PDA

View Full Version : Anyone out there using Rackspace



nealrm
02-09-2012, 08:09 AM
We have outgrown our current server and are looking for our next hosting company. Rackspace has an interesting cloud offer that I am considering. Has/is anyone out there using Rackspace and is willing to share the experience?

MyITGuy
02-09-2012, 12:13 PM
Interesting you brought them up as I just read this thread on them today at another forum I frequent:
Need high performance server to serve ads (2+ million page views/day) - Web Hosting Talk (http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?t=1124862&highlight=rackspace)


I am currently paying $550/month for Rackspace's half-ass managed cloud server


First off -- Rackspace cloud servers are junk. They may tell you the specs your getting, but its very common to have other users on the same node hording resources affecting you.

And this one from yesterday:
Cloud Comparision - Web Hosting Talk (http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?t=1124483&highlight=rackspace)


Rackspace is expensive and uses really outdated hardware (Opteron 2300 anyone? ) compared with the other two.

What are your current specifications and what type of budget are you looking at? I can provide several options myself or may be able to make some recommendations.

vangogh
02-09-2012, 05:44 PM
I've never used them, but based on the way they advertise and the here and there things I've heard, I don't think I ever word. They've never struck me as being a quality company, but again I've never used them so I really don't know for certain what they're like.

Look through Web Hosting Talk. Don't take one or two negative threads as being gospel about them though. Every web hosting company has a few negative reviews there. You have to read through a number of them and look for the consistencies in what people are saying. Sometimes the company in question will reply and you can get a sense of what they're like based on their replies.

MyITGuy
02-09-2012, 05:49 PM
Every web hosting company has a few negative reviews there.
I know of one company that doesn't have a negative review there, but granted we don't have a large hosting client base either ;)


Sometimes the company in question will reply and you can get a sense of what they're like based on their replies.

Agreed! A good example is BurstNet. While some/most of the threads reporting issues may be frivolous, based on the way they respond/handle the issue I wouldn't do business with them.

vangogh
02-10-2012, 12:43 AM
I know of one company that doesn't have a negative review there

Ok, maybe not everyone. Good for you. :)

It's funny though if you look for threads on any of the big name hosting companies. They all seem to have at least one bad review. That's true of anything with a review. Sometimes it's the reviewer who's the one with the issue and not the company being reviewed. I usually look less at positive and negative in reviews and more for the consistent things being said by everyone.

nealrm
02-10-2012, 07:51 AM
I am not finding any middle of the road review on hosting providers. It seems that they are either loved or extremely hated. I am finding some very good reviews on all the major hosts and also some very negative reviews. Right now the positives for the major companies are outweighing the negatives.

vangogh
02-10-2012, 11:20 AM
That's pretty much what's there. You have to take both the positive and negative reviews with a grain of salt. When I've looked, I've focused on the consistent things across all reviews and also tried to evaluate who's writing the review. Sometimes you can tell a negative review is someone with an axe to grind and a positive review is written by someone associated with the company. I'll take what I find in the reviews and do some general web searching. Say a couple of reviews suggest one host's servers are down more than they claim. I'd search for that topic to see what else I can find.

jimr451
02-13-2012, 07:34 AM
I've got one client using Rackspace - not the cloud, but a dedicated server / firewall solution. They are pricey, but there support is unmatched. This client has been with them since 2007, and we just migrated to a new server (with Rackspace).

Some comments on their support:

- They have experts there around the clock. I mean the kind of people who can recompile your kernal if you need it (not sure they'd do that for free, but you get the idea).

- They respond to tickets fairly quickly, and usually provide solid answers. Even if they don't support what you are asking for, they offer you ideas of what to do.

- They handle ticket hand-offs very well - if one tech is leaving for the day, you will have someone else to pick up your problem without starting from scratch.

That said, they are costly. I've been recommend liquidweb.com to my clients, because they have good support. But you can't go wrong with Rackspace.

-Jim

vangogh
02-13-2012, 12:06 PM
Good to know. My only real experience with them has been their marketing to me, which at times feels too aggressive. I do like LiquidWeb. They have good support like you say and are reasonably priced.

Watchdog
04-26-2012, 05:57 AM
We use RackSpace. Been with them for years and only one issue I had but was resolved quickly.

For years I leased a dedicated server from RackSpace at 275.00 a month. I needed the security of knowing my site wasn't going down as we have experienced with shared servers in Chicago.

