Yes, I agree with you Joe - a hasty generalization, as "you get what you pay for" doesn't really apply to as many goods in the same way it does to almost all services. However, a $3.49 web site service should have be a good first clue.
Thank You Bob Evans CTO > Walmart has cheap prices so "you get what you pay for."?? > Hasty generalization but I can't disagree 100% with your opinion on this > one. > I am learning about the non-profit world of IT and the challenges are all > around me. :) > > -- > Later, Joe > > On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 12:27 PM, Bob Evans <b...@fiberinternetcenter.com> > wrote: > >> >> Gee, for $3.49 for a website hosting per month , it's a real bargain. >> While the network person inside me says, Wow that's a long outage. The >> other part of me is really wondering what one thinks they can really >> expect from a company that hosts a website for just $3.49 ? Such a >> bargain at less than 1/2 the price of a single hot dog at a baseball >> stadium per month. That price point alone tells you about the setup and >> what you are agreeing too and who it's built for. Goes along with the >> ol' >> saying, "you get what you pay for." >> >> If they are down for 10 hours a month out of the average 720 hours in a >> month - thats a tiny percentage 1-2 of the time it's unavailable - in >> service terms of dollars it's roughly a nickel they credit each >> customer. >> Do I need more coffee or is my math wrong about a nickel for 10 hours of >> website hosing ? >> >> However, maybe that is all many companies /sites really need. In which >> case, it should be easy enough to build in backup yourself using two >> cheap >> hosing providers and flip between them when the need arises. Or pick a >> provider that manages their routing well and works with you quickly, >> but, >> you'll have to pay more for that. >> >> Yep, the math spells it out - "you get what you pay for." >> >> Thank You >> Bob Evans >> CTO >> >> >> >> >> > remember folks, redundancy is the savior of all f***ups. >> > >> > :) >> > >> > On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 2:21 PM, JoeSox <joe...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> >> I just waited 160 minutes for a tech call and the Bluehost tech told >> me >> >> he >> >> was able to confirm that it wasn't malicious activity that took down >> the >> >> datacenter but rather it was caused by a "datacenter issue". >> >> So my first thought is someone didn't design the topology correctly >> or >> >> something. >> >> Some of our emails are coming thru but Google DNS still lost all of >> our >> >> DNS >> >> zones which are hosted by Bluehost. >> >> At least the #bluehostdown is fun to read :/ >> >> -- >> >> Later, Joe >> >> >> >> On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 10:04 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer >> >> <bortzme...@nic.fr> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> > On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 08:41:55AM -0800, >> >> > JoeSox <joe...@gmail.com> wrote >> >> > a message of 9 lines which said: >> >> > >> >> > > Anyone have the scope on the outage for Bluehost? >> >> > > https://twitter.com/search?q=%23bluehostdown&src=tyah >> >> > >> >> > The two name servers ns1.bluehost.com and ns2.bluehost.com are >> awfully >> >> > slow to respond: >> >> > >> >> > % check-soa -i picturemotion.com >> >> > ns1.bluehost.com. >> >> > 74.220.195.31: OK: 2012092007 (1382 ms) >> >> > ns2.bluehost.com. >> >> > 69.89.16.4: OK: 2012092007 (1388 ms) >> >> > >> >> > As a result, most clients timeout. >> >> > >> >> > May be a DoS against the name servers? >> >> > >> >> > bluehost.com itself is DNS-hosted on a completely different >> >> > architecture. So it works fine. But the nginx Web site replies 502 >> >> > Gateway timeout, probably overloaded by all the clients trying to >> get >> >> > informed. >> >> > >> >> > The Twitter accounts of Bluehost do not distribute any useful >> >> > information. >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> >
