There isn't any secondary server?!


I’m a new customer of dreamhost, I having some trouble with all domains that I have hosted there.
I know that it can be for some technical upgrades, but It seem that there isn’t any secondary/backup server, Is this thue?
I don’t understand how it’s possible be severals hours offline, is this a professional hosting?

It’s a bit more complicated than that, but from the perspective you are looking at it, no, there is not a “backup” server.

The data is not hosted from two completely separate locations, but it is stored in more than one location. So, while you may have downtime, you are extremely unlikely to have dataloss.

Check out Gordaen’s Knowledge, the blog, and the MR2 page.

A shared hosting account isn’t a good place to be looking for redundancy. You’re never going to get 100% uptime with any single shared hosting account.

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

We have many servers waiting in the wings to take over for any server that has a hardware failure. If the primary drive with the operating system failed on your web server for instance, with a few commands one of the backup servers would be configured to take over for the failed server. The ‘failover’ process might take up to 30 minutes to completely finish. But many services would be coming up over that time.

There is no reason anything would ever be down for 4 hours since hardware failure would be the worst problem. Which machine are you on? or what is your domain?

Thank for replies,

now i’m safer with DH servers, i know that this was puntual, & i’m more friendly with DH information ways, too.

also now i know timely when are more trafic on server/system,

of course I work on local & have copy of all resources,
(but allways there are situations…)
now i’m feel happy, & i recommend it.


(domains hosted:,,,,;

not mine:;

not hosted, but soon:,,, now i have on owns,
& other proyect that maybe soon:

Well that’s not really true.

I worked in a shared (and dedicated) hosting company with a lot of redundancy.

Files are on netapp server (if an HDD crash, the system is just a bit slower but it’s still ok and there is no data loss),
for a given plan, there is dozen or hundreds of servers (if one of them fail, the whole performance is just a bit slower, but everything is still ok),
and there is also multiple switch with multiple internet links with ospf if one of them fail.

With this kind of redudancy, there is in theory no downtime at all (just a few seconds if an internet link fail to automatically update routes), only slowdown (but when there is 500 servers for one plan for instance, when 5 of them are down, you don’t notice any difference).

And i don’t talk about data backup on multiple locations, with ability to recover a datacenter to another place in 24H if one of them burn (but we never had to really test this).

So, yes, you can have better uptime with shared hosting, even better than dedicated hosting.
Because when (about) everything is shared, if something crash, there is no downtime, just a bit more sharing (less performance) the time to repair.

Get [color=#CC0000]$97[/color] Off with promo code :[color=#6600CC]97USD[/color] :cool: use “moua” as referrer

That isn’t exactly how things are shared here. What you’re describing is true in a Java Application Server, but not how it’s done here.

“Shared” here means that multiple users and sites share the same machine. The user filesystems are stored “off” the server on network attached storage so that the failure of the shared machine doesn’t endanger the data. (According to a DH honcho, it would require the failure of two physical drives in the array to lose customer data).

This isn’t a complete description. If you need more information you can look in the WIKI or ask for more.

I didn’t want you to think that your site was being served by more than one machine and give you false hope for uptime.