I would like to make a STRONG warning for webreseller.net

Geeze! Do you read anything related to use? This is from the TOS:

 

and what does that do have to do with me?
I have 4 IP shared and i have unlimited DOMAINS not unlimited IP. I never asked for more IP.

 

Thanks for the heads up, I have deleted their link from my web site.

 

I know many people in the hosting business. Some of them are good friends. But if I were going to suggest anyone, it would be server4you.

Server4you however, I have been with for years and they are absolutely unbelievable awesome. I'm not affiliated with them in any way, nor do I stand to make a cent from referring anyone (they do have a referral program however). But I firmly believe in scratching the backs of those that treat you well, and they have treated me simply wonderfully. I wholeheartedly recommend them to anyone.

 

server4you as in com or net did not find it.

It been 20 hours now since i asked the customer support why but no answer...

 

http://www.server4you.com/us

It's possible they are US only, but I'm not sure. I noticed you were looking for something with unlimited domains, something you would have to get a dedicated server for at s4y. I would suggest doing a search for "web hosting review" and cross reference about 20 results. Find a common denominator among them that works for your needs.

I used to use ipowerweb which is now powweb. Great company. One hosting plan to support, and they support it well. I've also heard very good things about hostgator.

 

I sent my on hostgator as well. They are always advertisning and the price looks ok. But i think they are selling from some one else can not remeber the name now.


Still no answer why they shut me down

 

I need to check diffrent times with Pingplotter to my new server... the old one still not told me why they shut me down for 2 hours. been like 12 days now. If people around the world could pingplot

www.iweb.ca
www.quickred.nl
www.tmaxhost.com
www.lightup.net
www.redhouse.nl


and tell me were you doing it from as well thanks!

 

Don't rely on something like this as a metric for guaging real network outages and problems/reachability.
If it works anything like visualroute.datametrics.com worked (no longer there btw), it is useless.

There were two major problems with Visual Traceroute.

1) It integrates Ping (ICMP echo request) with traceroute (ICMP TTL) to
try to determine additional information about path failures,
timeouts,etc.

2) It tried to use Loose Source Route Request (LSRR) to allow for
traceroute attempts via specific off site hosts. This is an
advanced option.

The problem with issue #1 is as follows. In addition to sending out a
series of ICMP packets with continually incrementing TTLs (a
traceroute) Visual Traceroute also attempts to ping (ICMP Echo Request)
each hop along the way. This is inherently problematic with backbone
routers.

A backbone router (such as core-7513-bmia-lkgnoc-253.mia.net) is intended
to do two things: Maintain a global routing table through constant BGP
conversations with its peers, and forward packets as quickly as possible
from interface to interface according to that routing table. In order
to satisfy that second task, the router will be designed with several
potential paths which packets can take which do not involve the central
processor.

An ICMP Echo Request packet cannot take any of these paths, since it
demands attention by the central processor. Such attention will be
given very low priority - as the router has more important things to
do. When the router is busy, therefore, any ICMP packets sent to it
may well timeout. Visual Traceroute will interpret this as a network
problem, when it probably is not.

This phenomenon is most often seen with a traceroute which shows
intermediate steps which have high reply times (say 500ms or more) while
the end-to-end times may be very low (say 80ms). The router is doing
its job, forwarding packets, but isn't especially responsive to Pings
and such. This is why we always say that traceroutes are intended to
give you a view of the route packets will take, whereas Ping is intended
to give end-to-end round trip times.

The idea of end-to-end is very important here. If someone decides to
ping one of our routers, in a misguided attempt to diagnose network
problems, they will only create more red-herrings. The _only_
significant time measure is from end to end, not from end to middle and
middle to end. If a person sees very high end-to-end ping times, then
a traceroute _may_ shed additional light on why, BUT IT MAY NOT, since
routers are designed to behave the way they do.

As for the second problem noted above, the use of LSRR: all of the
routers on our network are configured to reject all source route
requests (as all should be). LSRRs have no legitimate use on the
Internet, and the decision by the Visual Traceroute people to try to
use them was a bad one. Almost as bad as trying to ping backbone
routers and pass that off as a valid Internet diagnostic.

So, what I am saying is, if this program works in the same way
it is completely useless. I would not waste the money on it, if
that is the case. I've not used it, so I cannot say for sure if that
is what it is doing.

I can see they say it uses a combination of ping and traceroutes, so
again, I really do not know for sure.

Anyway, as with all things, YMMV.

 

I use hostgator (which I got from a referral from some other post) and would recommend them. They also have unlimited domains, and I've never heard anyone complain that it is actually limited.

 

What kind of package you have with them?