Portal Home > Knowledgebase > Articles Database > Trexhost anyone use them
Trexhost anyone use them
| Posted by boggle, 11-26-2007, 11:18 AM |
| I had really bad experiences with reseller hosting so came on here and they wer recommended as being good.
There site says they have 99.7% uptime and 24/7 support.
I havent been able to connnect to my sites since Friday (3 days ago) and despite 2 support tickets and 2 posts on their forum i have heard nothing from them.
So much for 24/7 support!
Anyone have any advice and news on this company?
Otherwise looks like i need to find yet again another hosting company
|
| Posted by rv_irl, 11-26-2007, 11:23 AM |
| They have a rep here (username: trexhost)..
You may want to try PM'ing him/her...
|
| Posted by ldcdc, 11-26-2007, 11:56 AM |
| I only see 99.97% as measured by webhostingstuff, and a 99.9% uptime guarantee.
Regarding support, the Thanksgiving holiday might have something to do with it. Not that it should take days for support to reply.
|
| Posted by TonyB, 11-26-2007, 01:11 PM |
| Webhostingstuff uptime is something I'd take with a grain of salt considering any host can just reset it to 100% uptime at any time they want. On top of that it monitors just their site and not all their servers or anything like that.
|
| Posted by clayt0n, 11-26-2007, 02:14 PM |
| Thats James, he's the owner.
|
| Posted by JLHC, 11-26-2007, 02:42 PM |
| Try asking him thorugh WHT and maybe he can give you a response.
|
| Posted by ldcdc, 11-26-2007, 05:51 PM |
| Agreed, I was just trying to establish what the 99.7% that the OP mentioned represents. Trexhost does not make a claim to have 99.7% uptime. No wonder, as that's not exactly impressive in this day and age.
|
| Posted by everity, 11-27-2007, 04:28 AM |
| WebHostingStuff recently fixed this problem, so their uptime is now fairly accurate. It should no longer be possible for hosts to reset their uptime to 100%. Instead, they have to contact WHS, which is good. In fact, because of this change, I would say WHS is now more accurate than other services. Their policy has been updated as follows:
Also, I agree that it only checks their site, and not all their servers, but this true for the vast majority of monitoring services. WebHostingStuff is not unique in this regard.
Last edited by everity; 11-27-2007 at 04:31 AM.
|
| Posted by iHubNet-Matt, 11-27-2007, 09:52 AM |
| So you got your sites back online? 3 days of downtime was too much. Did they give you any explanation for such a huge down time?
Also, was it just you or the whole server was down?
|
| Posted by Nnyan, 11-27-2007, 09:24 PM |
| it should no longer be possible for hosts to reset their uptime to 100%" does not instill a great deal of confidence.
I'm not sure how this change makes them more accurate then other services since there are other services? Anyway I view all of these services as having minimal use since they do not monitor all servers/services. In my eyes selective monitoring is next to useless. At the very least not representative of what a customer should expect.
|
| Posted by everity, 11-27-2007, 10:42 PM |
| Ok, let me explain this in greater detail, since there are a lot of confusion and rumors going around.
Most services allow hosts to reset their uptime. The consequence of doing so, however, is that all months prior to the reset point are erased. So, a host boasting 100% uptime going back a week is not necessarily a good indication of future performance, whereas a host with uptime of 99.9% going back a year or more, is actually better. Make sense?
WebHostingStuff used to be less accurate because it allowed hosts to reset their uptime AND still keep their history going back months, or even years in some cases. This made it less accurate than other monitoring services. This was a glitch that they have since fixed.
Now, they are MORE ACCURATE than other services because hosts can not reset their uptime AT ALL. With WHS, if a host has 10 hours of downtime, they can't just click a link and have their uptime reset. With most other services, they can, which makes other services less accurate. To be fair, other services also erase past history when this happens, but to end users, it is still confusing.
