad customer service for me and that is where I accepted the savings. And they aren't super-cheap. For that, I have a server at 1&1. No problems there, but of course the transfer rates are much slower and none of the advanced features, but I'm happy with that too because I'm hardly paying anything. What always ticked me off was Site5's blatently false advertising of near-instant customer service, and matt's blogging about service and management being the most important thing, when they basically demonstrate they have none. Oh and of course there is the downright lying too, and covering up of anything in the forums. Since my server's motherboard replacement yesterday, I hope that took care of the real problem, and I will again wait it out and see.