Discuss mailing list

[Scott Mathieson <scotty AT nodokodo.com>]

hostigation.com, starter KVM 10GB/128MB/500GB/1 each IPv4 & IPv6
@$3/month… rock solid. The owner/operator is a tech. and not just some
kid trying to make a buck. Definitely knows his shit.

I've been with Linode before, always had the feeling I was being
robbed; fancy schamncy CP means not a jot to me, spend my life in the
shell. Prefer KVM anyway.

On 16 August 2011 05:10, Hanselka, Alex <alex AT hanselka.name> wrote:
> Meh, Linode works well and has native v6... But it is certainly more
> expensive than that :P
>
> On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 9:51 PM, Scott Mathieson <scotty AT nodokodo.com> 
> wrote:
>> I've mentioned it to the host, see what comes from it.
>>
>> Perhaps I should stick to $3 VPS nodes—they seem to work better!
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> On 15 August 2011 20:45, Jeff Taylor <shdwdrgn AT sourpuss.net> wrote:
>>> The digs are performed from NS0, however until yesterday I was also 
>>> running
>>> the same reports from my own server and comparing results...
>>>
>>> Generally speaking, the results from both hosts matched up.  Queries to 
>>> the
>>> T2 servers either went smoothly, or there were obvious problems getting
>>> reliable answers.  During periods when there was a problem with the host
>>> servers (NS0 or my server), the problems were consistent across ALL T2
>>> server results, usually showing as either all yellow or all red.  If the
>>> host testing is running smoothly, then you will see the type of scattered
>>> results that are showing up now.  Note that most of the T2 servers respond
>>> consistently and are green all the way across.  Some servers might have 
>>> one
>>> or two yellow dots which may indicate they were receiving high traffic 
>>> loads
>>> at the time.  If you take a look at ns4.de and ns5.de, these are ipv4 and
>>> ipv6 ports to the same server, and the periods of yellow warnings match up
>>> almost identically, showing that the problem is with the server or its 
>>> local
>>> network.  However in the case of ns6.fr and ns7.fr, all of the failures 
>>> are
>>> showing on the ipv6 port.  To me this would indicate a problem with the 
>>> IPv6
>>> gateway, and not a problem with the server or its network connection.
>>>
>>> If you want to see an example of host-side problems, take a look at my
>>> results for today between 0100 and 0830.  You will note empty bands where
>>> results could not be collected, and areas of yellow or red.  These stripes
>>> across multiple servers at one time indicate networking problems on the
>>> host... in this case my server was performing some intensive maintenance
>>> that hogs all CPU cycles.  (As a side note, my server is showing little or
>>> no yellow areas because I am now only performing minimal testing... does 
>>> the
>>> T2 respond with a root zone or not... and so the results no longer match 
>>> the
>>> full testing being performed from NS0.)
>>>
>>> I have considered running status testing from multiple servers, however 
>>> over
>>> the past few months that I have been setting up this code I have noticed
>>> that it is easy to tell when there is a problem with the host, and if you
>>> ignore results within those periods, the rest of the chart gives a good
>>> indication of how reliable query results are for each T2.  More 
>>> importantly,
>>> having the chart with viewable history allows each T2 operator to see if
>>> there are patterns to any problems - such as bad response time from their
>>> machine every night during a maintenance cycle - and they can make
>>> adjustments based on that information.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 08/15/2011 11:27 AM, Hospedaje Web y Servidores Dedicados wrote:
>>>>
>>>> And the digs are done from a single server? or multiple, maybe to add the
>>>> ip to whitelist
>>>>
>>>> thanks.
>>>>
>>>> Ing. Alejandro M.
>>>> Hospedaje Web y Servidores Dedicados
>>>> http://www.dedicados.com.mx
>>>> ------
>>>> correo / msn: ventas AT dedicados.com.mx
>>>> skype: dedicados
>>>> ------
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> discuss mailing list
>>> discuss AT lists.opennicproject.org
>>> http://lists.darkdna.net/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> discuss mailing list
>> discuss AT lists.opennicproject.org
>> http://lists.darkdna.net/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss AT lists.opennicproject.org
> http://lists.darkdna.net/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>