Let's say I wanted to build a cheap webserver for a website

[ms526]

Well, if that's how you feel fair enough.

But I will always run servers from my own premises, be it my home or office. This way I have much more control over my servers.
You guys can only access your servers by ftp or telnet or whatever, whereas I have full physical access to the server. If it goes down, then
you either have to drive all the way over to the colo-center or trust some technician who most likely does not understand your own personal setup as well as you would yourself.

 

[netsysadmin]

I would love to have the servers here to, but it is not practical. The datacenter has multiple data lines coming into it. Also multiple cooling methods, multiple power feeds and multiple huge UPS's, multiple generators and fire supression...etc. Everything is built to be super redundant We just cant afford that kind of redundancy inrastructure localy. We need our servers to be up and running period. We have them setup in two different datacenters and all critical servers have a redundant failover backup servers. Bottom line is we have to be online for our users no matter what! That is why they are in a datacenter.

John

 

[ms526]

Just saw this on Myspace.com in an announcement posted by the admin. Seems that your datacenters are not all they're cracked up to be.

hello everyone - so there was a power outage in LA yesterday. unfortunately it directly hit the data center where myspace's servers are located. lots of people were affected and that's why myspace has been screwy since yesterday afternoon.

and a screenshot to back it up:

Screenshot

What was it you said about datacenters being immune to power outages? :roll:

 

[RebateMonger]

Originally posted by: ms526
What was it you said about datacenters being immune to power outages? :roll:

Actually, I recall a couple of major hosting sites being DOWN because of various power outages. For all their 5-nines reliability claims, they still go down. Every time there's a major outage, companies discover that their backup power and other systems don't work as advertised.

 

[DaiShan]

Originally posted by: ms526
Just saw this on Myspace.com in an announcement posted by the admin. Seems that your datacenters are not all they're cracked up to be.

hello everyone - so there was a power outage in LA yesterday. unfortunately it directly hit the data center where myspace's servers are located. lots of people were affected and that's why myspace has been screwy since yesterday afternoon.

and a screenshot to back it up:

Screenshot

What was it you said about datacenters being immune to power outages? :roll:

Wow, what agenda are you pushing? Dedicated hosts REDUCE the chance of downtime and will PAY you if they go down. That being said, for a small personal site there is no reason to pay extra money for a dedicated host unless your ISP blocks the ports that you need. One of my clients uses a business class cable Internet plan for in office Internet connectivity and it is absolute crap. They are provided a single static IP, and at least once a week their modem needs to be restarted, and about twice a month there are more serious outtages (>30mins down time) In addition to all of this, their DNS servers are hopelessly overloaded and it usually takes 5-10 seconds to resolve sites, so I actually have to run a BIND server on our Colo box for them to use. Additionally, I don't know where MySpace hosts, but any decent data center will have automatic fail-over to diesel generators. For example issuing the command uptime on our colo box returns 08:01:39 up 339 days, 14:11, 3 users, load average: 0.17, 0.15, 0.08 What does the same command on your home box return?

 

[ms526]

Originally posted by: DaiShan

Originally posted by: ms526
Just saw this on Myspace.com in an announcement posted by the admin. Seems that your datacenters are not all they're cracked up to be.

hello everyone - so there was a power outage in LA yesterday. unfortunately it directly hit the data center where myspace's servers are located. lots of people were affected and that's why myspace has been screwy since yesterday afternoon.

and a screenshot to back it up:

Screenshot

What was it you said about datacenters being immune to power outages? :roll:

Wow, what agenda are you pushing? Dedicated hosts REDUCE the chance of downtime and will PAY you if they go down. That being said, for a small personal site there is no reason to pay extra money for a dedicated host unless your ISP blocks the ports that you need. One of my clients uses a business class cable Internet plan for in office Internet connectivity and it is absolute crap. They are provided a single static IP, and at least once a week their modem needs to be restarted, and about twice a month there are more serious outtages (>30mins down time) In addition to all of this, their DNS servers are hopelessly overloaded and it usually takes 5-10 seconds to resolve sites, so I actually have to run a BIND server on our Colo box for them to use. Additionally, I don't know where MySpace hosts, but any decent data center will have automatic fail-over to diesel generators. For example issuing the command uptime on our colo box returns 08:01:39 up 339 days, 14:11, 3 users, load average: 0.17, 0.15, 0.08 What does the same command on your home box return?

