Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.electronics.design > #445055 > unrolled thread

I Mean It This Time

Back to article view | Back to sci.electronics.design

Contents

  I Mean It This Time rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-01-27 15:14 -0500
    Re: I Mean It This Time M Philbrook <jamie_ka1lpa@charter.net> - 2017-01-27 18:26 -0500
      Re: I Mean It This Time dplatt@coop.radagast.org (Dave Platt) - 2017-01-27 16:27 -0800
        Re: I Mean It This Time rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-01-27 19:42 -0500
        Re: I Mean It This Time Neon John <no@never.com> - 2017-01-28 11:00 -0500
          Re: I Mean It This Time rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-01-28 14:46 -0500
            Re: I Mean It This Time John Devereux <john@devereux.me.uk> - 2017-01-28 21:21 +0000
              Re: I Mean It This Time rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-01-28 21:59 -0500
                Re: I Mean It This Time John Devereux <john@devereux.me.uk> - 2017-01-29 09:01 +0000
                Re: I Mean It This Time dplatt@coop.radagast.org (Dave Platt) - 2017-01-29 10:00 -0800
                  Re: I Mean It This Time David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-01-30 10:29 +0100
          Re: I Mean It This Time rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-15 01:00 -0500
            Re: I Mean It This Time Winfield Hill <hill@rowland.harvard.edu> - 2017-02-15 04:06 -0800
              Re: I Mean It This Time rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-15 19:45 -0500
                Re: I Mean It This Time Winfield Hill <hill@rowland.harvard.edu> - 2017-02-15 19:40 -0800
                  Re: I Mean It This Time rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-15 23:02 -0500
                    Re: I Mean It This Time Winfield Hill <hill@rowland.harvard.edu> - 2017-02-16 05:18 -0800
                      Re: I Mean It This Time rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-16 09:02 -0500
                        Re: I Mean It This Time Winfield Hill <hill@rowland.harvard.edu> - 2017-02-16 09:47 -0800
                          Re: I Mean It This Time rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-16 17:03 -0500
                            Re: I Mean It This Time Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2017-02-17 04:43 +1100
                              Re: I Mean It This Time rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-16 17:30 -0500
                                Re: I Mean It This Time Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2017-02-17 06:42 +1100
        Re: I Mean It This Time Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-01-28 09:24 -0700
        Re: I Mean It This Time rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-15 22:57 -0500
    Re: I Mean It This Time Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2017-01-28 11:03 +0000
      Re: I Mean It This Time rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-01-28 14:46 -0500
    Re: I Mean It This Time klaus.kragelund@gmail.com - 2017-01-30 14:22 -0800
      Re: I Mean It This Time rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-15 01:24 -0500
    Re: I Mean It This Time Winfield Hill <hill@rowland.harvard.edu> - 2017-01-31 05:41 -0800

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#445055 — I Mean It This Time

My web hosting provider limits outgoing emails on an account to 100 per 
hour.  That might sound like plenty... but it includes *all* outbound 
emails.  So if you are hosting a email list with 101 members, only the 
first 100 receive their email.

Even worse is any of your incoming emails that are redirected to another 
email account bounce sending a notice back to the sender.  A terrible, 
terrible way to do email.  Very sad.

They can open the pipe for me if I pay for a dedicated IP address, $36 a 
year.

So I am finally going to jump ship.  Anyone care to share their 
recommendations for web hosting providers?

I need an account with unmetered service, unlimited domain names and 
uses Cpanel.  Pricing should be no more than $5 a month.  I'm paying 
about $45 a year with a three year agreement.

-- 

Rick C

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#445087

In article <o6g9jb$n9e$1@dont-email.me>, gnuarm@gmail.com says...
> 
> My web hosting provider limits outgoing emails on an account to 100 per 
> hour.  That might sound like plenty... but it includes *all* outbound 
> emails.  So if you are hosting a email list with 101 members, only the 
> first 100 receive their email.
> 
> Even worse is any of your incoming emails that are redirected to another 
> email account bounce sending a notice back to the sender.  A terrible, 
> terrible way to do email.  Very sad.
> 
> They can open the pipe for me if I pay for a dedicated IP address, $36 a 
> year.
> 
> So I am finally going to jump ship.  Anyone care to share their 
> recommendations for web hosting providers?
> 
> I need an account with unmetered service, unlimited domain names and 
> uses Cpanel.  Pricing should be no more than $5 a month.  I'm paying 
> about $45 a year with a three year agreement.

