The Need For Speed

[Ant]

I've been looking at a couple of potentially good hosting deals, these are both UK based but I need a little feedback about how these networks perform for everybody before I make any decisions.

If some of you folks could take a wander around the sites below and give me a little feedback as to what the performance is like for you, let me know your geographical location.

http://www.fasthosts.com

http://www.donhost.com


Thanks

Ant

[Guru]

Fasthosts is damn slow (pings time out)! Donhosts is OK!
EDIT: Will try again later!
------------------
Join the MURC SETI team! | SETI @ MURC

According to the latest official figures, 43% of all statistics are totally worthless..



[This message has been edited by Guru (edited 18 April 2001).]

[Maggi]

Same here on a T1 LAN

Fast is slow and Don seems to be pretty fast ...

[roadie]

here in bristol over a 56k conection they are both ok with the don having a slightly faster dl speed

[Sir Hitech]

FAST is marginally faster than DON here in Florida with T1 LAN.

[xortam]

They're both unusable here. SDSL, in The Valley.

[DentyCracker]

They both ping higher than forums.murc.ws here

[spoogenet]

C:\>ping [url="http://www.fasthosts.com"]www.fasthosts.com[/url]

Pinging [url="http://www.fasthosts.com"]www.fasthosts.com[/url] [194.74.63.248] with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 194.74.63.248: bytes=32 time=261ms TTL=110
Reply from 194.74.63.248: bytes=32 time=250ms TTL=110
Reply from 194.74.63.248: bytes=32 time=241ms TTL=110
Reply from 194.74.63.248: bytes=32 time=230ms TTL=110

Ping statistics for 194.74.63.248:
    Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 230ms, Maximum =  261ms, Average =  245ms

C:\>ping [url="http://www.donhost.com"]www.donhost.com[/url]

Pinging donhost.com [62.232.63.111] with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 62.232.63.111: bytes=32 time=270ms TTL=237
Reply from 62.232.63.111: bytes=32 time=270ms TTL=237
Reply from 62.232.63.111: bytes=32 time=300ms TTL=237
Reply from 62.232.63.111: bytes=32 time=281ms TTL=237

Ping statistics for 62.232.63.111:
    Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 270ms, Maximum =  300ms, Average =  280ms

C:\>ping forums.murc.ws

Pinging forums.murc.ws [216.162.101.9] with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 216.162.101.9: bytes=32 time=130ms TTL=246
Reply from 216.162.101.9: bytes=32 time=121ms TTL=246
Reply from 216.162.101.9: bytes=32 time=140ms TTL=246
Reply from 216.162.101.9: bytes=32 time=131ms TTL=246

Ping statistics for 216.162.101.9:
    Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 121ms, Maximum =  140ms, Average =  130ms

The load time on Don was horribly slow for the images and overal page load, whereas Fasthost was a little bit better. They are both, however, significantly slower than MURC usually is.

Atlanta, GA 10baseT ethernet.

b

[Jorden]

Checked both of them using IE5.50 on a v.90 modem and got mixed results.
Fasthosts was very fast in loading and setting up the pages.
Donhost was very slow in loading and setting up the pages.

Pinging the sites gave me packet loss on donhost only. Pinging repeatedly (100 times) gave me packet loss on both, but fasthosts was the one with the fewer packets lost (19 against 48)

Jord.

[xortam]

Just tried again and fasthosts was much faster than it was a couple hours ago. Dohnost still sucks big time. My ping is about the same among these sites and MURC (ping doesn't mean squat).

[Guru]

C:\>ping www.fasthosts.com

Pinging www.fasthosts.com [194.74.63.248] with 32 bytes of

Reply from 194.74.63.248: bytes=32 time=90ms TTL=105
Reply from 194.74.63.248: bytes=32 time=90ms TTL=105
Reply from 194.74.63.248: bytes=32 time=90ms TTL=105
Reply from 194.74.63.248: bytes=32 time=90ms TTL=105

Ping statistics for 194.74.63.248:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 90ms, Maximum = 90ms, Average = 90ms

C:\>ping www.donhost.com

Pinging donhost.com [62.232.63.111] with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 62.232.63.111: bytes=32 time=601ms TTL=230
Reply from 62.232.63.111: bytes=32 time=110ms TTL=230
Reply from 62.232.63.111: bytes=32 time=600ms TTL=230
Reply from 62.232.63.111: bytes=32 time=100ms TTL=230

Ping statistics for 62.232.63.111:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 100ms, Maximum = 601ms, Average = 352ms

C:\>

My pings finaly got trough to fasthosts and it's faster than donhosts!

Donhosts 1 / Fasthosts 1

[Jorden]

Reading beyond the pings and all, I found this snippet in the policy of Fasthosts.com that could jeapordize the hosting of MURC there:

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">
Fasthosts do not allow any of the following content to be stored on its servers:
Illegal Material - This includes copyrighted works, commercial audio, video, or music files, and any material in violation of any Federal, State or Local regulation.

Adult Material - Includes all pornography, erotic images, or otherwise lewd or obscene content. The designation of "adult material" is left entirely to the discretion of FastHosts.

Warez - Includes pirated software, ROMS, emulators, phreaking, hacking, password cracking. IP spoofing, etc., and encrypting of any of the above. Also includes any sites which provide "links to" or "how to" information about such material.
</font>

I think this would also include any drivers from Matrox, or not, Ant? And we'd have to over the fori with a fine-toothed comb and all and rip some things out.

Jord.

P.S: I haven't found these restrictions on Donhost.com (yet ).


[This message has been edited by Jorden (edited 18 April 2001).]

[Electric Amish]

Fasthosts seems faster for me.

Utah on AT@T@home cable.

amish

[MadScot]

Fasthosts is faster here at Stanford, CA on 100baseT. Both are slower than optimal.

[Kaj]

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">Originally posted by Jorden:
Reading beyond the pings and all, I found this snippet in the policy of Fasthosts.com that could jeapordize the hosting of MURC there:

I think this would also include any drivers from Matrox, or not, Ant? And we'd have to over the fori with a fine-toothed comb and all and rip some things out.

Jord.

P.S: I haven't found these restrictions on Donhost.com (yet ).


[This message has been edited by Jorden (edited 18 April 2001).]</font>

Why would Matrox-drivers fit into that description? They ARE freely downloadable for anyone who wants them, aren't they?