Bluehost.com

Wed Nov 25 23:23:17 UTC 2015

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.
> >> >
> >>
> >
>
>
>