I think you'll find my site is a bit more than a "personal site". My connection is also not "crap". As I've said I have my own /29 subnet of static addresses and I've never had an outage, swear to god. My router is a Cisco one which is rock solid and never needs rebooting.

My site has been up 24/7 for months now, with no downtime. It supports 500 user accounts at the moment and is growing steadily.

Often, dedicated servers in datacenters are unreliable because they run Linux, apache and other open source nonsense. Software like this is less reliable than software from a company and has no support when things go wrong.

Personally, I run MS Windows Server 2003 & IIS/6.0, with Coldfusion MX 6.1 and MS SQL server enterprise edition. This has proved extremely reliable so far, and as I said, having physical access to your servers is invaluable.

 

[alent1234]

Originally posted by: Eeezee
What are the problems involved with this? Would the low upload speed screw me over? Are there factors here that I'm not even seeing (probably)?

why not find a hosting provider that offers virtual servers? saves you the trouble of maintaining your own hardware

 

[nweaver]

Originally posted by: ms526


Often, dedicated servers in datacenters are unreliable because they run Linux, apache and other open source nonsense. Software like this is less reliable than software from a company and has no support when things go wrong.

Personally, I run MS Windows Server 2003 & IIS/6.0, with Coldfusion MX 6.1 and MS SQL server enterprise edition. This has proved extremely reliable so far, and as I said, having physical access to your servers is invaluable.

lol, as if we hadn't already discounted every other thing you had said...


I have found much more reliability on my Linux/Apache setup then my windows/IIS setups. Biggest reason: Patching. How often do you patch/reboot that server? I can keep my server up to date without reboots for months, and not be missing a single security patch. The only thing a reboot for is kernel patchs, not for everything under the sun. Why should you reboot your server because your webserver was patched? That's just rediculas, restart the process, and it's seamless, no one even notices it was bumped.

Again, run an uptime command on your "uber betterthenanythinganyoneelsehas" windows machine, I have a few linux machines I'd put against it (Just rebooted our samba server, it was nearing 400 days)

 

[Brazen]

Originally posted by: ms526

Originally posted by: DaiShan

Originally posted by: ms526
Just saw this on Myspace.com in an announcement posted by the admin. Seems that your datacenters are not all they're cracked up to be.

hello everyone - so there was a power outage in LA yesterday. unfortunately it directly hit the data center where myspace's servers are located. lots of people were affected and that's why myspace has been screwy since yesterday afternoon.

and a screenshot to back it up:

Screenshot

What was it you said about datacenters being immune to power outages? :roll:

Wow, what agenda are you pushing? Dedicated hosts REDUCE the chance of downtime and will PAY you if they go down. That being said, for a small personal site there is no reason to pay extra money for a dedicated host unless your ISP blocks the ports that you need. One of my clients uses a business class cable Internet plan for in office Internet connectivity and it is absolute crap. They are provided a single static IP, and at least once a week their modem needs to be restarted, and about twice a month there are more serious outtages (>30mins down time) In addition to all of this, their DNS servers are hopelessly overloaded and it usually takes 5-10 seconds to resolve sites, so I actually have to run a BIND server on our Colo box for them to use. Additionally, I don't know where MySpace hosts, but any decent data center will have automatic fail-over to diesel generators. For example issuing the command uptime on our colo box returns 08:01:39 up 339 days, 14:11, 3 users, load average: 0.17, 0.15, 0.08 What does the same command on your home box return?

I think you'll find my site is a bit more than a "personal site". My connection is also not "crap". As I've said I have my own /29 subnet of static addresses and I've never had an outage, swear to god. My router is a Cisco one which is rock solid and never needs rebooting.

My site has been up 24/7 for months now, with no downtime. It supports 500 user accounts at the moment and is growing steadily.

Often, dedicated servers in datacenters are unreliable because they run Linux, apache and other open source nonsense. Software like this is less reliable than software from a company and has no support when things go wrong.