How cheap can you be? It sounds like they already are giving you a lot 
more for the money, and you want more for less.

 If I didn't know any better, and I most likely don't, i'd say you must
be one of those Lefty Democrats!

 What is wrong with your ass?

Jamie

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#445096

In article <MPG.32f5a12d49996555989ffe@news.eternal-september.org>,
M Philbrook  <jamie_ka1lpa@charter.net> wrote:

>> Even worse is any of your incoming emails that are redirected to another 
>> email account bounce sending a notice back to the sender.  A terrible, 
>> terrible way to do email.  Very sad.
>> 
>> They can open the pipe for me if I pay for a dedicated IP address, $36 a 
>> year.
>> 
>> So I am finally going to jump ship.  Anyone care to share their 
>> recommendations for web hosting providers?
>> 
>> I need an account with unmetered service, unlimited domain names and 
>> uses Cpanel.  Pricing should be no more than $5 a month.  I'm paying 
>> about $45 a year with a three year agreement.
>
>How cheap can you be? It sounds like they already are giving you a lot 
>more for the money, and you want more for less.

Those prices don't seem at all unreasonable, from what I know of the
market.

The next step up is probably to buy a VPS "slice", and run your own
operating-system installation and whatever web, mail, and domain
software suits your fancy.  There seem to be quite a few providers in
the $10/month range, and a few less than that.  Taking this approach
should give you more flexibility and bandwidth, at a slightly higher
economic cost, and the need to administer the system yourself.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#445097

On 1/27/2017 7:27 PM, Dave Platt wrote:
> In article <MPG.32f5a12d49996555989ffe@news.eternal-september.org>,
> M Philbrook  <jamie_ka1lpa@charter.net> wrote:
>
>>> Even worse is any of your incoming emails that are redirected to another
>>> email account bounce sending a notice back to the sender.  A terrible,
>>> terrible way to do email.  Very sad.
>>>
>>> They can open the pipe for me if I pay for a dedicated IP address, $36 a
>>> year.
>>>
>>> So I am finally going to jump ship.  Anyone care to share their
>>> recommendations for web hosting providers?
>>>
>>> I need an account with unmetered service, unlimited domain names and
>>> uses Cpanel.  Pricing should be no more than $5 a month.  I'm paying
>>> about $45 a year with a three year agreement.
>>
>> How cheap can you be? It sounds like they already are giving you a lot
>> more for the money, and you want more for less.
>
> Those prices don't seem at all unreasonable, from what I know of the
> market.
>
> The next step up is probably to buy a VPS "slice", and run your own
> operating-system installation and whatever web, mail, and domain
> software suits your fancy.  There seem to be quite a few providers in
> the $10/month range, and a few less than that.  Taking this approach
> should give you more flexibility and bandwidth, at a slightly higher
> economic cost, and the need to administer the system yourself.

I've had a number of problems with them over the years.  One of the more 
serious was when they wanted their customers to switch from Plesk to 
Cpanel they offered to help you convert your stuff.  They made a hash 
out of mine because the email accounts and forwards aren't handled the 
same way.  So I hung back my account while they moved the other accounts 
under my hosting to the Cpanel server.  Some time later *without* 
warning, they moved my account to a Cpanel server.  They claim to have 
sent an email, but it never arrived.  Now my email was a total mess and 
the original Plesk account was deleted so I couldn't even see what they 
had done.

Then to top it off, the remaining few accounts on the Plesk server got 
moved to a *different* server than the other accounts.  So now I have 
two control accounts on two servers.  When I need support they 
constantly mix up which server I am talking about.

The most recent issue of limiting outbound emails has been a problem for 
some time now.  So rather than pay them more money until they find 
something else to screw up, I want to find a better provider.

