Jolt is down!

It’s been down for an hour!


Keep us posted!

Simon Jessey | Keystone Websites
Save $97 on yearly plans with promo code [color=#CC0000]SCJESSEY97[/color]

It’s 1:08pm in NY and I still cannot ping
Dreamhost stuff says it’s running, but I don’t think so.

It’s horrible.

I can ping Jolt without major difficulty (from Philadelphia). A trace reveals a few iffy hops, but nothing too bad.

Simon Jessey | Keystone Websites
Save $97 on yearly plans with promo code [color=#CC0000]SCJESSEY97[/color]

Man, that sucks.

Too bad none of us can do anything for you.

Pinging [] with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=56
Reply from bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=56
Reply from bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=56
Reply from bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=56

Ping statistics for
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 13ms, Maximum = 18ms, Average = 16ms

This at 10:28 PST (GMT-8)


I turned out that they firewalled our IP! I run e-commerce site and they thought it would be a good idea to block our IP.

This is EXACTLY why this idea could never work.

:stuck_out_tongue: Save up to $96 at Dreamhost with ALMOST97 promo code (I get $1).
Or save $97 with THEFULL97.

Ah! Who is the “they” that firewalled you, and why did “they” think it would be a good idea to do so?


To contrary, this is how it could work. May be false reports get erased after. Format could improve, but could work as good as this thread in forum. :wink:

The false alarm getting posted before being verified, in my opinion, is the idea not working… rather than the deletion of false info being a sign that it is. You can’t go to the site and be sure what you’re reading is correct.

If you post a bunch of accurate problems, then a bunch of inaccurate ones, then go back and delete the ones that aren’t accurate… aren’t you pretty much left with what’s already on

I guess I’m just missing how the effort pays off. It would seem that the accuracy of the site depends 100% on knowledgeable people stopping by to correct people.

This is where reporting through the panel has the advantage. If someone misspells their domain name, then sends a message to DH saying the server must be on fire, it will never make it to

In that example, the site would be inaccurate if rlparker hadn’t stopped by. The other hope for accuracy, is that the OP corrects it when DH tells them they’re wrong… which he wouldn’t have to do if he just contacted DH in the first place, rather than post incorrect info.

I’m not trying to bash the idea of helping people, but I just don’t see any advantages. I think if the site gets busy, you’ll instantly see it linked on the anti-Dreamhost sites that feed off of complaints, whether they’re accurate or not.

:stuck_out_tongue: Save up to $96 at Dreamhost with ALMOST97 promo code (I get $1).
Or save $97 with THEFULL97.

Absolutely correct! For the record, in that example, rlparker *didn’t" stop by…a wiki gnome gleaned the info from the discussion forum and reposted it in the example.

Granted, it had the same “effect” in the example (showing how it could work) but the “staged” example overlooks the fact that I would not have popped over to the wiki to report what had already been resolved in the forum, and unless someone else did, the inaccurate report would live on. :wink:


Ironic, all your objections apply equal to this forum. Except inaccurate information stays without edit, and we must read whole thread to get conclusion.

Real advantage I think: Users can subscribe for email notify of changes to their server page. Then they check their sites and confirm or deny problems.

The panel server problem report is questioned value for me. It seems a good try, but rare gets confirmed problem status even when Support eventually fixes a problem. Better is: panel Server wide problem report sends email or posts public report asking others to check sites.

Like can use hordes of customers for work on documentation; outages@DreamHost can use hordes for checking and documenting outage reports.

If the original reports were in the wiki, you’d have to pop over there to help solve problems, unless you suffer from mediawikiphobia. :wink:

Ha! Good point, except for the fact, that I (and I suspect many others that hang out here a lot) don’t have the time, energy, or inclination to add another venue to the avenue I use to try to help people, there is plenty of opportunity for that right here. In short, I would not go to a wiki for that purpose unless it was the only venue for participating in discussions about a subject I find interesting (and then I’d be frustrated that I was using a wiki instead of a discussion forum). :wink:

I’m not phobic about mediawiki (in fact, I actually love wikis in general), I just think the forums are better suited technically for this purpose (I also think the blog comments are by and large a waste of space and bandwidth!)

The ease with which a user can monitor “latest” posts on the forum, and the availability of the Forums and threads via RSS, is to my way of thinking every bit as convenient, actually more convenient for me, as checking “Recent Changes” on the wiki, or getting a slew of emails reporting those changes and additions.

The key to your wiki being successful, and useful, is heavy participation, heavy refactoring, and lots of wiki gnomes - I only have so much time to participate in such things, and I find the time spent here to be generally productive, and without the potential for reversion wars that are a part of wiki life.

I also like that fact that, while there is a period of time a post is available for editing on the forum, that time period is limited - the written record of the discussion is not subject to change months later by some vandal (as it is on a wiki).


Discussion forums are just that: discussions. Threads are taken at face value and none of us are claiming to be an authority on anything, or claiming this as the place for official announcements.

In fact, many threads are handled by telling people they should get their answer directly from DH instead of us… just like we’re saying is the place to go for outage reports.

Also, since this is the official DH forum, the chances are better that someone (including DH employees) will show up here to correct anything that needs it. So misinformation on your site is likely to go uncorrected for a longer time than it would here.

This has already been covered. A customer checking their site doesn’t necessarily confirm or deny anything.

The goal of reporting the problem is to get it fixed. When it’s system wide, it’s on the status site.

No one said that because a problem is reported through the panel that it means it’s system-wide and the whole world needs to be notified of it… just that it’s the proper place to report problems.

Why would the technicians that are at the physical location of the servers need to ask the public to check websites? Mailing everyone would be going backwards anyway, since the status page is already there and has an RSS feed. There’s no need to send out thousands of emails every time there’s a problem with 1 of 1,000 servers.

I’m not getting the comparison.

The Wiki replaced the knowledge base and contains very helpful info to help people get things done. This is information that is accessed constantly out of need.

The outage site is regurgitating what people already know, using a wiki, which doesn’t really seem to make as much sense as the blog setup uses.

If anyone truly cares about downtime specific to their site, then they should be using an offsite monitoring service that checks every few minutes… rather than reading wiki posts that may or may not be accurate.

There is already an official DH blog, status site, wiki and forum. You’re trying to fill a void that isn’t there.

:stuck_out_tongue: Save up to $96 at Dreamhost with ALMOST97 promo code (I get $1).
Or save $97 with THEFULL97.

For the record it was DreamHost staff who firewalled us.