Personally, I run MS Windows Server 2003 & IIS/6.0, with Coldfusion MX 6.1 and MS SQL server enterprise edition. This has proved extremely reliable so far, and as I said, having physical access to your servers is invaluable.

Wow, how can you fit so much stupidity in a single post? Linux/Apache/open source is unreliable?! Haven't you seen the stats for top webserver uptimes? Like 90% use Apache on *BSD or *nix.

And didn't you say a few posts back that your site has only been up a month? How has this turned into months (plural)? What is the use even acknowledging you when there is no telling what "personal experiences" you are either exaggerating or even just making up.

Mweaver, what's the use? The veterans here know you are more knowledgeable and experienced than this n00b. I'm wondering if ms526 is really Link19?

edit: I just noticed in your (ms526) other thread that you say you have a zyxel router, and now you are saying you have Cisco? You think just cuz you say you have an enterprise class router (even though you don't) will make you sound smarter? Being a n00b is no big deal, everyone starts out there, but being a lying n00b who thinks he knows more than veterans like mweaver or spidey is just the dumbest of the dumb and not worth the hassle.

 

[DaiShan]

Originally posted by: ms526


I think you'll find my site is a bit more than a "personal site". My connection is also not "crap". As I've said I have my own /29 subnet of static addresses and I've never had an outage, swear to god. My router is a Cisco one which is rock solid and never needs rebooting.

My site has been up 24/7 for months now, with no downtime. It supports 500 user accounts at the moment and is growing steadily.

Often, dedicated servers in datacenters are unreliable because they run Linux, apache and other open source nonsense. Software like this is less reliable than software from a company and has no support when things go wrong.

Personally, I run MS Windows Server 2003 & IIS/6.0, with Coldfusion MX 6.1 and MS SQL server enterprise edition. This has proved extremely reliable so far, and as I said, having physical access to your servers is invaluable.

How exactly is physical access invaluable? If I'm sitting at the computer I see the same thing on the monitor that I do through SSH, and our Hot Swapable RAID 5 system means that the box does NOT go down in the case of a drive failure, so I fail to see the benefit of physical access...

 

[ms526]

Originally posted by: Brazen

Originally posted by: ms526

Originally posted by: DaiShan

Originally posted by: ms526
Just saw this on Myspace.com in an announcement posted by the admin. Seems that your datacenters are not all they're cracked up to be.

hello everyone - so there was a power outage in LA yesterday. unfortunately it directly hit the data center where myspace's servers are located. lots of people were affected and that's why myspace has been screwy since yesterday afternoon.

and a screenshot to back it up:

Screenshot

What was it you said about datacenters being immune to power outages? :roll:

Wow, what agenda are you pushing? Dedicated hosts REDUCE the chance of downtime and will PAY you if they go down. That being said, for a small personal site there is no reason to pay extra money for a dedicated host unless your ISP blocks the ports that you need. One of my clients uses a business class cable Internet plan for in office Internet connectivity and it is absolute crap. They are provided a single static IP, and at least once a week their modem needs to be restarted, and about twice a month there are more serious outtages (>30mins down time) In addition to all of this, their DNS servers are hopelessly overloaded and it usually takes 5-10 seconds to resolve sites, so I actually have to run a BIND server on our Colo box for them to use. Additionally, I don't know where MySpace hosts, but any decent data center will have automatic fail-over to diesel generators. For example issuing the command uptime on our colo box returns 08:01:39 up 339 days, 14:11, 3 users, load average: 0.17, 0.15, 0.08 What does the same command on your home box return?

I think you'll find my site is a bit more than a "personal site". My connection is also not "crap". As I've said I have my own /29 subnet of static addresses and I've never had an outage, swear to god. My router is a Cisco one which is rock solid and never needs rebooting.

My site has been up 24/7 for months now, with no downtime. It supports 500 user accounts at the moment and is growing steadily.

Often, dedicated servers in datacenters are unreliable because they run Linux, apache and other open source nonsense. Software like this is less reliable than software from a company and has no support when things go wrong.