I don't have a problem with the price, I think the price is good.  But I 
don't feel I get good support, even for that price.

-- 

Rick C

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#445148

On Fri, 27 Jan 2017 16:27:40 -0800, dplatt@coop.radagast.org (Dave
Platt) wrote:


>The next step up is probably to buy a VPS "slice", and run your own
>operating-system installation and whatever web, mail, and domain
>software suits your fancy.  There seem to be quite a few providers in
>the $10/month range, and a few less than that.  Taking this approach
>should give you more flexibility and bandwidth, at a slightly higher
>economic cost, and the need to administer the system yourself.

I join the commenters who say you're too cheap.  If you decide to
move, I can heartily recommend dreamhost.com.  $9.95 a month for a
virtual private server with unlimited bandwidth and disk space.  They
do not use cpanel and instead rolled their very much better control
panel of their own.  Super tech support.  I've been there about 10
years and have never had a complaint.

John

John DeArmond
http://www.neon-john.com
http://www.tnduction.com 
Tellico Plains, Occupied TN
See website for email address

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#445168

On 1/28/2017 11:00 AM, Neon John wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Jan 2017 16:27:40 -0800, dplatt@coop.radagast.org (Dave
> Platt) wrote:
>
>
>> The next step up is probably to buy a VPS "slice", and run your own
>> operating-system installation and whatever web, mail, and domain
>> software suits your fancy.  There seem to be quite a few providers in
>> the $10/month range, and a few less than that.  Taking this approach
>> should give you more flexibility and bandwidth, at a slightly higher
>> economic cost, and the need to administer the system yourself.
>
> I join the commenters who say you're too cheap.  If you decide to
> move, I can heartily recommend dreamhost.com.  $9.95 a month for a
> virtual private server with unlimited bandwidth and disk space.  They
> do not use cpanel and instead rolled their very much better control
> panel of their own.  Super tech support.  I've been there about 10
> years and have never had a complaint.

By "virtual" private server that means a not private server?

I prefer Cpanel partly so I don't need to come up a learning curve, but 
mostly I expect it will make the porting easier.

-- 

Rick C

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#445175

rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> writes:

> On 1/28/2017 11:00 AM, Neon John wrote:
>> On Fri, 27 Jan 2017 16:27:40 -0800, dplatt@coop.radagast.org (Dave
>> Platt) wrote:
>>
>>
>>> The next step up is probably to buy a VPS "slice", and run your own
>>> operating-system installation and whatever web, mail, and domain
>>> software suits your fancy.  There seem to be quite a few providers in
>>> the $10/month range, and a few less than that.  Taking this approach
>>> should give you more flexibility and bandwidth, at a slightly higher
>>> economic cost, and the need to administer the system yourself.
>>
>> I join the commenters who say you're too cheap.  If you decide to
>> move, I can heartily recommend dreamhost.com.  $9.95 a month for a
>> virtual private server with unlimited bandwidth and disk space.  They
>> do not use cpanel and instead rolled their very much better control
>> panel of their own.  Super tech support.  I've been there about 10
>> years and have never had a complaint.
>
> By "virtual" private server that means a not private server?

It means it is running under some kind of VM or sandboxing. Which they
pretty much all are AFAICT. I.e., you don't generally get your own
personal piece of hardware dedicated to you.



>
> I prefer Cpanel partly so I don't need to come up a learning curve,
> but mostly I expect it will make the porting easier.