With WHS, there is no confusion. The uptime shown is now much less likely to be manipulated by the host.
For those who need help to understand the advantages vs. shortcomings of uptime monitoring services in general, please check this thread:
http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?t=623727
|
| Posted by ldcdc, 11-28-2007, 08:40 AM |
| It all now depends on how WHS will act when a host makes a request to reset/correct/alter uptime levels.
Also, current uptime levels as shown by their system are still influenced by how their old system worked. They'd have to start it clean for accuracy to be restored.
|
| Posted by everity, 11-28-2007, 11:51 AM |
| If I'm not mistaken, Michael did run a script to correct errors that may have occurred due to hosts that frequently reset their uptime. Current uptimes shown on WHS are, to be sure, quite accurate.
Also, this correction was made many weeks ago (WHT tends to keep the rumors flowing long after it should). Therefore, hosts who had frequent downtime in the past will not be able to hide it unless they contact WHS directly and request a reset. Even if it is granted, their uptime history will not go back prior to the time when it was reset.
|
| Posted by rv_irl, 11-28-2007, 12:14 PM |
| Strongly disagree..
I highly doubt they are more accurate than other dedicated uptime monitoring providers.
For example we use Pingdom.. We cannot reset our uptime, but we can pause the monitor during scheduled maintenance periods, and even that is recorded. With WHS, this is not possible. If they reset the uptime, then it does not account for genuine downtime. If they simply alter the data, they have no proof that it was indeed scheduled and the host could get away with it.
|
| Posted by everity, 11-28-2007, 01:13 PM |
| Scheduled downtime is still downtime. With pingdom, you are hiding your downtime (scheduled or not). With WHS, you can't hide it. Therefore, WHS is more accurate.
|
| Posted by rv_irl, 11-28-2007, 01:27 PM |
| When you pause downtime with Pingdom it will still the show the server as down, but will rightly not record it as official downtime.
Pingdom uses a hell of a lot of monitoring locations, does 1 minute monitoring and a host of other types of monitoring that represents a more accurate picture of the uptime.
The recording of types of downtime does not dictate whether or not it is accurate. It's all down to the infrastructure they have implemented to accurately monitor downtime/uptime.
I've had downtime on servers that have been recorded by Pingdom but not by WHS. WHS uptime should in no way be given more credibility than a reputable uptime monitoring company.
|
| Posted by everity, 11-28-2007, 03:32 PM |
| I agree, 1 minute checks are more accurate than WHS's 30 minute checks. It has been mentioned numerous times in many threads that there will be discrepancies between different monitoring services, and that this is normal and to be expected. There is no argument there.
Our disagreement lies in the fact that pingdom's downtime can be manipulated. This makes it just as bad as what people were saying about WHS a while ago.
The difference is that WHS fixed the problem.
Whether or not scheduled downtime should be hidden is a matter of opinion, and should probably be discussed in another thread. The only point I'm making is that WHS does not discriminate. Scheduled downtime is still downtime. If its down, it gets reported. To me, this is more honest.
|
| Posted by TonyB, 11-28-2007, 10:36 PM |
| WHS does 30 minute checks which is not particularly accurate. I mean it has us at 100% uptime while our pingdom checks on our web site does not due to the 1 minute vs 30 minute. All it would take was a host being down for that 1 minute each time WHS checks and they'll look pretty bad.
|
| Posted by everity, 11-28-2007, 11:32 PM |
| Actually, I believe (though I could be mistaken) WHS switches to 5 minute checks if a site is down. Once it comes back up it then reverts back to 30 minute checks. Many monitoring services do this, so again, WHS is not unique in this regard.
|
| Posted by monkeitech, 11-29-2007, 06:22 AM |
| are we still talking about trex here? lol.
trex' costs (reseller hosting) is cheap enough for its features.
i'm just not contented with their support.
it takes too long for them to reply on my tickets
|
Add to Favourites 
Print this Article
Also Read
