Current time: 04-23-2014, 12:59 AM Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Funny how you describe "normal"
11-18-2005, 11:32 AM
Post: #11
Funny how you describe "normal"
well I don't know if this is related to the outages this morning, but two of my sites got Brazillian Boy hacked about an hour ago. I hope that DH has some recent backups to restore from...
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
11-18-2005, 11:36 AM
Post: #12
Funny how you describe "normal"
backups are made on an hourly basis. Just log into FTP and then move into the hidden directory called .snapshot You'll find Backups!

Mysql also have backups regurarly, but you'll have to contact support if you need access to that.

-Matttail
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
11-18-2005, 11:41 AM
Post: #13
Funny how you describe "normal"
They should, as I have never found their backups to be lacking. Depending on whether or not your sites are database driven you may need to reload you MySQL databases.

Just a friendly note:

I strongly suggest that, in spite of DH good record with back-ups, you develop and implement *your own* backup plan, because "sh*t *does* happen". I would *never* rely *exclusively* on a web hosting providers back-up for *any* critical site. That is *our* responsiblity as webmasters.

I would also be curious to know what was hacked, and how. Are you using PHPbb, AwStats, etc., and is all your code current/patched?

Regards,
rlparker
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
11-18-2005, 11:45 AM
Post: #14
Funny how you describe "normal"
I'm really getting so sick of all the problems. And my site is still not back up! I've tried FTP and www, both still down. I have to say not only have I stopped recommending dreamhost to friends, I'm seriously considering moving myself. I came here because my friends raved about dreamhost - I can't say I agree with my experience so far.

*EDIT - site finally came back up just now.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
11-18-2005, 11:46 AM
Post: #15
Funny how you describe "normal"
Your post was probably more useful to the poster than mine; you told when how to find the back-ups which I just "brain farted" and forgot to include...thanks!

I still think, though, that none of us should *rely* on those backups...if there is prolonged lack of connectivity, we won't be able to get to the backups, and if we have to get the site back up ASAP on a different host, we are "out of luck" if the only backups we have are on DH, which can't be reached.

--rlparker
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
11-18-2005, 12:01 PM
Post: #16
Funny how you describe "normal"
That is an understandable position to take, especially if you are "new" to Dreamhost, as things have been worse of late and your experience would be heavily negative in the "short term". For me, while recent events have been problematic, to say the least, over the 5 years I have hosted numerous sites with DH the total downtime has been insignificant.

Now, it is *never* "insignificant" if you are "down" when you need to be "up", but these *are* machines, and they burp, hiccup, belch, fart and break....no matter *who's* machines they are...

I think it also behooves us all to remember something that we all too often forget (primarily, I believe, because DH works *so well* most of the time):

No *mission critical" site should ever be hosted on "shared servers".

In a very real sense, we all "get what we pay for" and while I sympathize with anyone whose site is broken, if 100% uptime is critical to you (or 99.999% or 97% or whatever your "pain threshold allows) the proper business decision is to suck it up and spend some *real money* to arrange your own connectivity, redundancy, storage, mail, etc...

For me, all this equates to DH still being a reasonable compromise between expense and functionality. The low cost allows some sites to operate profitably that would be completely in the red if they had to provide their own infrastructure.

Now, having said all that, I think it *is* important that DH service does seem to be deteriorated of late, and if it continues, at some point, the cost/functionality ratio *will* change. It is my exsperience that DH, in the past, has managed to pull it together before I, or my clients, have felt it was time to change.

As usual, this is just my opinion, and YMMV...

-rlparker
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
11-18-2005, 12:20 PM
Post: #17
Funny how you describe "normal"
Thanks for the pointer to the backups - I'd no idea they were there. I do have local backups, not recent but I hadn't made any changes recently so they probably would have sufficed.

They didn't get to the database, thankfully, but they did delete a slew of files in my web root directory as well as some image folders, etc. Seemed like random vandalism. I'm almost fully restored now. I've no idea how they got in, though. I'm running the Nucleus CMS but besides that, nothing that wasn't installed by DH in the basic package.

Bastards.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
11-18-2005, 12:23 PM
Post: #18
Funny how you describe "normal"
Thanks for the update, and I'm glad you are gonna recover! I just happened to be on the Nucleous website last night, and noticed a series of security updates recently added. I don't know how recently you have checked over there, but it might be worth a visit to see that you are running the latest code "patched" for the most recently discovered exploits.

Cheers,
rlparker
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
11-18-2005, 01:16 PM
Post: #19
Funny how you describe "normal"
"No *mission critical" site should ever be hosted on "shared servers"."

I agree with this, however ... that isn't the problem lately (or hardly ever, in our experience over the last 2 years).

Their network keeps failing. Big time. Wouldn't matter if you were paying them $100 a month for their dedicated server option - you'd still be hosed. This is twice in a two month period that they've had a serious outage related to the network. Luckily this one didn't last an entire day like the last one. They also had another one several months ago (That's 3 in a one year period).

And nevermind the ongoing email problems which never seem to get fixed (for example, just now I didn't get an email that my business partner did - and it was sent to an email alias that goes to the both of us)

That's the reason we're looking at other options. I love the features you get at DH, their support people seem very good and usually reply quick to trouble tickets, and of course the price is great ... but with a flakey network, none of that really matters Sad

Everyone is going to have problems ... and once a year would be acceptable (IMHO), but when things keep breaking (especially with increasing frequency), you start to lose faith.

- Brian Roach
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
11-18-2005, 06:51 PM
Post: #20
Funny how you describe "normal"
Broach,

All your points are valid, but I think I was not clear in my statement that you quoted.

"No *mission critical" site should ever be hosted on "shared servers".

was only stated as a general comment, and is true, as far as it goes. The real "meat" of what I was trying to say was:

"the proper business decision is to suck it up and spend some *real money* to arrange your own connectivity, redundancy, storage, mail, etc..."

I just assumed (always a dumb thing to do!) that my meaning was taking responsibility for your own infrastructure - not just 'upping" the ante on a commercial hosting service.

The *real money* I was talking about is several orders of magnitude above a $100/month "dedicated server", and I see now that I wasn't clear.

What I was referring to was leasing your own pipes, arranging for necessary connectivity and peering arrangement and back-up, fault tolerant archetecture for you redundant web, mail, and DNS servers, ad nauseum...in short, the whole magilla.

Big, Big, bucks....

While a dedicated server at DH or another hosting service may be more robust than a shared server, it alone is not acceptable for a mission critical site precisely because it is subject, as you pointed out, to many of the same frailties as a "hosted" shared server: it all depends on the *host*.

Hosting yourself (if you can afford it, have the technical expertise to design it and maintain it, and are willing to accept the full resposibility when you missed something or when something breaks) is how those kind of sites should be run. Everything else involves some kind of cost/performance tradeoff, and only *you* can decide what is a resonable compromise between cost and fuctionality/redundancy.

--rlparker
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Forum Jump: