Bluehost.com

Thu Nov 26 00:42:22 UTC 2015

However, with thousands more users at that price point, you would think the 
income would be plenty for better services.

Who makes more, the store with smaller quantities at higher prices or the 
store that sells more bulk at lower prices? Perception of value, I believe, 
wins.

Robert

On Wed, 25 Nov 2015 16:00:37 -0800
  "Bob Evans" <bob at FiberInternetCenter.com> wrote:
> 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 
>><bob at 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 <joesox at 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
>>> >> <bortzmeyer at nic.fr>
>>> >> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> > On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 08:41:55AM -0800,
>>> >> >  JoeSox <joesox at 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.
>>> >> >
>>> >>
>>> >
>>>
>>>