-- 

John Devereux

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#445189

On 1/28/2017 4:21 PM, John Devereux wrote:
> rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On 1/28/2017 11:00 AM, Neon John wrote:
>>> On Fri, 27 Jan 2017 16:27:40 -0800, dplatt@coop.radagast.org (Dave
>>> Platt) wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> The next step up is probably to buy a VPS "slice", and run your own
>>>> operating-system installation and whatever web, mail, and domain
>>>> software suits your fancy.  There seem to be quite a few providers in
>>>> the $10/month range, and a few less than that.  Taking this approach
>>>> should give you more flexibility and bandwidth, at a slightly higher
>>>> economic cost, and the need to administer the system yourself.
>>>
>>> I join the commenters who say you're too cheap.  If you decide to
>>> move, I can heartily recommend dreamhost.com.  $9.95 a month for a
>>> virtual private server with unlimited bandwidth and disk space.  They
>>> do not use cpanel and instead rolled their very much better control
>>> panel of their own.  Super tech support.  I've been there about 10
>>> years and have never had a complaint.
>>
>> By "virtual" private server that means a not private server?
>
> It means it is running under some kind of VM or sandboxing. Which they
> pretty much all are AFAICT. I.e., you don't generally get your own
> personal piece of hardware dedicated to you.

I've never heard it referred to as "virtual" private.  I've always seen 
"shared".  Is that like a "previously owned" car rather than a "used" one?

-- 

Rick C

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#445201

rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> writes:

> On 1/28/2017 4:21 PM, John Devereux wrote:
>> rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 1/28/2017 11:00 AM, Neon John wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 27 Jan 2017 16:27:40 -0800, dplatt@coop.radagast.org (Dave
>>>> Platt) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> The next step up is probably to buy a VPS "slice", and run your own
>>>>> operating-system installation and whatever web, mail, and domain
>>>>> software suits your fancy.  There seem to be quite a few providers in
>>>>> the $10/month range, and a few less than that.  Taking this approach
>>>>> should give you more flexibility and bandwidth, at a slightly higher
>>>>> economic cost, and the need to administer the system yourself.
>>>>
>>>> I join the commenters who say you're too cheap.  If you decide to
>>>> move, I can heartily recommend dreamhost.com.  $9.95 a month for a
>>>> virtual private server with unlimited bandwidth and disk space.  They
>>>> do not use cpanel and instead rolled their very much better control
>>>> panel of their own.  Super tech support.  I've been there about 10
>>>> years and have never had a complaint.
>>>
>>> By "virtual" private server that means a not private server?
>>
>> It means it is running under some kind of VM or sandboxing. Which they
>> pretty much all are AFAICT. I.e., you don't generally get your own
>> personal piece of hardware dedicated to you.
>
> I've never heard it referred to as "virtual" private.  I've always
> seen "shared".  Is that like a "previously owned" car rather than a
> "used" one?

Well you could also get an account on an actual shared server, where you
had your own login name and password. I remember one such ~20 years ago
used for our company web server, you could list all the other users
"home" folders just with  'ls /home'.

These days while the hardware can still be shared, you can rent your own
VM and put whatever you want on it.


-- 

John Devereux

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#445224

In article <o6jlo0$eh0$2@dont-email.me>, rickman  <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:

>I've never heard it referred to as "virtual" private.  I've always seen 
>"shared".  Is that like a "previously owned" car rather than a "used" one?

No, I think there's a difference in meaning.

A "shared" server usually means one in which your domain, and Web
service, and mail, are running alongside others in a single copy of an
operating system environment, running on a single server (which
probably has multiple CPU cores and disks).  There's a single
installed copy of the web-server software, email server, etc.  If the
software on the system is upgraded, the upgrade applies to all of the
users on the shared system in the same way.

In effect, you have a user account (capable of handing multiple web
domains and email addresses) on that shared server.

The next step would be "blade" servers - multiple, physically small
servers (each with its own disk and CPU and memory), running side by
side in the same rack space which might have been used by a single
larger "shared" server.  With blades, each blade runs its own
operating system image from its own disk, with its own CPUs - two
adjacent blades can be running entirely separate operating systems.

Now, the "virtual" part.  Install a higher-end server whose hardware
has "virtualization" support - it can split up its memory and set of
CPUs so that they look like a bunch of smaller memory banks and CPU
sets.  It can intercept I/O operations going to the disk and the
network interface, and (as with memory and CPU) make them "look like"
a bunch of smaller disks, and a set of independent network interfaces.

Once you have this, you can "divide" a single larger server, into what
appears for most purposes as a bunch of smaller, independent servers
(often known as "slices").  Each one boots its own operating system
image (which can be different for different slices), has its own set
of applications installed, its own "network interface" with a unique
Ethernet and IP address, and is administered separately.  The slices
don't all have to be the same size.  It's a lot like running on a
small blade server, except that the "slices" are virtualized portions
of a single larger server rather than being physically-separate
devices. 