Recently we moved to the RackSpace cloud and it's been for the most part a smooth ride. My partner is a programmer and so we did not get the managed service...we had our phpmyadmin hacked and the hackers were actually using our server to send out a file...no harm to us but the bill and our bandwidth charges sky rocked at a cost of almost 300 bucks for one day. We fixed the hole and now we have bandwidth alarms by the hour ...without managed service, we had to cover the cost as RackSpace wasn't responsible?

I'd still recommend Rack Space, I sleep at night.

krymson
04-26-2012, 08:01 PM
I personally have never dealt with Rack Space. I run my own hosting on the side for my clients to have a one stop shop and it brings my company some residual revenue from clients... Your best option to go is get a managed dedicated server so you dont have some jerk on a shared server hogging up all the resources on the server... its not the cheapest route BUT you get what you pay for....

vangogh
04-27-2012, 02:21 AM
Your best option to go is get a managed dedicated server

Or at least a virtual private server (VPS) if you've outgrown your current shared hosting plan. Once you start gaining any kind of significant traffic you can quickly outgrow a shared account.

krymson
04-27-2012, 04:35 AM
Forgot about VPS's their ok but not the best choice...

MyITGuy
04-27-2012, 10:33 AM
Your best option to go is get a managed dedicated server so you dont have some jerk on a shared server hogging up all the resources on the server... its not the cheapest route BUT you get what you pay for....

If you are looking for a shared server, then look for a provider who utilizes cloudlinux. It prevents users from hogging up all the resources =D

MyITGuy
04-27-2012, 10:37 AM
Forgot about VPS's their ok but not the best choice...

As long as you choose a provider and the right VPS Technology you should be fine. I.E. A managed VPS using Xen/KVM, or VMWare (Dedicated Resources) would be the equivelent to some of your entry/mid range servers but at a considerably cheaper price.
I.E. OpenVZ allows providers to oversubscribe their system, so that 2GB of ram that you pay for may not truly be available when you need it.
Xen/KVM require the resources allocated to subscribers to be available to the system (I.E. If I have 8 users with 2GB Plans, which is 16GB allocated, then I cannot add a new client to this server if I only have 16GB of RAM)
VMWare can go either way, so if you're on this type of VPS platform you need to pay attention to the resources to see if they are shared or dedicated.

vangogh
04-30-2012, 10:38 PM
Jeff what does cloudlinux do? I'm guessing it's similar to what I've seen at some hosts, though under different names. For example Liquid Web has something they call Smart Servers (http://www.liquidweb.com/SmartServers/). Is that basically the same thing? It's a cloud server.

MyITGuy
04-30-2012, 10:52 PM
Jeff what does cloudlinux do? I'm guessing it's similar to what I've seen at some hosts, though under different names. For example Liquid Web has something they call Smart Servers (http://www.liquidweb.com/SmartServers/). Is that basically the same thing? It's a cloud server.

CloudLinux (CloudLinux OS (http://cloudlinux.com/)) is an operating system (Built/Forked off CentOS) built for web hosts that provide shared hosting services. This OS allows server operators to control how much resources a particular account can utilize, preventing a single/handful of users from consuming all of the system resources.

The Smart Servers you referenced is essentially a VPS. The difference that sets these Smart Servers apart from other providers is that your server is stored on a SAN which allows you to migrate to another server if your node has a hardware failure. Additionally the Smart Servers can be scaled as needed (I.E. Increase your RAM, Storage and CPU as needed. However, RAM and CPU would be limited to the maximum supported by the node you happen to be running on).

Unfortunately the term "Cloud" is being used in ways that depreciate its meaning, so you really have to look at the configuration/infrastructure to ensure they will meet your expectations.

MyITGuy
04-30-2012, 11:00 PM
Jeff what does cloudlinux do? I'm guessing it's similar to what I've seen at some hosts, though under different names. For example Liquid Web has something they call Smart Servers (http://www.liquidweb.com/SmartServers/). Is that basically the same thing? It's a cloud server.