Personally, I run MS Windows Server 2003 & IIS/6.0, with Coldfusion MX 6.1 and MS SQL server enterprise edition. This has proved extremely reliable so far, and as I said, having physical access to your servers is invaluable.

Wow, how can you fit so much stupidity in a single post? Linux/Apache/open source is unreliable?! Haven't you seen the stats for top webserver uptimes? Like 90% use Apache on *BSD or *nix.

And didn't you say a few posts back that your site has only been up a month? How has this turned into months (plural)? What is the use even acknowledging you when there is no telling what "personal experiences" you are either exaggerating or even just making up.

Mweaver, what's the use? The veterans here know you are more knowledgeable and experienced than this n00b. I'm wondering if ms526 is really Link19?

edit: I just noticed in your (ms526) other thread that you say you have a zyxel router, and now you are saying you have Cisco? You think just cuz you say you have an enterprise class router (even though you don't) will make you sound smarter? Being a n00b is no big deal, everyone starts out there, but being a lying n00b who thinks he knows more than veterans like mweaver or spidey is just the dumbest of the dumb and not worth the hassle.

If you had taken the trouble to read my other posts, you would see that I was planning on replacing the Zyxel with a Cisco 837, so yes , I do have a Cisco router now actually. I'd post picrures of both of them but there isn't much point.

Besides, my point has already been proved. Myspace is hosted in a datacenter and that was down for hours after a simple power outage, so you're really not immune.

And yes, my site does have months of uptime. Also, When I apply updates to my IIS server the requests are redirected to a backup server so the site stays up.

 

[ms526]

Originally posted by: DaiShan

Originally posted by: ms526


I think you'll find my site is a bit more than a "personal site". My connection is also not "crap". As I've said I have my own /29 subnet of static addresses and I've never had an outage, swear to god. My router is a Cisco one which is rock solid and never needs rebooting.

My site has been up 24/7 for months now, with no downtime. It supports 500 user accounts at the moment and is growing steadily.

Often, dedicated servers in datacenters are unreliable because they run Linux, apache and other open source nonsense. Software like this is less reliable than software from a company and has no support when things go wrong.

Personally, I run MS Windows Server 2003 & IIS/6.0, with Coldfusion MX 6.1 and MS SQL server enterprise edition. This has proved extremely reliable so far, and as I said, having physical access to your servers is invaluable.

How exactly is physical access invaluable? If I'm sitting at the computer I see the same thing on the monitor that I do through SSH, and our Hot Swapable RAID 5 system means that the box does NOT go down in the case of a drive failure, so I fail to see the benefit of physical access...

O rly? What about when ALL the drives fail, or you need to access the server's BIOS? Your SSH isn't so good then, is it?

 

[ms526]

Originally posted by: alent1234

Originally posted by: Eeezee
What are the problems involved with this? Would the low upload speed screw me over? Are there factors here that I'm not even seeing (probably)?

why not find a hosting provider that offers virtual servers? saves you the trouble of maintaining your own hardware

Oh yeah, great idea!

NOT

Virtual hosting has abysmal performance in my experience. Scripted pages takes ages to be parsed due to overloaded servers and bandwidth is limited to about 2mb/s.

 

[DaiShan]

Originally posted by: ms526

Originally posted by: alent1234

Originally posted by: Eeezee
What are the problems involved with this? Would the low upload speed screw me over? Are there factors here that I'm not even seeing (probably)?

why not find a hosting provider that offers virtual servers? saves you the trouble of maintaining your own hardware

Oh yeah, great idea!

NOT

Virtual hosting has abysmal performance in my experience. Scripted pages takes ages to be parsed due to overloaded servers and bandwidth is limited to about 2mb/s.

LOL how fast is the upload on your DSL connection? You really have no clue. Also, in response to your "point" about all drives dying? So you are saying that all of the drives in my redundant array would die simultaneously? And how exactly would having physical access to the box prevent this? Finally, why do you need to go into the BIOS on a production server? As I've stated I have well over 300 days uptime, that means we do NOT take the server down to play in the BIOS. Also I just don't understand why you are in this thread arguing against valid points made by respected members to help a fellow member who asked for it? There were some good informative posts in this thread that I hope will assist the OP in making his decision.