This approach means that you don't need N separate power supplies, or
disks, or motherboards, to support N different slices running as N
different host systems.  It's also usually possible to "migrate" a
slice from one VM-host computer to another without loss (and sometimes
without disruption of service - "live" migration).  If the server your
slice is running on needs to be service or upgraded, the data center
migrates your slice to another host and you stay on the air.

It's the approach I've been using for the last 3.5 years.  I retired
my stand-alone server, and bought a virtual "slice" on a server run by
a local cooperative group (I just helped them move to a new data
center yesterday).  For under $100 a year I get what behaves like a 3
GHz CPU, 1 gig of RAM, 24 gigs of disk, my own IP address, and more
net bandwidth than I need.

Of course, since it's my own personal Linux install, I have to
maintain it myself, and fix any (non-hardware-related) problems which
may occur.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#445284

On 29/01/17 19:00, Dave Platt wrote:
> In article <o6jlo0$eh0$2@dont-email.me>, rickman  <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> I've never heard it referred to as "virtual" private.  I've always seen 
>> "shared".  Is that like a "previously owned" car rather than a "used" one?
> 
> No, I think there's a difference in meaning.
> 
> A "shared" server usually means one in which your domain, and Web
> service, and mail, are running alongside others in a single copy of an
> operating system environment, running on a single server (which
> probably has multiple CPU cores and disks).  There's a single
> installed copy of the web-server software, email server, etc.  If the
> software on the system is upgraded, the upgrade applies to all of the
> users on the shared system in the same way.
> 
> In effect, you have a user account (capable of handing multiple web
> domains and email addresses) on that shared server.
> 
> The next step would be "blade" servers - multiple, physically small
> servers (each with its own disk and CPU and memory), running side by
> side in the same rack space which might have been used by a single
> larger "shared" server.  With blades, each blade runs its own
> operating system image from its own disk, with its own CPUs - two
> adjacent blades can be running entirely separate operating systems.
> 
> Now, the "virtual" part.  Install a higher-end server whose hardware
> has "virtualization" support - it can split up its memory and set of
> CPUs so that they look like a bunch of smaller memory banks and CPU
> sets.  It can intercept I/O operations going to the disk and the
> network interface, and (as with memory and CPU) make them "look like"
> a bunch of smaller disks, and a set of independent network interfaces.
> 
> Once you have this, you can "divide" a single larger server, into what
> appears for most purposes as a bunch of smaller, independent servers
> (often known as "slices").  Each one boots its own operating system
> image (which can be different for different slices), has its own set
> of applications installed, its own "network interface" with a unique
> Ethernet and IP address, and is administered separately.  The slices
> don't all have to be the same size.  It's a lot like running on a
> small blade server, except that the "slices" are virtualized portions
> of a single larger server rather than being physically-separate
> devices. 
> 
> This approach means that you don't need N separate power supplies, or
> disks, or motherboards, to support N different slices running as N
> different host systems.  It's also usually possible to "migrate" a
> slice from one VM-host computer to another without loss (and sometimes
> without disruption of service - "live" migration).  If the server your
> slice is running on needs to be service or upgraded, the data center
> migrates your slice to another host and you stay on the air.
> 
> It's the approach I've been using for the last 3.5 years.  I retired
> my stand-alone server, and bought a virtual "slice" on a server run by
> a local cooperative group (I just helped them move to a new data
> center yesterday).  For under $100 a year I get what behaves like a 3
> GHz CPU, 1 gig of RAM, 24 gigs of disk, my own IP address, and more
> net bandwidth than I need.
> 
> Of course, since it's my own personal Linux install, I have to
> maintain it myself, and fix any (non-hardware-related) problems which
> may occur.
> 

There is another level of virtualisation that you are missing here,
"containers".  There each "container" has its own namespace, process
space, users, filesystem area, and networking space.  But they all run
on the same OS kernel, and share memory, cpu resources, etc.  This is
far cheaper than full OS virtualisation because you don't need to
dedicate any ram or other hardware resources to particular virtual
machines, and it is more efficient in use because there is no need for
any sort of I/O interception.  But like virtual servers, each container
can have its own IP address, and its own software.  "Docker" is the
popular version of containers, but they've been around for a decade at
least (and the more limited "chroot jail" is many decades old).

However, for the price in question here, he is much more likely to get
name-based hosting on a single large Apache installation.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#447716

On 1/28/2017 11:00 AM, Neon John wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Jan 2017 16:27:40 -0800, dplatt@coop.radagast.org (Dave
> Platt) wrote:
>
>
>> The next step up is probably to buy a VPS "slice", and run your own
>> operating-system installation and whatever web, mail, and domain
>> software suits your fancy.  There seem to be quite a few providers in
>> the $10/month range, and a few less than that.  Taking this approach
>> should give you more flexibility and bandwidth, at a slightly higher
>> economic cost, and the need to administer the system yourself.
>
> I join the commenters who say you're too cheap.  If you decide to
> move, I can heartily recommend dreamhost.com.  $9.95 a month for a
> virtual private server with unlimited bandwidth and disk space.  They
> do not use cpanel and instead rolled their very much better control
> panel of their own.  Super tech support.  I've been there about 10
> years and have never had a complaint.

I checked out dreamhost.com and they are $15 a month for a VPS which I 
don't need.  I just need a reseller account which it is not clear that 
they offer.  But thanks for the pointer.

-- 

Rick C

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#447726

rickman wrote...
>
>I checked out dreamhost.com and they are $15 a month for a VPS which I 
>don't need.  I just need a reseller account which it is not clear that 
>they offer.  But thanks for the pointer.

 Let me repeat my suggestion, Pair Networks,
 pair.com   A no-nonsense provider since 1995.
 They're located in Pittsburgh, a no-nonsense
 get-the-job-done city.  Low cost, and
 thoroughly competent.


-- 
 Thanks,
    - Win

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#447808

On 2/15/2017 7:06 AM, Winfield Hill wrote:
> rickman wrote...
>>
>> I checked out dreamhost.com and they are $15 a month for a VPS which I
>> don't need.  I just need a reseller account which it is not clear that
>> they offer.  But thanks for the pointer.
>
>  Let me repeat my suggestion, Pair Networks,
>  pair.com   A no-nonsense provider since 1995.
>  They're located in Pittsburgh, a no-nonsense
>  get-the-job-done city.  Low cost, and
>  thoroughly competent.

I am looking at them.  I initially sent them a message because they 
don't have chat and didn't get a reply.  They are emailing me now so we 
are getting to the crux of the matter.  Their site really doesn't 
describe their hosting in any useful way which was part of the problem.

I just sent them a reply.  We'll see how good their response is after 5 
PM.  BTW, they offer a choice of Pittsburgh or Denver for the hosting 
site.  Any idea of the difference?

-- 

Rick C

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#447822

rickman wrote...
>
>On 2/15/2017 7:06 AM, Winfield Hill wrote:
>> rickman wrote...
>>>
>>> I checked out dreamhost.com and they are $15 a month for a VPS which I
>>> don't need.  I just need a reseller account which it is not clear that
>>> they offer.  But thanks for the pointer.
>>
>>  Let me repeat my suggestion, Pair Networks,
>>  pair.com   A no-nonsense provider since 1995.
>>  They're located in Pittsburgh, a no-nonsense
>>  get-the-job-done city.  Low cost, and
>>  thoroughly competent.
>
>I am looking at them.  I initially sent them a message because they 
>don't have chat and didn't get a reply.  They are emailing me now so we 
>are getting to the crux of the matter.  Their site really doesn't 
>describe their hosting in any useful way which was part of the problem.

 They give you a complete powerful linux server 
 system, but I think it's up to you how to use it.
 It's low-cost but totally powerful and functional.


-- 
 Thanks,
    - Win

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#447829

On 2/15/2017 10:40 PM, Winfield Hill wrote:
> rickman wrote...
>>
>> On 2/15/2017 7:06 AM, Winfield Hill wrote:
>>> rickman wrote...
>>>>
>>>> I checked out dreamhost.com and they are $15 a month for a VPS which I
>>>> don't need.  I just need a reseller account which it is not clear that
>>>> they offer.  But thanks for the pointer.
>>>
>>>  Let me repeat my suggestion, Pair Networks,
>>>  pair.com   A no-nonsense provider since 1995.
>>>  They're located in Pittsburgh, a no-nonsense
>>>  get-the-job-done city.  Low cost, and
>>>  thoroughly competent.
>>
>> I am looking at them.  I initially sent them a message because they
>> don't have chat and didn't get a reply.  They are emailing me now so we
>> are getting to the crux of the matter.  Their site really doesn't
>> describe their hosting in any useful way which was part of the problem.
>
>  They give you a complete powerful linux server
>  system, but I think it's up to you how to use it.
>  It's low-cost but totally powerful and functional.

I'm not sure what you are talking about.  The low cost packages are 
hosting packages.  They supply their software to host web sites and 
manage accounts.  This is not a VPS and I'm not looking for a VPS.  On 
top of the complexity it costs at *lot* more, starting at $360 a year. 
A web hosting reseller package is just $72 a year.  Even if I wanted a 
VPS, they are about double the going rate.

They do seem responsive, but it's just not what I'm looking for.

-- 

Rick C

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#447852

rickman wrote...
>
>On 2/15/2017 10:40 PM, Winfield Hill wrote:
>> rickman wrote...
>>>
>>> On 2/15/2017 7:06 AM, Winfield Hill wrote:
>>>> rickman wrote...
>>>>>
>>>>> I checked out dreamhost.com and they are $15 a month for a VPS which I
>>>>> don't need.  I just need a reseller account which it is not clear that
>>>>> they offer.  But thanks for the pointer.
>>>>
>>>>  Let me repeat my suggestion, Pair Networks,
>>>>  pair.com   A no-nonsense provider since 1995.
>>>>  They're located in Pittsburgh, a no-nonsense
>>>>  get-the-job-done city.  Low cost, and
>>>>  thoroughly competent.
>>>
>>> I am looking at them.  I initially sent them a message because they
>>> don't have chat and didn't get a reply.  They are emailing me now so we
>>> are getting to the crux of the matter.  Their site really doesn't
>>> describe their hosting in any useful way which was part of the problem.
>>
>>  They give you a complete powerful linux server
>>  system, but I think it's up to you how to use it.
>>  It's low-cost but totally powerful and functional.
>
>I'm not sure what you are talking about.  The low cost packages are 
>hosting packages.  They supply their software to host web sites and 
>manage accounts.  This is not a VPS and I'm not looking for a VPS.  On 
>top of the complexity it costs at *lot* more, starting at $360 a year. 
>A web hosting reseller package is just $72 a year.  Even if I wanted a 
>VPS, they are about double the going rate.
>
>They do seem responsive, but it's just not what I'm looking for.

I pay $25 a year to host three web-page domains.
The first costs $11/year, the rest are cheaper.  
Multiple email servers, file-storage, etc., add 
another small annual amount.  I have full access 
to (a fraction of) one of their servers.  I'm
not familiar with the term VPS.  Maybe that's
what I have, however it's very inexpensive.