The link you provided is a good example of what I referenced on the 27th with what you should look for when getting a VPS. The "Smart VPS" does not have "Dedicated Hardware". I.E. The provider can allocate 1CPU, 1GB of RAM and 75GB of storage, but when it comes down to you actually using these resources it may be a different story as a provider will oversubscribe their servers to maximize their revenue. The "Smart SSD" and "Smart Dedicated" due contain this "Dedicated Hardware", but it comes at a price as seen below:
Smart VPS (1 CPU Core, 2GB RAM and 150GB Disk) goes for $90/mo
Smart Dedicated (1 CPU Core on an i5-750 which I consider a desktop CPU, 2GB of RAM and 220GB Disk) goes for $179/mo.

vangogh
05-01-2012, 10:29 PM
Thanks for the answers and info. I agree that the term cloud is getting overused and losing it's meaning.

I don't currently have those smart servers myself. I'm still on the legacy server and need to set things up to have things switched for me. Sounds like you're giving the smart servers a good recommendation.

MyITGuy
05-02-2012, 10:50 AM
Sounds like you're giving the smart servers a good recommendation.

LiquidWeb has a good reputation in the hosting industry and it would be difficult to find a VPS with comparable support/features/pricing, however I wouldn't want to give the impression that they are not susceptible to issues/failure.

On that note, if you're especially interested in the "Automatic Migrations" then there's a few developments that coming up that will allow existing/new providers to offer the same type of product, but potentially at a lower cost...so don't sign any long term agreements.

If the "Automatic Migrations" are not a concern to you, then its likely you could find a dedicated server with better resources, for the same price if not less than what you would pay for a smart vps.

vangogh
05-02-2012, 11:28 AM
Oh I know they're just as susceptible to issues/failures. I'm not one who expects 100% problem free uptime. No long term deals either. Everything is month to month with them. They want me to switch to the smart server and the only reason I haven't yet is they won't promise me no down time. I don't think there would be much or even any. I assume the mention of downtime is to cover themselves just in case. It's what's holding me up from getting the switch in motion though.

It is on my far too long to do list.

MyITGuy
05-02-2012, 07:22 PM
the only reason I haven't yet is they won't promise me no down time. I don't think there would be much or even any. I assume the mention of downtime is to cover themselves just in case. It's what's holding me up from getting the switch in motion though.

There will be downtime...how much depends on how they handle the migration. Some questions to ask that may help:
Will they be migrating your entire VPS to the new platform, or just performing a backup/restore (Either via the OS or cPanel)? Based on our previous discussion you may want to just perform a cPanel backup/restore.
Will you be receiving a new IP Address for the SmartVPS?
If you are receiving a new IP Address, will they reduce the TTL periods in your DNS Server(s) several days before the migration?

If nothing else, would they setup the new VPS for you and allow you to migrate your account(s) yourself? It appears that you're using cPanel so the process is very easy. (The last move I performed involved 50+ accounts which completed within an hour between Data Centers, with several of these accounts containing 3-5GB of data each).

vangogh
05-03-2012, 01:56 AM
I have a hard time understanding why there would need to be downtime. I can move all the sites off their servers to a different company's server with exactly 0 downtime. You set up two copies of everything and when ready pull the switch sending requests to the new server. Am I missing something?

Their techs have let me know it shouldn't be much if any down time and I can schedule things for a time when traffic to all the sites should be minimal. At this point it's more me needing to get the ball rolling and there's always something else that comes up first. The other thought is debating whether or not to have a different domain than this one be the primary account. SBF isn't my primary business and I think one of my other domains would probably be the better choice for for the main one on the account. That's something I need to decide though.

I know at this point moving to the smart servers is the better option and I really should get my act together and get things in motion sooner rather than later. I have one major project I want to finish first and once it's done I'll have more time to focus on this.

MyITGuy
05-03-2012, 10:04 AM
I have a hard time understanding why there would need to be downtime. I can move all the sites off their servers to a different company's server with exactly 0 downtime. You set up two copies of everything and when ready pull the switch sending requests to the new server. Am I missing something?
DNS Resolution and the time it takes for changes to replicate across the network (Keep in mind that most DNS Servers Cache the response up to the TTL value provided by your server.

