Bluehost.com

Thu Nov 26 00:00:37 UTC 2015

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