-- 
 Thanks,
    - Win

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#447855

On 2/16/2017 8:18 AM, Winfield Hill wrote:
> rickman wrote...
>>
>> On 2/15/2017 10:40 PM, Winfield Hill wrote:
>>> rickman wrote...
>>>>
>>>> On 2/15/2017 7:06 AM, Winfield Hill wrote:
>>>>> rickman wrote...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I checked out dreamhost.com and they are $15 a month for a VPS which I
>>>>>> don't need.  I just need a reseller account which it is not clear that
>>>>>> they offer.  But thanks for the pointer.
>>>>>
>>>>>  Let me repeat my suggestion, Pair Networks,
>>>>>  pair.com   A no-nonsense provider since 1995.
>>>>>  They're located in Pittsburgh, a no-nonsense
>>>>>  get-the-job-done city.  Low cost, and
>>>>>  thoroughly competent.
>>>>
>>>> I am looking at them.  I initially sent them a message because they
>>>> don't have chat and didn't get a reply.  They are emailing me now so we
>>>> are getting to the crux of the matter.  Their site really doesn't
>>>> describe their hosting in any useful way which was part of the problem.
>>>
>>>  They give you a complete powerful linux server
>>>  system, but I think it's up to you how to use it.
>>>  It's low-cost but totally powerful and functional.
>>
>> I'm not sure what you are talking about.  The low cost packages are
>> hosting packages.  They supply their software to host web sites and
>> manage accounts.  This is not a VPS and I'm not looking for a VPS.  On
>> top of the complexity it costs at *lot* more, starting at $360 a year.
>> A web hosting reseller package is just $72 a year.  Even if I wanted a
>> VPS, they are about double the going rate.
>>
>> They do seem responsive, but it's just not what I'm looking for.
>
> I pay $25 a year to host three web-page domains.
> The first costs $11/year, the rest are cheaper.
> Multiple email servers, file-storage, etc., add
> another small annual amount.  I have full access
> to (a fraction of) one of their servers.  I'm
> not familiar with the term VPS.  Maybe that's
> what I have, however it's very inexpensive.

I have no idea what service you are using that cheap.  The lowest cost 
hosting they advertise is $6 a month!  Unless, I see on their domain 
name registration page they seem to offer some totally free hosting if 
you register the domain name through them, Weebly.com  Is that what you 
have?

-- 

Rick C

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#447885

rickman wrote...
> On 2/16/2017 8:18 AM, Winfield Hill wrote:
>>
>> I pay $25 a year to host three web-page domains.
>> The first costs $11/year, the rest are cheaper.
>> Multiple email servers, file-storage, etc., add
>> another small annual amount.  I have full access
>> to (a fraction of) one of their servers.  I'm
>> not familiar with the term VPS.  Maybe that's
>> what I have, however it's very inexpensive.
>
>I have no idea what service you are using that cheap.  The lowest cost 
>hosting they advertise is $6 a month!  Unless, I see on their domain 
>name registration page they seem to offer some totally free hosting if 
>you register the domain name through them, Weebly.com  Is that what you 
>have?

 No, I don't know anything about that.  But I have
 to create my own web page, upload html files, etc.
 I'll check on my exact service if you're interested.


-- 
 Thanks,
    - Win

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#447919

On 2/16/2017 12:47 PM, Winfield Hill wrote:
> rickman wrote...
>> On 2/16/2017 8:18 AM, Winfield Hill wrote:
>>>
>>> I pay $25 a year to host three web-page domains.
>>> The first costs $11/year, the rest are cheaper.
>>> Multiple email servers, file-storage, etc., add
>>> another small annual amount.  I have full access
>>> to (a fraction of) one of their servers.  I'm
>>> not familiar with the term VPS.  Maybe that's
>>> what I have, however it's very inexpensive.
>>
>> I have no idea what service you are using that cheap.  The lowest cost
>> hosting they advertise is $6 a month!  Unless, I see on their domain
>> name registration page they seem to offer some totally free hosting if
>> you register the domain name through them, Weebly.com  Is that what you
>> have?
>
>  No, I don't know anything about that.  But I have
>  to create my own web page, upload html files, etc.
>  I'll check on my exact service if you're interested.

I would be interested in knowing.  VPS means you get a virtual machine 
running on a shared CPU, BTW.  You said "They give you a complete 
powerful linux server" that implies either a VPS or a full dedicated 
server.  From what I can tell you have to set up all your own software. 
Much more work compared to them handling all the virtualization and 
installing the hosting software with a simple interface like cPanel.  If 
you have a reseller account there will be multiple cPanel logins managed 
by WHM or similar software.  Most likely you have a set of single domain 
hosting accounts.  I suppose they give a discount for multiple accounts.

-- 

Rick C

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.electronics.design

csiph-web