 

[ms526]

Originally posted by: DaiShan

Originally posted by: ms526

Originally posted by: alent1234

Originally posted by: Eeezee
What are the problems involved with this? Would the low upload speed screw me over? Are there factors here that I'm not even seeing (probably)?

why not find a hosting provider that offers virtual servers? saves you the trouble of maintaining your own hardware

Oh yeah, great idea!

NOT

Virtual hosting has abysmal performance in my experience. Scripted pages takes ages to be parsed due to overloaded servers and bandwidth is limited to about 2mb/s.

LOL how fast is the upload on your DSL connection? You really have no clue. Also, in response to your "point" about all drives dying? So you are saying that all of the drives in my redundant array would die simultaneously? And how exactly would having physical access to the box prevent this? Finally, why do you need to go into the BIOS on a production server? As I've stated I have well over 300 days uptime, that means we do NOT take the server down to play in the BIOS. Also I just don't understand why you are in this thread arguing against valid points made by respected members to help a fellow member who asked for it? There were some good informative posts in this thread that I hope will assist the OP in making his decision.

I'm quite aware of the upload speed of my DSL connection, which is why I have a business connection so it is faster than most, and I don't need someone using AOL speak to tell me that (LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL, AOL user). Besides, DSL is a fairly temporary solution. A 10 or 100MB/s symmetrical leased line to my house will be the long term plan.

You conveniently avoided the fact that webhosts overload their servers on shared plans, and the parse time for scripted pages is just a joke.

Also, I was referring to when you need to replace them. You'll have to actually physically work on that server at some point, hardware does not last forever and when it does fail you'll have to go out their and fix it, which will likely cause significant downtime. I, On the other hand, can simply switch to backup servers while I repair it, meaning less downtime for my site.

Also, what about getting large files onto your server? I can just send them from my desktop to the webserver across a 100mb/s network, where you are limited to using FTP which I'm sure will take forever on that notoriously slow upload speed.

 

[ms526]

As a side note, It's likely that a lot of you people that are against me are merely jealous of the fact that I'm not being controlled by my ISP.

My ISP doesn't block any ports, doesn't traffic shape, and doesn't use proxies. They offer upto 16 static IP address and have no problem with people using their connection to the full, and that includes running whatever type of server I choose.

 

[DaiShan]

Originally posted by: ms526

Originally posted by: DaiShan

Originally posted by: ms526

Originally posted by: alent1234

Originally posted by: Eeezee
What are the problems involved with this? Would the low upload speed screw me over? Are there factors here that I'm not even seeing (probably)?

why not find a hosting provider that offers virtual servers? saves you the trouble of maintaining your own hardware

Oh yeah, great idea!

NOT

Virtual hosting has abysmal performance in my experience. Scripted pages takes ages to be parsed due to overloaded servers and bandwidth is limited to about 2mb/s.

LOL how fast is the upload on your DSL connection? You really have no clue. Also, in response to your "point" about all drives dying? So you are saying that all of the drives in my redundant array would die simultaneously? And how exactly would having physical access to the box prevent this? Finally, why do you need to go into the BIOS on a production server? As I've stated I have well over 300 days uptime, that means we do NOT take the server down to play in the BIOS. Also I just don't understand why you are in this thread arguing against valid points made by respected members to help a fellow member who asked for it? There were some good informative posts in this thread that I hope will assist the OP in making his decision.

I'm quite aware of the upload speed of my DSL connection, which is why I have a business connection so it is faster than most, and I don't need someone using AOL speak to tell me that (LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL, AOL user). Besides, DSL is a fairly temporary solution. A 10 or 100MB/s symmetrical leased line to my house will be the long term plan.

You conveniently avoided the fact that webhosts overload their servers on shared plans, and the parse time for scripted pages is just a joke.

Also, I was referring to when you need to replace them. You'll have to actually physically work on that server at some point, hardware does not last forever and when it does fail you'll have to go out their and fix it, which will likely cause significant downtime. I, On the other hand, can simply switch to backup servers while I repair it, meaning less downtime for my site.

Also, what about getting large files onto your server? I can just send them from my desktop to the webserver across a 100mb/s network, where you are limited to using FTP which I'm sure will take forever on that notoriously slow upload speed.

