I wanted to reply to a previous post, but it was closed. I have been looking for a good fully managed server, and it seems like everyone is happy with Rackspace. However for those high bandwidth sites, make sure you check the overage charges in your SLA. According to the tech I talked to, unplanned overages are $3.50/gb and planned ones are about $2/gb. After some haggling, it seems like they could possible go down a little (with a really long contract).Does this seem too high? I also found out that adding additional servers does not add to the bandwidth usage (unless the sales rep is wrong about this).So it seems like a lot of ppl say it is worth it, but consider this. If you are using bandwidth in the TB/month level, you can actually pay $2/gb using a Content Delivery Network (Like Limelight Networks). Talking to some people at CDNs, it can actually get under $1/gb if you use many TB of traffic a month.It almost seems counterproductive for Rackspace....since if I think I'll go over my limit, I can just use a CDN to leverage the rest (and RackSpace wouldn't be making as much money).It's also my understanding that good CDNs use the same Tier 1 networks as Rackspace but they have a speed advantage because many things are cached and recieved from the closed destination.Any thoughts? I REALLY like Rackspace...but $2/gb? That is too much....Even $1.50/GB would be too much in my opinion.Rackspace bandwidth is overpriced. And while Rackspace says they are on tier-1s, they really are not. For example, AboveNet is not tier-1, Time Warner is not tier-1, etc.LLNW (limelight) is also known for overpriced service. <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.cachefly.net/">http://www.cachefly.net/</a><!-- m --> try them for your high bandwidth content.i think now people should stop complaining atleast about rackspace pricingI hope I don't sound like I'm complaining. I just wanted everyone to know the complete picture since some people don't check their SLAs closely.Like I said, I think Rackspace is a great company. They could work on their sales team a little by not typing in all CAPS when I'm asking questions in a chat. Besides that, it depends on what you need and how much you can pay. So it goes down to the cost-benefit and break-even analysis for a business.However, if ppl have a large bandwidth site, I want them to be aware that they can use a Content Delivery Network to save some money since Rackspace charges a lot for overages.Overage charges are always more expensive. If overage pricing was competitive, everyone would sign a contract for a small commit and then pay the penalty without hesitation.I hope I don't sound like I'm complaining. I just wanted everyone to know the complete picture since some people don't check their SLAs closely.
Like I said, I think Rackspace is a great company. They could work on their sales team a little by not typing in all CAPS when I'm asking questions in a chat. Besides that, it depends on what you need and how much you can pay. So it goes down to the cost-benefit and break-even analysis for a business.
However, if ppl have a large bandwidth site, I want them to be aware that they can use a Content Delivery Network to save some money since Rackspace charges a lot for overages.
If the biggest problem you can point out about Rackspace is that their sales reps type in all caps I would say that are doing an excelent job
The price you pay monthly is mainly for management and bandwidth. The premium bandwidth they provide is not over charged, if you don't need premium bandwidth, I recommend going to a basic provider.i think now people should stop complaining atleast about rackspace pricing
Totally agree.If you are looking for an affordiable CDN, shoot <!-- e --><a href="mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]</a><!-- e --> an email he is running a large amount of video hosting that does well.Rackspace is overpriced, in my opinion, for what they offer.
--TinaRackspace is overpriced, in my opinion, for what they offer.
--Tina
Tina I am just curious. Have you ever used them or had someone that you know use them?
When someone wants to pay to to just not have to worry about anything they are a good option. There is something to be said for paying for very consistently high support levels. Yes it's expensive compared to most hosts here but not expensive compared to the corporate managed hosting companies Q9, Fusepoint, Qwest, Intria-HP.Tina I am just curious. Have you ever used them or had someone that you know use them?
When someone wants to pay to to just not have to worry about anything they are a good option. There is something to be said for paying for very consistently high support levels. Yes it's expensive compared to most hosts here but not expensive compared to the corporate managed hosting companies Q9, Fusepoint, Qwest, Intria-HP.
Yes, I do. I also know that people will pay an exaggerated fee for perceived "better" service.
There are other companies who provide the same level of redundancy and service for less. Rackspace has a reputation and some nice frilly price quote sheets they send out that look very impressive and that justifies the price for some. A lot of people will pay the higher price...just for that nice warm fuzzy feeling they get by believing that the price is more expensive than most everyone else, so it must be better than most everyone else.