Below is a quick overview of where the downtime could be:
On 05/01/12 @ 8PM I visit these forums and my DNS Server says I should go to 10.10.10.10 which is valid for 14400 seconds (Approximatly 4 hours - However not every DNS Server, proxy or Cache engine obeys this directive and they may apply their own time frames)).
On 05/01/12 @ 9PM you migrate the domain, web pages, SQL database and etc to 20.20.20.20 which is the new IP Address for your server. This change gets submitted to the DNS Servers which can take up to 24 hours to propogate throughout the internet
On 05/01/12 @ 10PM (Or any period up to 24 hours after 8PM), I come back to the forums, but instead of going to the new server at 20.20.20.20 my DNS Server has cached this record and tells me I need to go to 10.10.10.10 and if your account is still active on this server I will continue to post/respond to the forum (This data will be lost as you already performed the migration). If your account on this old server is disabled then I will get a server not found message.



The other thought is debating whether or not to have a different domain than this one be the primary account. SBF isn't my primary business and I think one of my other domains would probably be the better choice for for the main one on the account. That's something I need to decide though.
If you don't have any plans to go back to shared hosting I would recommend setting yourself up with a reseller account on your new server, then put each of your domains (That are not related) under their own primary account. This will allow you more flexibility down the road in the event you need it, and also provides an additional layer of security (If one site gets compromised then they don't immediately have access to all of your domains).

vangogh
05-09-2012, 01:57 AM
This change gets submitted to the DNS Servers which can take up to 24 hours to propogate throughout the internet

I get that, but…

The way I see it you set up 2 versions of everything. One on the existing server and one on the new one. This is how I've moved sites for clients from one host to another. Once the site(s) are set up in both places you change DNS. It shouldn't matter how long it takes for the changes to propagate. For a short time both sites are working. Once you know DNS is pointing to the new site for everyone you can get rid of the old site.

The one issue is the databases that are getting updated since they wouldn't always be equal. However I would think that a new database could be set up where the new site will be. The new site will naturally point to it and the existing site could be switched to point to it independent of the coming DNS changes.

In any event Liquid Web has said I could schedule the changes for any time so I can pick a time when traffic is at a minimum anyway. I also had someone admit they don't expect any real downtime, but have to say there will be some because the possibility exists. I've moved setting up a smart server a little higher on my list of priorities.

I'll have to consider the reseller account idea too.

MyITGuy
05-09-2012, 03:22 PM
The one issue is the databases that are getting updated since they wouldn't always be equal. However I would think that a new database could be set up where the new site will be. The new site will naturally point to it and the existing site could be switched to point to it independent of the coming DNS changes.

That's one issue and a good way to handle it. But at what point are the changes made? (Remember, you're copying data to the new server which could take 5+ minutes on average if not more...or less).
Make the change to early and the SQL Database won't be present = site down.
Make the change to late and the SQL Database wont be current = lost data.

Additionally, not knowing what other sites you may have running on this/these servers...what happens to any uploads that are performed (I.E. I upload my own avatar on this site), or any transactions that take place on the old or new server (Assuming your using vendors who rely on IP Authentication/Validation), or what happens to e-mails that are sent to your account (Assuming you use this server for e-mail purposes as well)?



In any event Liquid Web has said I could schedule the changes for any time so I can pick a time when traffic is at a minimum anyway. I also had someone admit they don't expect any real downtime, but have to say there will be some because the possibility exists. I've moved setting up a smart server a little higher on my list of priorities.

I'll have to consider the reseller account idea too.

I would highly recommend that the migration be scheduled during a period when traffic is at a minimum...and I wouldn't trust anyone who said there wouldn't be any downtime/data loss...as it is inevitable. You can prevent one or the other...but you cannot prevent both unless your willing to spend a bunch more money than you want too ;)

vangogh
05-10-2012, 11:45 AM
I can understand a few minutes where things aren't perfect. Naturally at the moment your pulling the switch someone could be updating the database you're moving away from and that update doesn't make it to the new database. I don't see where the site would be down though. It would be more a case where some data was added to a database that's no longer in use. That data could realistically be lost, but the site itself wouldn't be down when people visit it.

With the other sites on the server the only time someone other than me would update anything would be if someone left a comment on my blog. Again same situation where the specific comment(s) could conceivably be lost, but again I don't see why the site itself would be unavailable for any time.

Maybe we're talking different definitions of downtime. I completely accept some data could end up being lost, but I don't see why the domain itself should be unavailable for any time. Maybe this is about it being one or the other and deciding a bit of downtime is the better option than the bit of data loss. Either way I'll likely schedule everything for a weekend night when traffic is minimal across all sites on the server. I get the feeling any downtime is going to be minimal anyway and it's quite likely no one will even notice.