hosting service, looking for

I can host it for $90/month
Cable tv will not be expensive anymore...


Robert Downes wrote:
> FxM wrote:
>
>> Does anyone know of a good FreeBSD hosting service.
>> I would like to do the following:
>> run
>> apache, perl, c/c++, image magik.
>> ~10 Gigs of diskspace.
>> have root access.
>> I plan on creating a web site w/ lots of images and hopefully lots of
>> users.
>>
>> I saw a hosting Co. in CA.. for $90 a month which had everything I was
>> looking for, but I lost the url, and can't find it anywhere.
>> Maybe It was a dream.
>
>
> Ninety dollars a month? Holy Lord! Surely you can co-locate your own
> server for less than that each month? Well, around that each month? Then
> you could put whatever you like into your own box.
 >> Stay informed about: hosting service, looking for 

The other posters are right. For $90 per month you can afford a fast DSL
connection to your house and furnish your own computer running FreeBSD.


"FxM" wrote in message

> Does anyone know of a good FreeBSD hosting service.
> I would like to do the following:
> run
> apache, perl, c/c++, image magik.
> ~10 Gigs of diskspace.
> have root access.
> I plan on creating a web site w/ lots of images and hopefully lots of
users.
>
> I saw a hosting Co. in CA.. for $90 a month which had everything I was
> looking for, but I lost the url, and can't find it anywhere.
> Maybe It was a dream.
>
> TIA
> FM
>
>
 >> Stay informed about: hosting service, looking for 

I forgot to mention I would like 99% uptime. And I prefer NOT to have it at
my house, blackouts, kids, family.... Wouldn't the hosting Co. have a
better connection to the internet than a DSL or Cable. I'd have to buy a
new computer too, which would be at least $1k. The hosting Co. was
providing backups too.
FM :>)

"Max Files" wrote in message

> The other posters are right. For $90 per month you can afford a fast DSL
> connection to your house and furnish your own computer running FreeBSD.
>
>
> "FxM" wrote in message
>
> > Does anyone know of a good FreeBSD hosting service.
> > I would like to do the following:
> > run
> > apache, perl, c/c++, image magik.
> > ~10 Gigs of diskspace.
> > have root access.
> > I plan on creating a web site w/ lots of images and hopefully lots of
> users.
> >
> > I saw a hosting Co. in CA.. for $90 a month which had everything I was
> > looking for, but I lost the url, and can't find it anywhere.
> > Maybe It was a dream.
> >
> > TIA
> > FM
> >
> >
>
>
 >> Stay informed about: hosting service, looking for 

In article , FxM
wrote:

>I forgot to mention I would like 99% uptime. And I prefer NOT to
>have it at my house, blackouts, kids, family.... Wouldn't the
>hosting Co. have a better connection to the internet than a DSL
>or Cable. I'd have to buy a new computer too, which would be at
>least $1k. The hosting Co. was providing backups too. FM :>)

99% uptime is attrocious. That's 70 hours - almost 3 days - of
downtime per year..

Speed of hosting company interconnections depend on their own
design and their location. By location I mean whether they have
their own facility and use local loops to the nearest transport, or
if they are actually inside a transport facility.

Given today's markets costs I just don't see that it makes much
economic sense to host anything anywhere else but in a colo
facility. [I am prejudiced and that comes from mainting servers
inside a large transport facility]. And until I finally had to
upgrade the OS and swap machines with 20 minutes off line the
server had been up for 779 days.

Bill

--
Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com
 >> Stay informed about: hosting service, looking for 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Bill Vermillion wrote ...

>>I forgot to mention I would like 99% uptime. And I prefer NOT to
>>have it at my house, blackouts, kids, family.... Wouldn't the
>>hosting Co. have a better connection to the internet than a DSL
>>or Cable. I'd have to buy a new computer too, which would be at
>>least $1k. The hosting Co. was providing backups too. FM :>)

> 99% uptime is attrocious. That's 70 hours - almost 3 days - of
> downtime per year..

Wouldn't that be over 3.5 days ..? (365 / 100 = 3.65) ..?

- --
Desmond Coughlan |desmond [at] zeouane [dot] org
http://www.zeouane.org/

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 5.0i for non-commercial use
Charset: noconv

iQA/AwUBP6+di2iD+5zjSqyTEQIHoQCbBuHLViHnLTniA2zYx3PP7di8m84AoMVH
psYr7Uo+1MlRX6uJsh52tczw
=56p8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
 >> Stay informed about: hosting service, looking for 

In article ,
Desmond Coughlan wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>Bill Vermillion wrote ...
>
>>>I forgot to mention I would like 99% uptime. And I prefer NOT to
>>>have it at my house, blackouts, kids, family.... Wouldn't the
>>>hosting Co. have a better connection to the internet than a DSL
>>>or Cable. I'd have to buy a new computer too, which would be at
>>>least $1k. The hosting Co. was providing backups too. FM :>)
>
>> 99% uptime is attrocious. That's 70 hours - almost 3 days - of
>> downtime per year..

>Wouldn't that be over 3.5 days ..? (365 / 100 = 3.65) ..?

I must have mis-typed a number into 'bc' as when I checked this
time it's 87.6 hours.

And a week or so ago I was at a clients site where a new vendor was
touting their SW and touted 99.9% uptime. I told him that was
pretty bad as the last time their Unix system was rebooted it was
because the power failure outlasted the UPS - it have been up in
excess of 400 days at that time.

Bill

--
Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com
 >> Stay informed about: hosting service, looking for 

Bill Vermillion wrote:
> [...]
> Given today's markets costs I just don't see that it makes much
> economic sense to host anything anywhere else but in a colo
> facility. [I am prejudiced and that comes from mainting servers
> inside a large transport facility]. And until I finally had to
> upgrade the OS and swap machines with 20 minutes off line the
> server had been up for 779 days.

This is really impressive. And even more breathtaking is that you
apparently found a way of applying security and other kernel fixes
without having to reboot the machine. What's your secret?

Sorry, couldn't resist. If I had a server connected to the Internet
with an uptime like this I wouldn't boast about it, I would be embarrassed.

My two cents.

Uwe
--
Uwe Doering | EscapeBox - Managed On-Demand UNIX Servers
gemini.RemoveThis@snafu.de | http://www.escapebox.net
 >> Stay informed about: hosting service, looking for 

In article , Uwe Doering wrote:
>Bill Vermillion wrote:
>> [...]
>> Given today's markets costs I just don't see that it makes much
>> economic sense to host anything anywhere else but in a colo
>> facility. [I am prejudiced and that comes from mainting servers
>> inside a large transport facility]. And until I finally had to
>> upgrade the OS and swap machines with 20 minutes off line the
>> server had been up for 779 days.

>This is really impressive. And even more breathtaking is that you
>apparently found a way of applying security and other kernel fixes
>without having to reboot the machine. What's your secret?

Only kernel fixes need to be rebooted - and there have been
remarkably few of those in BSD. This last year of course with
the library problems proved to be the exception. And since
so much of the base OS is compiled statically that meant a
reinstall. Almost all other pieces/parts could be recompiled and
installed without a reboot, just an application restart.

And running extremely limited services with nothing else accessible
helps immensely.



--
Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com
 >> Stay informed about: hosting service, looking for 

Thanks, for all your help. I went w/ pair metworks.

"Bill Vermillion" wrote in message

> In article , FxM
> wrote:
>
> >I forgot to mention I would like 99% uptime. And I prefer NOT to
> >have it at my house, blackouts, kids, family.... Wouldn't the
> >hosting Co. have a better connection to the internet than a DSL
> >or Cable. I'd have to buy a new computer too, which would be at
> >least $1k. The hosting Co. was providing backups too. FM :>)
>
> 99% uptime is attrocious. That's 70 hours - almost 3 days - of
> downtime per year..
>
> Speed of hosting company interconnections depend on their own
> design and their location. By location I mean whether they have
> their own facility and use local loops to the nearest transport, or
> if they are actually inside a transport facility.
>
> Given today's markets costs I just don't see that it makes much
> economic sense to host anything anywhere else but in a colo
> facility. [I am prejudiced and that comes from mainting servers
> inside a large transport facility]. And until I finally had to
> upgrade the OS and swap machines with 20 minutes off line the
> server had been up for 779 days.
>
> Bill
>
> --
> Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com
 >> Stay informed about: hosting service, looking for