Don't get me wrong, Rackspace is a very good/solid company. They certainly know their target market and how to get them. Very smart business, in my opinion. That still doesn't mean you can't get the same service for much cheaper.
--TinaIt depends who you are. If you look at their client list, the vast majority of their clients aren't the type who'll hesistate to spend a few thousand dollars more per month for that guarantee. Track records do matter in this industry and rackspace has earned it over due time.Providers generally do charge a lot more for the overages--just like with cell phones. If I recall correctly, about 7-8 months ago Rackspace had a special on data transfer where you could get 1TB rather than the normal 400GB at that time. You may want to check with them a few times and ask if they have any bandwidth or data transfer specials.Well I thought very fondly of them (Rackspace) when back in 2000 they decied to remove the entires of the domains we had hosted with them from their routing table or something (never could get a satisfactory answer from them), and only to do it again a few weeks later.That was my last brush with them and vowed never to do business with them again. I am sure they are very very good, but once bitten - twice shy!Don't get me wrong, Rackspace is a very good/solid company. They certainly know their target market and how to get them. Very smart business, in my opinion. That still doesn't mean you can't get the same service for much cheaper.--Tina It is good to have unbaised info like that, oh wait, just saw your sig.
I would have hoped someone would have corrected your misconceptions of rackspaces BW charges but apparently not.1. RS BW is expensive no doubt, but look at their quality of bandwidth, rarely are you more than 40ms from anything2. RS BW is aggregate, i.e. one server = 400GB, two servers = 800GB not 400GB each, so if you have 2 web servers, 2 app servers and 2 DB servers, and your web servers do 90% of your traffic but you still stay UNDER the aggregate value you're fine.3. RS charges ONLY for outbound bytes trasnfered. This means you don't pay for requests or sending data to your servers.Over all there is probably not a better managed hosting option, they are still small enough that you can get personal attention but are large enough to leverage high end technologies.Peace - XI think nobody will disagree that Rackspace is an excellent way to go. Some people might disagree on it's costs, but it really depends on what kind of business you are running, what your budget is, and how much bandwidth you plan to use.If everything fits, I would recommend that people stop searching around too much and just go with Rackspace.As far as the aggregate bandwidth, I was misled, but it makes WAY more sense that it is aggregate, since everyone is doing that.I also need to point out that this post is more focused towards large bandwidth websites. I'm talking in the 5-50TB/month range (or more). That is where the bandwidth overage charges can really hurt. Most people here won't have that type of website, so they won't really need to worry about overage costs. That is also why I bring up CDNs....but I'm sure almost nobody here has even thought about using a CDN since they aren't big enough.If you are going to be producing a site that requires that much BW, believe me rackspace can get the price down as long as you are willing to commit to the bandwidth. People complain about BW overages because they expect it to be the same price as regular bandwidth... cell phone overages is a great example. If you want to BUY 50TB of bandwidth i'd be surprised if RS can't get that price down significantly.Also, i'd be surprised if they don't have some flat rate offerings, or like a mb/s billing option for high utilization customers.-XYeah they are. I recently contact them to get pricing and it was expensive..I understand that they manage everything, so I don't have to worry about, but bandwidth does not apply on it, but they overcharge...Rackspace bandwidth is overpriced. And while Rackspace says they are on tier-1s, they really are not. For example, AboveNet is not tier-1, Time Warner is not tier-1, etc.
Overpriced compared to what? Compared with a connection to AT&T or Verio in a data center that is saturated with gaming sites and spammers where I might be on a subnet that gets blacklisted? Yeah, Rackspace is expensive compared to that.
Rackspace is connected via Sprint, AT&T (both old AT&T and SBC networks), MCI, Qwest, AboveNet and Time Warner. These are excellent networks, and I've never had a network outage while hosting with them.
Before this thread goes any further would anyone care to define what a 'Tier 1' network is? I used to work at one of the major telcos and even they have a problem defining it. Most network engineers consider a tier1 network a network that is owned by the company in a specific region. For example, Qwest was a tier1 provider where it ran its own cable. SBC was a tier 1 provider in the states it ran its own cable. Level3 is a tier1 wherever it runs its own fiber. Capiche?