You are not comparing apples to apples. You say that shared web hosts are notoriously overloaded, I will not contest this fact, however for $115 a month you can get a 100mbit port on a dedicated server with root. This includes an SLA, something which I noticed your DSL provider does not offer on their DSL packages. I just thought that it was a bit ironic that you were bashing a 2mbit upload speed for a shared web host when that is the fastest SDSL plan that your provider offers. Additionally we have a 10mbit full duplex ethernet connection in the office, so sending web page files to our colo is not a problem. Finally, if a drive goes bad I'm immediately notified by our RAID management software and I simply have one of the NOC personnel at the data center replace the drive. We incur no downtime and no additional costs. Good luck with your 100mbit connection, I'm sure that's going to be economically feasible for a web site with 500 users... Anyways this thread has gotten way off track, so I apologize OP, I'll stop hijacking 🙂

 

[jlazzaro]

Originally posted by: ms526

As a side note, It's likely that a lot of you people that are against me are merely jealous of the fact that I'm not being controlled by my ISP.

wow, you hit the nail on the head. every single one of your erroneous statements were uterly shot down because we are jealous of your isp. ignorance is bliss eh?

 

[ms526]

This includes an SLA, something which I noticed your DSL provider does not offer on their DSL packages.

I can just imagine you scanning their site, looking desperately for somewhere where it says you can't run webservers to get one over on me. Sorry buddy, no dice eh?

I simply have one of the NOC personnel at the data center replace the drive.

You would trust some asshole you didn't know to touch your server? This is exactly why I want my servers at my house, so they can't be tampered with by inexperienced people. What if your datacenter unknowingly hires a rogue employee who decides to wipe your drives or steal your hardware? Plus, NOc personnel won't know the precise setup and configuration of the server as well as you will.

Besides, all of your arguments are completely pointless. Not one of your points have made me think it would be a good idea to banish my server to a datacenter. I will always host my sites from my house, and there is nothing on earth that you can do about it.

 

[ms526]

$115 a month you can get a 100mbit port on a dedicated server with root.

From the mention of "root" I presume this server would be running Linux/Unix. This is another reason why I much prefer to host my own sites, I hate Linux with a passion, and the same goes for most open source crap, particularly PHP and Perl. Ever noticed that all high traffic commercial sites run ASP or Coldfsuion?, and not Perl or PHP. Supports my point really.

 

[Pulsar]

MS526, is english your first language? I ask, because in reading your posts it appears it is not.

Your first post quoted someone pointing out that most people have dynamic IP's, which is absolutely true, and then somehow transformed that into all the folks here being "presumptious assholes" because you think they're saying this guy needs a data center - WHICH THEY AREN'T.

For your information, dyndns is NOT a data center - which is something you don't seem to grasp. It simply handles changing a dynamic IP to a static so a DNS can resolve your computer at home.

In fact, YOU'RE the one who brought up data centers in the first place. All the posters to that point had simply been answering questions in a VERY helpful manner.

You then proceeded to try to prove how big your e-peen is.
You assumed everyone here was going to tell him why it "couldn't be done" - which they didn't. You then told him to ignore the people whom he came here and asked for help.

You then assumed that your experience represents the world's experience as a whole and that data centers suck. Which they don't.

Then you posted factually incorrect information. Most people do NOT pay for bandwidth. They pay for speed. If you were to download 24 hours 7 days a week, ISP's here in the states WILL cut you off.

You then somehow assume that an 80 dollar UPS is the equivalent of a data center's multiple backups and redundent trunks to the internet. Which it is not.

Then you state you are on a business class connection. The original poster is on a CABLE connection in the states, which means it IS dynamic IP, it IS bandwidth monitored, and 80% likely there IS something in the Terms of Service saying he can't run a server.

Then you quoted Daishan as saying your "personal site" - which he didn't say. You then state that he says your connection is crap - which he didn't. Then you make a blanket statement regarding how open source software is unreliable, which it isn't.

Then, in a very nast post you are a sarcastic ass when someone suggests a very valid solution that works for many people - virtual servers.

