Be Excellent To Each Other

Background to this.

I own a number of domains:

Eg:


Banjosforkent.co.uk

These redirect to my main site to a url such as:

webuyanybanjo.com/banjosforkent.htm

Adwords (after 2 years of taking large sums per month) has decided it doesn't like this. So each domain is going to need its own single webpage. I already do this for my two most important domains.

Yes, most companies want to to charge you a separate fee for each domain name, even if it's the most bog standard single page website. This adds up, especially if they start charging extra for databases etc.

I think what you need is a private virtual host, really.
I have the same requirement and when I last looked into it, the prices were a bit steep, so I just host them on my own machine.

is there a question?

The first post seems to have vanished!

Basically I need a provider who can host a number of simple 1 page sites where I can administer the lot from one page.

I use Flump for this kind of thing at the moment as they are cheap (which is what I need) however they do not offer a unified interface and the entire thing is a mess.

All the sites are 1 page and then they link to the main site.

When you say "administer", what do you mean?

Just pay for everything and see all the sites from one control panel. Like Fasthosts do.

I use Catalyst2 who have one control panel for multiple domains called HELM. Don't know whether this is standard, but they've been great for me.

The 123-reg control panel is reasonable. But I'm only using them for redirection / DNS stuff.

I'll have a look at the options posted. It needs to quite cheap as I have 5 domains to host and we're only talking 1 page that has 4 or 5 visitors a day to each.

I think 5 is probably past the break-even point where you should go for a "whole" virtual server, compared to paying for a separate domain hosting package for each one.

I used to use "10quid.co.uk" for multiple little sites (a tenner each per year), until they were turned out to be terrible cunts. Which is always a risk with low cost operators. And I couldn't find anything else in the same price range.

I'd offer to host your low bandwidth stuff on my server for free, but as there's no service guarantees in it you'd probably be well advised not to.

I might investigate if Flump have updated their services. In terms of uptime and customer service they are good. Its just the account management was/is appalling.

Their "15 domains in one" offer for 150 quid a year is probably what you want, by the looks of it.

(Hah, they even offer an invision board install, you could run World of Chinny without adverts!)

:this: I was going to suggest them, but I didn't understand the question.

Actually, 123 seem to have better pricing at the low end than last time I looked - 2.50 per month per domain. Comparable with flump anyway.

But again, with 5 or more domains, that all in one package will possibly be easier to work with.

I am necromancing this as I need to tell you how much I love Rackspace.

What was the time gap there?

2 years to the day, you can tell by reading the post datestamps.

Three minutes.

Ooh, weird.

Well that's not bad then, indeed.

I'm more inclined to think:

1) httpd shutdown
2) automated log of 1)
3) Wait 90 seconds, check again.
4) If still down, send automated broadcast.
5) If reply received, human takes a look.

That's what I'd do anyway, rather than have a human intervene on every short term service restart.

I'm fairly sure 1-3 are right. If I didn't respond, however, they'd have restarted Apache for me (they've done it before).

Their support is, quite frankly, staggering.

[root@web1 sendouts]# GO NORTH

Hahaha damnit! I'll broadcast that to him next time

In another memorable example - when something important exploded on our ageing web server, they spun up a new server, pulled two of the five drives from the broken webserver and smacked them into the new one, in case they couldn't replace the part on the old one (they could). This was at around 3am on a Saturday morning, and the downtime was under twenty minutes, which they still apologised for.

I once did a datacentre migration in under an hour by pulling mobo and disks out of a box, jumping in a cab, and sticking them in an already-racked chassis across town. One set of driver installs later (the old box was on ATM not Ethernet ) and it was all good.

I'd have pulled the entire box.

"Plug this fucker in!"

I seem to remember an old crusty internet saying about "never underestimating the bandwidth of a car full of backups". Even with super dooper broadband, there still must be people just couriering hard disks about.

The canonical quote (although there are older versions) is:


There's a great post about this here, which also leads to the great Wikipedia page on Sneakernet. That first link demonstrates that a station wagon packed with SD memory cards can manage almost 500 Gbit/sec in transfer speed. Even more impressively,



The latency sucks though.

I'm sure that's referenced in Snow Crash? Something about 747s loaded with dictionaries power-diving into a building once per second.

Could be (been a while since I read it) -- as Wikipedia notes, there are much earlier formulations of the same concept, but Tanenbaum's specific quote seems to be the most famous.