And besides, does it really matter what 'tier' a network is if it's always on and always fast?Overpriced compared to what? Compared with a connection to AT&T or Verio in a data center that is saturated with gaming sites and spammers where I might be on a subnet that gets blacklisted? Yeah, Rackspace is expensive compared to that.I've been with some of the 'large' dedicated server providers and have yet to experience harmful effects from other users on the same subnet, etc. Never been blacklisted for things like that.Rackspace is connected via Sprint, AT&T (both old AT&T and SBC networks), MCI, Qwest, AboveNet and Time Warner. These are excellent networks, and I've never had a network outage while hosting with them.I'm not arguing that they aren't excellent networks, but I am saying that they are not all tier-1s.Before this thread goes any further would anyone care to define what a 'Tier 1' network is? I used to work at one of the major telcos and even they have a problem defining it. Most network engineers consider a tier1 network a network that is owned by the company in a specific region. For example, Qwest was a tier1 provider where it ran its own cable. SBC was a tier 1 provider in the states it ran its own cable. Level3 is a tier1 wherever it runs its own fiber. Capiche?Tier-1 providers don't purchase transit from another provider. They only have peering. ATDN, AT&T, Savvis, Level 3, MCI/VZB, etc. are all tier-1 for example.I never said it mattered if a network is tier-1 or not, I just disputed your false claims that Rackspace uses nothing but tier-1s.
Like I said, I think Rackspace is a great company. They could work on their sales team a little by not typing in all CAPS when I'm asking questions in a chat. Besides that, it depends on what you need and how much you can pay. So it goes down to the cost-benefit and break-even analysis for a business.
However, if ppl have a large bandwidth site, I want them to be aware that they can use a Content Delivery Network to save some money since Rackspace charges a lot for overages.
If the biggest problem you can point out about Rackspace is that their sales reps type in all caps I would say that are doing an excelent job
The price you pay monthly is mainly for management and bandwidth. The premium bandwidth they provide is not over charged, if you don't need premium bandwidth, I recommend going to a basic provider.i think now people should stop complaining atleast about rackspace pricingTotally agree.If you are looking for an affordiable CDN, shoot <!-- e --><a href="mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]</a><!-- e --> an email he is running a large amount of video hosting that does well.Rackspace is overpriced, in my opinion, for what they offer.
--TinaRackspace is overpriced, in my opinion, for what they offer.
--Tina
Tina I am just curious. Have you ever used them or had someone that you know use them?
When someone wants to pay to to just not have to worry about anything they are a good option. There is something to be said for paying for very consistently high support levels. Yes it's expensive compared to most hosts here but not expensive compared to the corporate managed hosting companies Q9, Fusepoint, Qwest, Intria-HP.Tina I am just curious. Have you ever used them or had someone that you know use them?
When someone wants to pay to to just not have to worry about anything they are a good option. There is something to be said for paying for very consistently high support levels. Yes it's expensive compared to most hosts here but not expensive compared to the corporate managed hosting companies Q9, Fusepoint, Qwest, Intria-HP.
Yes, I do. I also know that people will pay an exaggerated fee for perceived "better" service.
There are other companies who provide the same level of redundancy and service for less. Rackspace has a reputation and some nice frilly price quote sheets they send out that look very impressive and that justifies the price for some. A lot of people will pay the higher price...just for that nice warm fuzzy feeling they get by believing that the price is more expensive than most everyone else, so it must be better than most everyone else.
Don't get me wrong, Rackspace is a very good/solid company. They certainly know their target market and how to get them. Very smart business, in my opinion. That still doesn't mean you can't get the same service for much cheaper.
--TinaIt depends who you are. If you look at their client list, the vast majority of their clients aren't the type who'll hesistate to spend a few thousand dollars more per month for that guarantee. Track records do matter in this industry and rackspace has earned it over due time.Providers generally do charge a lot more for the overages--just like with cell phones. If I recall correctly, about 7-8 months ago Rackspace had a special on data transfer where you could get 1TB rather than the normal 400GB at that time. You may want to check with them a few times and ask if they have any bandwidth or data transfer specials.Well I thought very fondly of them (Rackspace) when back in 2000 they decied to remove the entires of the domains we had hosted with them from their routing table or something (never could get a satisfactory answer from them), and only to do it again a few weeks later.That was my last brush with them and vowed never to do business with them again. I am sure they are very very good, but once bitten - twice shy!Don't get me wrong, Rackspace is a very good/solid company. They certainly know their target market and how to get them. Very smart business, in my opinion. That still doesn't mean you can't get the same service for much cheaper.--Tina It is good to have unbaised info like that, oh wait, just saw your sig.
I would have hoped someone would have corrected your misconceptions of rackspaces BW charges but apparently not.1. RS BW is expensive no doubt, but look at their quality of bandwidth, rarely are you more than 40ms from anything2. RS BW is aggregate, i.e. one server = 400GB, two servers = 800GB not 400GB each, so if you have 2 web servers, 2 app servers and 2 DB servers, and your web servers do 90% of your traffic but you still stay UNDER the aggregate value you're fine.3. RS charges ONLY for outbound bytes trasnfered. This means you don't pay for requests or sending data to your servers.Over all there is probably not a better managed hosting option, they are still small enough that you can get personal attention but are large enough to leverage high end technologies.Peace - XI think nobody will disagree that Rackspace is an excellent way to go. Some people might disagree on it's costs, but it really depends on what kind of business you are running, what your budget is, and how much bandwidth you plan to use.If everything fits, I would recommend that people stop searching around too much and just go with Rackspace.As far as the aggregate bandwidth, I was misled, but it makes WAY more sense that it is aggregate, since everyone is doing that.I also need to point out that this post is more focused towards large bandwidth websites. I'm talking in the 5-50TB/month range (or more). That is where the bandwidth overage charges can really hurt. Most people here won't have that type of website, so they won't really need to worry about overage costs. That is also why I bring up CDNs....but I'm sure almost nobody here has even thought about using a CDN since they aren't big enough.If you are going to be producing a site that requires that much BW, believe me rackspace can get the price down as long as you are willing to commit to the bandwidth. People complain about BW overages because they expect it to be the same price as regular bandwidth... cell phone overages is a great example. If you want to BUY 50TB of bandwidth i'd be surprised if RS can't get that price down significantly.Also, i'd be surprised if they don't have some flat rate offerings, or like a mb/s billing option for high utilization customers.-XYeah they are. I recently contact them to get pricing and it was expensive..I understand that they manage everything, so I don't have to worry about, but bandwidth does not apply on it, but they overcharge...Rackspace bandwidth is overpriced. And while Rackspace says they are on tier-1s, they really are not. For example, AboveNet is not tier-1, Time Warner is not tier-1, etc.Overpriced compared to what? Compared with a connection to AT&T or Verio in a data center that is saturated with gaming sites and spammers where I might be on a subnet that gets blacklisted? Yeah, Rackspace is expensive compared to that.
Rackspace is connected via Sprint, AT&T (both old AT&T and SBC networks), MCI, Qwest, AboveNet and Time Warner. These are excellent networks, and I've never had a network outage while hosting with them.
Before this thread goes any further would anyone care to define what a 'Tier 1' network is? I used to work at one of the major telcos and even they have a problem defining it. Most network engineers consider a tier1 network a network that is owned by the company in a specific region. For example, Qwest was a tier1 provider where it ran its own cable. SBC was a tier 1 provider in the states it ran its own cable. Level3 is a tier1 wherever it runs its own fiber. Capiche?
And besides, does it really matter what 'tier' a network is if it's always on and always fast?Overpriced compared to what? Compared with a connection to AT&T or Verio in a data center that is saturated with gaming sites and spammers where I might be on a subnet that gets blacklisted? Yeah, Rackspace is expensive compared to that.I've been with some of the 'large' dedicated server providers and have yet to experience harmful effects from other users on the same subnet, etc. Never been blacklisted for things like that.Rackspace is connected via Sprint, AT&T (both old AT&T and SBC networks), MCI, Qwest, AboveNet and Time Warner. These are excellent networks, and I've never had a network outage while hosting with them.I'm not arguing that they aren't excellent networks, but I am saying that they are not all tier-1s.Before this thread goes any further would anyone care to define what a 'Tier 1' network is? I used to work at one of the major telcos and even they have a problem defining it. Most network engineers consider a tier1 network a network that is owned by the company in a specific region. For example, Qwest was a tier1 provider where it ran its own cable. SBC was a tier 1 provider in the states it ran its own cable. Level3 is a tier1 wherever it runs its own fiber. Capiche?Tier-1 providers don't purchase transit from another provider. They only have peering. ATDN, AT&T, Savvis, Level 3, MCI/VZB, etc. are all tier-1 for example.I never said it mattered if a network is tier-1 or not, I just disputed your false claims that Rackspace uses nothing but tier-1s.