None of my dreamhost sites are working, nor is dreamhost.com itself working, as of 8:05 PM CST.
Anyone else?
Anyone else?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
The Official "What the *#!)# happened to dreamhost?" Thread
- Thread starter dpaanlka
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
http://www.dreamhoststatus.com/
They have an RSS feed on that site. Subscribe to it.
It's off the DH network, also.
They have an RSS feed on that site. Subscribe to it.
It's off the DH network, also.
The site in the first post worked for me.
The site in your sig (if that's one of them) also works for me.
The site in your sig (if that's one of them) also works for me.
Yes, it's back up (at least for now). Definitely wasn't working 30 minutes ago, but it's now working fine.
My sites are still down as well. If they have another major downtime like this again, I'm going to have to find a new host.
eh yes, they go down occasionally, maybe slightly more than some other host, but I'm not switching anytime soon. Then again none of my sites are making me any money. My portfolio site should never go down, but it's not like I'm actively seeking work right now.
dornoforpyros said:
I'm fine with occasional downtime as it's expected to happen when being on a shared server. But I've notice my site go down rather frequently lately and today it's been down for a good 4-5 hours.
radiantm3 said:I'm fine with occasional downtime as it's expected to happen when being on a shared server. But I've notice my site go down rather frequently lately and today it's been down for a good 4-5 hours.
yeah today has been a little heavy on the downtime I agree. If I was running business sites I might be more concerned, but I'm not.
zflauaus said:
Do you constantly ping your server? Their entire network was down for some 4-5 hours today. If you host with them, your sites were down. Heh... even their sites were down.
radiantm3 said:
Trust me, when a company is selling 1TB bandwidth and 20GB space for 8 dollars random things start to happen.
radiantm3 said:
They are when you pack 100 times more people on a server than should be, because you assume that people aren't REALLY going to use the amount of space they paid for, and SHOULD all be able to use only the server's available resources.
When people start actually using their 1TB bandwidth and such, the strain on the server gets pretty high. 4000 scripts running at the same thing can't be good either.
So yes, I would say hardware failures can be a result of selling cheap hosting services.
ITASOR said:
So I guess I can assume all the hosting companies that are revered on macrumors (like A Small Orange) have never experienced any hardware issues? Keep in mind here I'm not defending dreamhost at all. I was pretty pissed about my sites being down for 6+ hours. I'm just tired of people blaming overselling on every hosting issue when it's directly unrelated. Sure indirectly it's related, but with argument, you can also say they are having hardware failures because they turned on their servers in the first place.
It's impossible to know what their business finances are like exactly, but it's not unreasonable to assume dreamhost don't have high margins on their products (because they appear to be overselling and are just very cheap in general) so they are likely to want to make savings in other areas. The questions are therefore:
If they wanted to make savings then all these areas are places that could be affected, and would cause downtime that would not otherwise have happened. According to their status page, the switch that failed was old (should it have been replaced previously?) and when they put in a new switch it had a different config (did they do enough testing before deploying it?). That fault and the replacement then caused a cascade effect onto other systems.
- Did they have on-site parts/spares for their equipment?
- Did they purchase cheaper equipment that could be more likely to fail?
- Do they replace older equipment soon enough, regardless of whether it's broken or not?
- Did they have 'hot', tested, backups of equipment ready to drop in quickly?
- Do they have sufficient excess capacity in their equipment & network to route around failures?
- Did they have enough staff available to handle multiple simultaneous problems?
If they wanted to make savings then all these areas are places that could be affected, and would cause downtime that would not otherwise have happened. According to their status page, the switch that failed was old (should it have been replaced previously?) and when they put in a new switch it had a different config (did they do enough testing before deploying it?). That fault and the replacement then caused a cascade effect onto other systems.