You also dated yourself. LOL is not AOL user speak. In fact, it was used in newsgroups about 10 years before AOL when mosaic and lynx were the "in" thing, and when "RN" got you about the best news reader going.

Finally, to top it off, you suggest that most of us are jealous of you because of your setup. I hate to break it you but in the people who responded I see no less than 4 major business class PROVIDERS talking. Not some small office home network folks.

Then you go into some truly insane arguments about a datacenter hiring a "rogue" employee.

The only point you have proven is that you are truly an arrogant ass who deserves to be banned for both your manner and your responses. There wasn't an ounce of hostility or misinformation in this thread until you came here and started spewing venom about all the things you hate and all the presumptious assholes.

 

[cleverhandle]

Originally posted by: ms526
As a side note, It's likely that a lot of you people that are against me are merely jealous of the fact that I'm not being controlled by my ISP.

No, we're against you because you're an idiot.

My ISP doesn't block any ports, doesn't traffic shape, and doesn't use proxies. They offer upto 16 static IP address and have no problem with people using their connection to the full, and that includes running whatever type of server I choose.

My ISP doesn't restrict my usage either and I have servers happily running at home on a /29, over a business-class DSL connection just like you. But I'm not going to argue that it's a substitute for a datacenter, nor would I even allow friends of mine to host a service on my connection before they understand that.

Get over yourself. You are not the god of networking because you host a webserver at home on a static IP block.

 

[440sixpack]

Originally posted by: LsDPulsar

The only point you have proven is that you are truly an arrogant ass who deserves to be banned for both your manner and your responses. There wasn't an ounce of hostility or misinformation in this thread until you came here and started spewing venom about all the things you hate and all the presumptious assholes.

QFT 😉

 

[ms526]

Originally posted by: LsDPulsar
MS526, is english your first language? I ask, because in reading your posts it appears it is not.

My posts are just as concise and understandable, if not more so, than yours.

Your first post quoted someone pointing out that most people have dynamic IP's, which is absolutely true

I'm not debating that, but I don't think that's a good thing either. For too long now, ISPs have patronised and belittled their customers and dumbed down the internet. Just my opinion though.

For your information, dyndns is NOT a data center - which is something you don't seem to grasp. It simply handles changing a dynamic IP to a static so a DNS can resolve your computer at home.

I know exactly what dyndns is, having used it myself at some point in the past.

You then assumed that your experience represents the world's experience as a whole and that data centers suck. Which they don't.

I didn't say that. For sites like Youtube and Myspace, which consume enormous amounts of bandwidth, it is essential. But for many sites, even large, busy ones, it can be done reliably from your own premises.

Then you posted factually incorrect information. Most people do NOT pay for bandwidth. They pay for speed. If you were to download 24 hours 7 days a week, ISP's here in the states WILL cut you off.

What's the use in speed without bandwidth? To transfer any data, you need to use bandwidth to do so.

You then somehow assume that an 80 dollar UPS is the equivalent of a data center's multiple backups and redundent trunks to the internet. Which it is not.

Why do you assume that my setup is so unreliable? You have no idea. My setup has been running flawlessly for months now with zero downtime. Also, where I live, Power + Internet outages are not an issue. I'm not saying I'm immune, I'm just giving you the truth. There has not been any significant power outages since before I was born, and since getting DSL it has never failed once.

Datacenters aren't immune either. Look what happened to Myspace the other day, they were down for almost a whole day, despite their "redundant backups" and "multiple trunks to the internet".

 

[Brazen]

Originally posted by: ms526
Why do you assume that my setup is so unreliable? You have no idea. My setup has been running flawlessly for months now with zero downtime. Also, where I live, Power + Internet outages are not an issue. I'm not saying I'm immune, I'm just giving you the truth. There has not been any significant power outages since before I was born, and since getting DSL it has never failed once.

Datacenters aren't immune either. Look what happened to Myspace the other day, they were down for almost a whole day, despite their "redundant backups" and "multiple trunks to the internet".

I still don't see how you went from saying you had a month uptime to multiple months in just a few days.

I also don't see how you managed to stay up when you replaced your only router.

It's apparent that everything you say is BS. :disgust: