Is the speed EVER going to increase?

[ardarvin]

I'm writing this for three reasons:

1. All the other threads complaining about powweb performance issues are locked down.
2. I've been SOO patient, and am genuinely wondering if things will EVER get better.

ardarvin@gmail.com
www.buildering.net

[dchriste]

I hear ya... My site will post one thread per 45 seconds! Unacceptable!!!

C'mon guys... Get this stuff fixed.

[ardarvin]

Hah, #3 was ever so subtely deleted by our loving administrative staff, who seem more interested in covering up the problem than fixing it.

#3 alluded to the fact that some users (such as myself) may be unhappy enough to consider switching (*gasp*) to another provider, and that such alternate providers do in fact exist.

[Pie Man]

I too noticed my website has been slow for a long time (since the "upgrade"). At one time it use to load in a flash, now it takes like 10 seconds.... although in the past couple days it's now like 5 seconds or so... still bad though... :(

I've noticed a bunch of other members websites load in a flash though... so I don't get it

[ardarvin]

Oh, and #3 also contained the phrase "the great slowdown of 2006", which may have offended the Powweb government somewhat.

[Pie Man]

I have to say... since I posted that, my website seems to be loading instantaniously! Coincidence? I really don't care... just happy my site is loading very fast :)

[dchriste]

Lucky you... I have good days, and bad. Both from home (5mb connection) and work (30mb).
Today seems to be the worst.

Pow Web techs, please look into my site... www.sfgallied.com

and sorry for jacking your thread. ;)

[YvetteKuhns]

www.sfgallied.com loaded quickly, but the images slowed it down.

Page Generation: 0.98 Seconds

[YvetteKuhns]

I have several clients in California. Judy has a website using php/mysql and she has praised the new server. Her website is faster and she has had more visits. She was on the old cluster03 that was always having problems, so anything would have been an improvement. ;)

[Metro]

Hah, #3 was ever so subtely deleted by our loving administrative staff, who seem more interested in covering up the problem than fixing it.

#3 alluded to the fact that some users (such as myself) may be unhappy enough to consider switching (*gasp*) to another provider, and that such alternate providers do in fact exist.

I think it's the pits now that this company goes into your posts to remove things they don't like. It used to be they would only blank out another company name. What a shame. :(

[Croc Hunter]

That was heavy handed Metro. Hovever, having read what is left posted in this thread I think there was alot more to it than a simple link removal. All I can tell you guy's is, I have noticed slowness on several fronts. All I know is staff are busting their hump to resolve the problem/s.

ardarvin: What are your domain names experiencing slowness? buildering.net pulls up in 14 seconds on cable due to a 4 mile long page loaded with images. It took 4 seconds on reload. From a design perspective alone trim your huge page/s down. When I see a scrollbar shrinking like that I go back to Google.

[YvetteKuhns]

http://www.buildering.net This webpage loaded instantly for me! Unique website. I would rather see the good looking guy pics in first screen view than those scary pics! ;) Interesting song selections played in top frame to avoid interruptions while viewing pages. I like to watch the squirrel animations dance to the music.

I have a client Mimi Tang in Vancouver. She is a financial planner. You are 3 hours behind us like California, but I don't think that you should notice a significant change in load time. There will be a few more hops to get to you. I did see the thumbnail images appear a tad slower on other web pages. I am wondering how image rendering is being handled server-side.

[retro]

My PowWeb-hosted domains are insufferably slow, as are all aspects of the PowWeb web site. I am on a DS3 in Central Virginia and I am having no speed issues accessing a variety of typical sites, including sites in New England (where I believe PowWeb/Endurance is operating) as well as overseas.

What is the specific nature of the problem? Is there a prognosis for improvement in performance? The current response time is simply unacceptable.

[Metro]

That was heavy handed Metro.

Well Crock, I'm a big guy so I have a heavy hand (err paw). I think if they remove something they should show that it was edited and maybe why. But, ya, we are getting off topic so I'll stop here.

[bwhite]

I have been with Powweb about 5 years and I would say things have slowed by half at least. All my pages use to load almost instantly.. now images scroll in. Before it was snap, and now its a scroll. It's not terrible but I am not happy with the decrease in speed.

[YvetteKuhns]

I have seen an increase in speed since the servers are just north of me instead of being located in California. I know of other web hosts that have servers in different locations. One company has four locations in North America. The server closest to you would give you the best load times.

[Croc Hunter]

Well Crock, I'm a big guy so I have a heavy hand (err paw). I think if they remove something they should show that it was edited and maybe why. But, ya, we are getting off topic so I'll stop here.I meant the edit was heavy handed, as you'd said and I agree.

If people with 'slow' sites would post their domains we can take a look at the problem and post traceroute results.

[bwhite]

I have seen an increase in speed since the servers are just north of me instead of being located in California. I know of other web hosts that have servers in different locations. One company has four locations in North America. The server closest to you would give you the best load times.

I have two sites and one is duplicated on both servers... one with powweb and another from a tiny one-man operation in New Jersey. The New Jersey server is fast and the powweb site much less. Not slow, but not great. Before, I don't remember such a great difference between them. Powweb is cheaper and gives much more... but I'll never give up my first guy because he is so reliable and the service so personable. I can call and say HI, its brad... and he knows just who I am. Thats kind of nice in this day of huge take overs and such.

Aloha ... brad (panflute.net and pan-flute.com)

[YvetteKuhns]

The New Jersey server is fast and the powweb site much less. Not slow, but not great. Before, I don't remember such a great difference between them.

This is what we are trying to communicate to PowWeb/Endurance. There IS a problem and the images are just one way of easily seeing that a problem exists. The delayed appearance of images or slower load time for php/mysql driven sites makes people think there are php/cgi handling problems. But if sites are slow and not having much, if any of these, then what is the problem? Is it a firewall?

[gardensafari]

http://www.sfgallied.com loaded instantly for me also (from California) despite the huge image files.

example : http://www.sfgallied.com/html/images/sfg/sfgmain5.jpg is 479118 bytes - oh my!






Here it took over 20 seconds to load that page....

[gardensafari]

http://www.buildering.net This webpage loaded instantly for me!

Wishful thinking: the page took me 20.923 seconds to load (and I am on cable).

[YvetteKuhns]

Did you check to see how many hops to get that domain to you? It is 9 hops for me.

[gardensafari]

I am sorry, but how do I see the amount of hops?

[gardensafari]

Dear Yvette,

Your page (http://www.powerpageswebdesign.com/) takes me 9.363 seconds to load, which is absurd, for in the early morning hours it is less than 2 seconds! And once more it is the graphics loading slooooowly....

[gardensafari]

6.1 seconds to laod that page. Not bad. But what do you exactly mean? As I told you my homepage sometimes loads fast, sometimes extremely slow. There are no files coming from other sources: all stuff is right here at PowWewb servers. So why does it take 1 second one minute and 8 seconds the other?

Cheers,

Hans

[YvetteKuhns]

Your page (http://www.powerpageswebdesign.com/) takes me 9.363 seconds to load, which is absurd, for in the early morning hours it is less than 2 seconds! And once more it is the graphics loading slooooowly....

The first page is slower, because I have the weather loading from the weather server. That link tells me if my son has school on bad weather days. Most pages have few images, but they are hosted here.

[David Byrnes]

I am sorry, but how do I see the amount of hops?

In windows, use tracert (trace route). This will show the number of hops, and response time. For example, here is a tracert for your web site

Microsoft Windows XP [Versión 5.1.2600]
(C) Copyright 1985-2001 Microsoft Corp.

C:\Documents and Settings\David>tracert gardensafari.net

Traza a la dirección gardensafari.net [65.254.250.102]
sobre un máximo de 30 saltos:

1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 10.48.3.89
2 61 ms 584 ms 67 ms 10.49.129.173
3 126 ms 64 ms 64 ms 200.91.106.9
4 605 ms 67 ms 158 ms 200.91.106.1
5 84 ms 76 ms 70 ms 200.91.105.9
6 79 ms 635 ms 67 ms 200.91.108.2
7 76 ms 64 ms 62 ms 200.9.48.213
8 114 ms 605 ms 171 ms sl-st20-mia-5-4.sprintlink.net [144.223.245.173]

9 116 ms 108 ms 218 ms sl-bb21-mia-12-0-0.sprintlink.net [144.232.2.196
]
10 261 ms 143 ms 132 ms sl-bb21-dc-14-0-0.sprintlink.net [144.232.9.27]

11 379 ms 299 ms 135 ms sl-st21-ash-10-0.sprintlink.net [144.232.20.148]

12 140 ms 143 ms 587 ms p16-2-1-0.r21.asbnva01.us.bb.gin.ntt.net [129.25
0.9.53]
13 471 ms 143 ms 147 ms p6-2.core01.iad01.atlas.cogentco.com [154.54.12.
17]
14 550 ms 135 ms 190 ms v3490.mpd01.iad01.atlas.cogentco.com [154.54.3.2
26]
15 138 ms 144 ms 514 ms v3494.mpd01.dca01.atlas.cogentco.com [154.54.5.4
1]
16 420 ms 144 ms 135 ms g1-0-0.core02.dca01.atlas.cogentco.com [154.54.5
.49]
17 154 ms 143 ms 483 ms p6-0.core01.jfk02.atlas.cogentco.com [66.28.4.82
]
18 346 ms 152 ms 146 ms p5-0.core01.bos01.atlas.cogentco.com [66.28.4.11
7]
19 158 ms 155 ms 599 ms g0-2.na21.b006523-1.bos01.atlas.cogentco.com [66
.28.5.214]
20 464 ms 152 ms 302 ms endurance-international-group.demarc.cogentco.co
m [38.99.213.62]
21 310 ms 152 ms 168 ms 207-148-225-36.yourhostingaccount.com [207.148.2
25.36]
22 688 ms 148 ms 158 ms 65-254-250-102.yourhostingaccount.com [65.254.25
0.102]

Traza completa.

C:\Documents and Settings\David>

As you can see, it took 22 hops (I'm in Costa Rica), and 10 of those are within the Endurance system

[helvetico]

Some comments for whom cares about my nerd stuff:

Powweb can have potentially several bottlenecks and is very intransparent about technical specs.

Server Hardware:
The probably least important is the server hardware brand. What matters is the memory (RAM) and the CPU speed

Sharing factor:
This is crucial for shared hosting. It DOES MATTER whether you share CPU and RAM with 200 customers with HTML display pages with a few images or download archives or with 200 customers with PHP pages that need to be parsed by the server and load program modules into the RAM of the server.

Storage system:
Of course a big company like Powweb does not use the local harddrive for other puposes than loading the operating system (GNU Linux, Solaris, etc.). They have a storage network (SAN) with redundant RAID disk arrays which has many advantages. This is a clear strong point of this big company when compared to small hosting firms running everything off one server.

Bandwith:
The following is an assumption after running a few looking glass traceroutes.Endurance/Powweb seems to load off the whole traffic over ONE SINGLE transit provider, Cogent nowadays. Here in Europe Cogent does not have a good reputation quality and businesswise. Cogent is trying to attract content rich businesses like Endurance with agressive (almost free) price offerings to force others to peer with them for free in order to sell paid transit to the rest into their free peers. To resume this: Every accessing network is FORCED to go through Cogent and suffers from their long routes and many hops. I would expect a hosting firm which is serving so much content to seek peerings to have the shortest path to networks with customers accessing their content.

Management Action:
I would appreciate Powweb to identify the weakest part in the production chain and address issues. Action list: Get faster servers, peer with access networks, monitor page access time, move "heavy load" sites to dedicated servers with decreased sharing factor if economically feasible or cancel contract with "unwelcome heavy load customers" or diversify offerings. All this will result in customer satisfaction and higher customer retention thus lowering cost for new customer aquisition and increaing the value of the portfolio. Promising excellent performance with big words "proprietary server system with load balancing for best performance" knowing that the network does not allow such after the integration into Endurance is a lie and lies have short legs.

[bwhite]

helvetico this seems like an excellent post. Have you tried to talk to anyone in the administration about this? I am really disappointed by the decrease in speed. Especially when I do a side by side comparision with my mirror site hosted in New Jersey. I really don't want to leave, but my contract is up at the end of January and that thought keeps crossing my mind.

... brad (panflute.net)

[helvetico]

Hi Brad, thank you for your cheers. I leave it up to you to direct Powweb's eyes on my post. I am not such a longstanding customer that I could judge whether their performance is good or bad. I will have my moment of truth soon since I will migrate a couple GB of e-mail and some webcontent over to them soon. I decided to do so more than two years ago when there the old company spirit was still in place. But money rules the world and they now belong to this Endurance company.

All I can say is that the page loading time of both your pages do not seem to differ much from where I am connected to the Internet. The index page loads in about 4 seconds. I used the Opera 9.02 browser which renders pages faster then any other browser and does count the time for loading a page with some tricky setup. The Quicktime movies download from Powweb server 65.254.250.104 at a cap speed of 118 KB/s which is roughly one Megabit and fairly acceptable. I guess the movies are not directly available from the mirror page so I have no comparison. But the download speed only really matters the first couple seconds until it begins to play. As long as the download speed is higher than the movie content is played back (I guess @ some 500 kbit).

About the mirror page I can only say that it is hosted within the network of Tier2 carrier AT&T (SBC) so broadband customers of that company are supposed to have a more speedy experience. Since Cogent does not have residential customers you should check from which networks most of your visitors come from and look for a hosting company peered directly to that/those networks and using quality bandwith in case of transit.

A website is like a storefront. There is backyard stores and main avenue stores with the exception that crap and excellency in the hosting business just differ per month less than the price of a lunch.

Some interesting extra information taken from www.whois.sc:

panflute.net is hosted with 8643 other domains on the same server and has had 3 server IP addresses
pan-flute.com is hosted with 89 other domains on the same server and has never changed the IP

[YvetteKuhns]

http://whois.domaintools.com/powerpageswebdesign.com

It is interesting that the registered email address NEVER belonged to me. I NEVER had enter.net for an ISP, but I do have RCN.

IP History: 4 changes. Using 4 unique IP addresses in 2 years. I have been here since 2001, so I guess it was saturn, mars, magnatar, cluster?, whatever it is now.

[helvetico]

Hi Yvette. It doesn't really belong to this thread but others might also get aware of a similar issue and be prevented from adverse happening. You better check with register.com or whatever reseller you purchased registration services from. That owner address could potentially be abused to retrieve a password and hijack your domain name. I didn't quite get the planet story... If you have been with Powweb for 4 years (no nameserver change indicates that) it means that they have moved you 4 times to different machines or reallocated IP addresses for the same machine. It could also be that they mirrored your site on two or more IP addresses (servers) for scheduled maintenance or redundancy reasons and at the time the whois service pinged your domainname it was directed to different IPs by the Powweb DNS server.
Florian

[IanS]

"The planet story"- Powweb named servers after planets for a while, then moved to cluster numbers, and now it's whatever it is now...

[Mr Italy!]

This MySQL server has been running for 0 days, 1 hours, 26 minutes and 6 seconds. It started up on Oct 30, 2006 at 07:06 AM.

Since this reboot things seem to be running a little faster... anyone support that view?

[Jonj1611]

Hi,

No, my site is a lot slower since the sql reboot(which knocked my site offline, thanks!).

The sites were running really slow when I first joined Powweb, then after numberous complaints they seemed to speed up to a reasonable speed, then the reboot today and dead slow again.

Cheers
Alex

[Metro]

I meant the edit was heavy handed, as you'd said and I agree.

If people with 'slow' sites would post their domains we can take a look at the problem and post traceroute results. OK Croc, Haven't been here for a few days. :D

[TMF Group]

I just finished a site for a client. This is probably number 10 that I have sent to powweb. The load times are now far too slow and I won't bring in anymore without some load time improvements.
Sporadic page loads and occasional time-outs are not what I want my customers to experience.
www.wyomingwalleye.com is the most recent site...

[YvetteKuhns]

My clients have noticed an increase in speed, but most are in the United States. Many are in California. David's trace route interests me, because it clearly shows several hops starting with #13 that hangs with Endurance. Nearly every person that mentioned slowness was outside the US, one was in Oregon. Each person will need to make a copy of their tracert for Endurance, because those of us on the East Coast don't get past 9 or 10 hops and don't experience the problem. I had anywhere from 17 to 21 hops on the legacy servers in California to get to Pennsylvania. But I don't recall any hanging like you are all experiencing.

[rtoohil]

Location does have an effect, but it's also what ISP/network provider you use. I have Comcast here in the Boston area. I live a few miles from the data center. It takes 20 hops to get to my test domain:

5 to get out of Comcast and onto AT&T
5 more to take AT&T down to Virginia and peer with Cogent
7 more to come back up the coast and hit our data center
3 to get to the server

Even with 20 hops, I get pretty good rates from the server. Uploading is a different story -- I don't have problems with timeouts and whatnot, but my uploads are capped at about 40kb/s, but that's my Comcast connection and nothing to do with our servers.

Your mileage may vary.

[YvetteKuhns]

Location does have an effect, but it's also what ISP/network provider you use.

That is what I thought, because Judy is in California and uses MSN. She said the new server is fast. Why would someone in Oregon, north of California, see such a difference? It had to be more than just location. I am fortunate that the new servers are closer to ME, but how about my clients and our website visitors? I have no control over their ISPs.

If the people experiencing slowness viewing PowWeb hosted websites don't see other websites loading slowly, they won't blame the ISP. They will blame the web host. Is there a networking problem between certain ISPs and PowWeb hosting?

I have Comcast here in the Boston area. I live a few miles from the data center. It takes 20 hops to get to my test domain:

5 to get out of Comcast and onto AT&T
5 more to take AT&T down to Virginia and peer with Cogent
7 more to come back up the coast and hit our data center
3 to get to the server

Anyone up there have RCN? I have RCN. I am curious to see the difference in hops.

[maxwelld]

When talking about connection speed, you have to distinguish between pages that are plain HTML and pages that use PHP and MySQL. My site that is just HTML, CSS, and JavaScript loads quite fast. My blog , which uses PHP and MySQL, can be tortuous or give Internal Server errors. Endurance still hasn't got it's SQL servers working right.

As far as the effect of location, I don't think geographical distance is the main factor. When I check download speeds from Seattle or LA versus NY or Washington, the differences are minor. The big efffects are a function of which ISP and which backbone provider is involved.

[YvetteKuhns]

When talking about connection speed, you have to distinguish between pages that are plain HTML and pages that use PHP and MySQL. My site that is just HTML, CSS, and JavaScript loads quite fast. My blog , which uses PHP and MySQL, can be tortuous or give Internal Server errors. Endurance still hasn't got it's SQL servers working right.

Normally, server-side scripts take longer to load. Judy's site www.sellenslending.com (California) is php/mysql driven, yet she saw an increase in speed. Same with Lisa's site www.healthyweightlossplans.com (California). They are very fast.

The big efffects are a function of which ISP and which backbone provider is involved.

Endurance is hopefully checking into this.

[gardensafari]

Just want to tell all of you that during the last ten days i saw an impressive improvement. The speed really has been increased. Pictures still load slower than they did before, but it isn't dramatic any longer.
Another thing is that according to Internet Sheer I just had the 4th week in a row without outages. And the connection speed reported has been about 0.11 seconds all week last week.
I complain when I feel I have to, but this time I am glad to be able to report progress.

[YvetteKuhns]

Thanks, keyplyr! The mystery is solved. :D

[gardensafari]

[QUOTE] Judy's site www.sellenslending.com (California) is php/mysql driven, yet she saw an increase in speed.[/unquote]

Yep and no. The page loaded in less than 2 seconds, but it took another 6 seconds before Judy's tiny picture was loaded and I could enjoy her looks.

The other site however was fast overall.

[YvetteKuhns]

Yep and no. The page loaded in less than 2 seconds, but it took another 6 seconds before Judy's tiny picture was loaded and I could enjoy her looks.

Thanks for checking. In Judy's case, her target audience is only California residents where she is licensed to do business. But most websites hope to be globally viewed and should not see such a slow load time.

[gardensafari]

Another weird thing this evening: my webpage loads much quicker than the forum does. That is really sloooowwww tonight.
And no, that is no complaint, for I prefer the forum being snailish over my site being sluggish.

[mikem]

Years with Powweb and always the same. SLOW SLOW SLOW!

Of course there is no announcement and no explanation. I've submitted tickets and get the classic response "Your site loads fine for us" RUBBISH!!!
I am sick of your hollow excuses Powweb. Pony up and give your customers what they deserve. Fast, truthful responses to a lacking infrastructure that continually degrades daily.

I have 4 websites with Powweb and ALL are creeping along...heck, sometimes they don't even load.

Running PHP/MySQL here at Powweb has been a joke. THAT seems to be the biggest problem with PW and has been for a long time.

And why is it we see this kind of stuff all the time? Never fixed...the same old story, it's like a broken record.
http://forum.powweb.com/showthread.php?t=69143

[IanS]

The problems were announced here (http://forum.powweb.com/showthread.php?t=70674)

[jpfieber]

My site (http://sojoe.info) has slowed down since the upgrade as well, and is painfully slow today. Here's my trace route:

Tracing route to sojoe.info [65.254.250.109]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.0.1
2 26 ms 8 ms 26 ms 10.86.0.1
3 17 ms 8 ms 7 ms gig2-1.milwwismil-rtr1.wi.rr.com [24.160.228.77]

4 8 ms 25 ms 8 ms srp4-0.milwwignfl-rtr3.wi.rr.com [24.160.228.118
]
5 10 ms 12 ms 9 ms so0-1-0.chcgilL3-rtr1.kc.rr.com [24.94.160.21]
6 23 ms 23 ms 22 ms so-3-1-0.kscymoL3-rtr1.kc.rr.com [24.94.160.162]

7 28 ms 34 ms 29 ms ge-5-1-203.hsa1.StLouis1.Level3.net [4.79.132.13
]
8 28 ms 42 ms 29 ms ae-11-11.car2.StLouis1.Level3.net [4.69.132.186]

9 40 ms * 53 ms ae-4-4.ebr2.Chicago1.Level3.net [4.69.132.190]
10 55 ms 54 ms 65 ms ae-7-7.car1.Boston1.Level3.net [4.69.132.241]
11 54 ms 55 ms 55 ms ae-11-11.car2.Boston1.Level3.net [4.69.132.246]

12 44 ms 61 ms 44 ms unknown.Level3.net [63.211.176.18]
13 59 ms 63 ms 45 ms ge6-1.aggr2.sbo.ma.rcn.net [207.172.15.136]
14 58 ms 52 ms 44 ms 207.172.31.46
15 45 ms 50 ms 44 ms 207-148-225-3.yourhostingaccount.com [207.148.22
5.3]
16 44 ms 46 ms 54 ms 65-254-250-109.yourhostingaccount.com [65.254.25
0.109]

Trace complete.

It's a wordpress blog, so php and sql are used. Pictures seem slow, though I don't use all that many. Sometimes the css page doesn't load, and of course the site becomes completely munged.

[poddu]

It was disappointing to see the network was busted. But now, the speed is killing me. My php based website is either loading only part of it or giving me "The connection to the server was reset while the page was loading.". Unfortunately, this happens intermittently, and not all the time, so the support people disagree with me when I try to show them. The earlier response from my LONG conversation with support was a through waste of time.

This time, I don't know what to do. All these troubles have surfaced only after the fancy migration. Maybe powweb should trackback and check if they missed something in the migration. I'm only a drop in the ocean of their customers, but if those responsible don't get the whip cracking, then powweb will get beaten by the BBB, which they claim to be a member of. What's the deal advertising their service as "lighting speed", "state-of-the-art hardware".

Mayur
http://poddu.com

[mikem]

The problems were announced here (http://forum.powweb.com/showthread.php?t=70674)

THAT is an OUTAGE announcement!! NOT A SLOW Website announcement. I already saw that and it is NOT relevant to the SLOWNESS.

Sheesh!

and whatever they did heer
http://forum.powweb.com/showthread.php?t=67604
made no difference...Isolated the problem my butt...the problem STILL exists!!!

SLOW SLOW SLOW

[jpfieber]

I sent the following to support, I hope they will respond with support and not just 'it worked fine for us'. Try the test page I setup to see if you get the same problem I do...

Over the past months I've noticed my site (http://sojoe.info) has become slower and slower. While I can access other sites from home and work at a very fast clip, mine crawls. Today is just intolerable. I created a test page that doesn't use PHP or SQL, just simple HTML with some pictures (http://sojoe.info/test.html). It takes 8-10 seconds just to load the text on the page, and then you can watch as one by one it takes a few seconds each to load a few of the images (not large images), but about half of them generally fail. Occassionally I simply cannot load the page at all. Could you please help get my site back to an acceptable level of performance?

[jpfieber]

I just got a response, which was pretty quick. Doesn't fix my site, but at least part of their support team is doing what hey are supposed to:

We are currently experiencing an issue with our Server. Our Network Operations team is currently working to resolve the issue. We apologize for this inconvenience, we recognize that you count on us for liable service and we are working to restore that service as quickly as possible.

[YvetteKuhns]

http://sojoe.info/ loads painfully slowly. It hangs on or after the DOCTYPE line, because there is a problem with the second line.

<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">

This happened to other people here. Connecting to the other server to pull ads or other contents from other servers can be a problem, especially when the OTHER server is slow. I don't know if the other server is slow or connecting to the other server, then displaying in the website is slow.

This is also a Word Press site. But there aren't many images. This should load faster. I tried both Firefox and IE.

[YvetteKuhns]

I did a tracert ftp.sojoe.info and on the 7th of 9 or 10 hops, it briefly hung after the RCN and before the Endurance where just the ip address appears. It finished quickly, but the actual website loads slowly.

[jorritpouw]

In the beginnen when I joined powweb (half a year ago), it was deadly fast to me (images VERY fast loaded). I already was on the new network by then. Nowadays, when I try to access http://etclan.redefining-webdesign.net (site I hosted for a friend on my account http://jorritpouw.powweb.com) is VERY VERY VERY VERY SLOW!

That website's control panel is very slow too.. It seems like the server can't handle those requests fast enough..

Even when I try to load a 80kb flashmovie it seems to have little time-outs all the time (over 5 seconds to load WITH PRELOADER!!).

It would be alot more fast if there was a Level 3 peering.. I have VERY FAST speeds with that network from all over the world!

I live in The Netherlands, and this is my tracert result:

C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator>tracert jorritpouw.powweb.com

Bezig met het traceren van de route naar powweb-9.powweb.com [65.254.250.109]
via maximaal 30 hops:

1 66 ms 1 ms 1 ms 192.168.1.254
2 19 ms 85 ms 20 ms 82-171-95-254.dsl.ip.tiscali.nl [82.171.95.254]

3 20ms 20 ms 21 ms vpn70-tisadsl.bcsw1.asd-nh.net.tiscali.nl
[195.241.3.81]
4 35 ms 107 ms 106 ms vpn70-tisadsl.bcsw1.asd-nh.net.tiscali.nl [195.2
41.3.81]
5 20 ms 20 ms 21 ms 10ge-2-0-0-25.ams22.ip.tiscali.net [213.200.75.1
]
6 96 ms 92 ms 158 ms so-5-0-0.nyc33.ip.tiscali.net [213.200.80.58]
7 151 ms 145 ms 147 ms p5-0.core01.jfk05.atlas.cogentco.com [154.54.11.
25]
8 146 ms 76 ms 143 ms t4-1.mpd01.jfk05.atlas.cogentco.com [154.54.1.15
3]
9 146 ms 81 ms 212 ms v3495.mpd03.jfk02.atlas.cogentco.com [154.54.6.4
5]
10 77 ms 152 ms 159 ms g10-0-0.core01.jfk02.atlas.cogentco.com [154.54.
5.237]
11 151 ms 148 ms 147 ms p5-0.core01.bos01.atlas.cogentco.com [66.28.4.11
7]
12 150 ms 152 ms 150 ms g0-2.na21.b006523-1.bos01.atlas.cogentco.com [66
.28.5.214]
13 149 ms 150 ms 146 ms endurance-international-group.demarc.cogentco.co
m [38.99.213.62]
14 151 ms 149 ms 150 ms 207-148-225-36.yourhostingaccount.com [207.148.2
25.36]
15 158 ms 155 ms 154 ms 65-254-250-109.yourhostingaccount.com [65.254.25
0.109]

De trace is voltooid.

C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator>tracert jorritpouw.powweb.com

And I really hate to say this, but if this won't get any better I will move to another hosting which gives me my desired speed (REASONABLE speed)..

[IanS]

In the beginnen when I joined powweb (half a year ago), it was deadly fast to me (images VERY fast loaded). I already was on the new network by then. Nowadays, when I try to access http://etclan.redefining-webdesign.net (site I hosted for a friend on my account http://jorritpouw.powweb.com) is VERY VERY VERY VERY SLOW!

That website's control panel is very slow too.. It seems like the server can't handle those requests fast enough..

Even when I try to load a 80kb flashmovie it seems to have little time-outs all the time (over 5 seconds to load WITH PRELOADER!!).

It would be alot more fast if there was a Level 3 peering.. I have VERY FAST speeds with that network from all over the world!

I live in The Netherlands, and this is my tracert result:

C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator>tracert jorritpouw.powweb.com

Bezig met het traceren van de route naar powweb-9.powweb.com [65.254.250.109]
via maximaal 30 hops:

1 66 ms 1 ms 1 ms 192.168.1.254
2 19 ms 85 ms 20 ms 82-171-95-254.dsl.ip.tiscali.nl [82.171.95.254]

3 20ms 20 ms 21 ms vpn70-tisadsl.bcsw1.asd-nh.net.tiscali.nl
[195.241.3.81]
4 35 ms 107 ms 106 ms vpn70-tisadsl.bcsw1.asd-nh.net.tiscali.nl [195.2
41.3.81]
5 20 ms 20 ms 21 ms 10ge-2-0-0-25.ams22.ip.tiscali.net [213.200.75.1
]
6 96 ms 92 ms 158 ms so-5-0-0.nyc33.ip.tiscali.net [213.200.80.58]
7 151 ms 145 ms 147 ms p5-0.core01.jfk05.atlas.cogentco.com [154.54.11.
25]
8 146 ms 76 ms 143 ms t4-1.mpd01.jfk05.atlas.cogentco.com [154.54.1.15
3]
9 146 ms 81 ms 212 ms v3495.mpd03.jfk02.atlas.cogentco.com [154.54.6.4
5]
10 77 ms 152 ms 159 ms g10-0-0.core01.jfk02.atlas.cogentco.com [154.54.
5.237]
11 151 ms 148 ms 147 ms p5-0.core01.bos01.atlas.cogentco.com [66.28.4.11
7]
12 150 ms 152 ms 150 ms g0-2.na21.b006523-1.bos01.atlas.cogentco.com [66
.28.5.214]
13 149 ms 150 ms 146 ms endurance-international-group.demarc.cogentco.co
m [38.99.213.62]
14 151 ms 149 ms 150 ms 207-148-225-36.yourhostingaccount.com [207.148.2
25.36]
15 158 ms 155 ms 154 ms 65-254-250-109.yourhostingaccount.com [65.254.25
0.109]

De trace is voltooid.

C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator>tracert jorritpouw.powweb.com

And I really hate to say this, but if this won't get any better I will move to another hosting which gives me my desired speed (REASONABLE speed)..

I don't know if this helps, but here's a tracert from the UK
Tracing route to powweb-9.powweb.com [65.254.250.109]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.0.1
2 15 ms 14 ms 13 ms esr6.edinburgh5.broadband.bt.net [217.32.78.145]

3 13 ms 13 ms 13 ms 217.32.78.30
4 14 ms 16 ms 16 ms 217.41.218.5
5 16 ms 40 ms 20 ms 217.41.174.78
6 14 ms 14 ms 14 ms 217.41.174.54
7 14 ms 14 ms 14 ms 217.32.0.49
8 13 ms 14 ms 14 ms core2-pos5-0.edinburgh.ukcore.bt.net [194.72.17.
185]
9 22 ms 21 ms 23 ms core2-pos1-2.birmingham.ukcore.bt.net [62.6.204.
53]
10 25 ms 26 ms 26 ms core2-pos5-1.ealing.ukcore.bt.net [62.6.204.222]

11 27 ms 26 ms 26 ms core2-pos1-0-0.telehouse.ukcore.bt.net [62.6.201
.86]
12 26 ms 26 ms 26 ms 195.66.226.185
13 25 ms 24 ms 24 ms g9-0-0.core01.lon01.atlas.cogentco.com [130.117.
1.77]
14 101 ms 102 ms 100 ms p3-0.core02.jfk02.atlas.cogentco.com [66.28.4.18
9]
15 104 ms 104 ms 102 ms p15-0.core01.jfk02.atlas.cogentco.com [66.28.4.1
3]
16 105 ms 105 ms 105 ms p5-0.core01.bos01.atlas.cogentco.com [66.28.4.11
7]
17 107 ms 109 ms 107 ms g0-1.na21.b006523-1.bos01.atlas.cogentco.com [66
.28.5.210]
18 123 ms 122 ms 124 ms endurance-international-group.demarc.cogentco.co
m [38.99.213.62]
19 125 ms 124 ms 124 ms 207-148-225-36.yourhostingaccount.com [207.148.2
25.36]
20 106 ms 106 ms 107 ms 65-254-250-109.yourhostingaccount.com [65.254.25
0.109]

Trace complete. My interpretation (which is probably wrong) of you tracert is that the route from your ISP is slow as well as the route once over the atlantic.
My figures are pretty normal from here.

[jorritpouw]

Well.. I don't even have the slowest connection... Many others (with different providers) have MUCH slower speeds to my webpages..

I think the peering with Cogent / to Powweb isn't optimal if it's coming from The Netherlands (AMS-IX)..

[YvetteKuhns]

I think the peering with Cogent / to Powweb isn't optimal
Others have mentioned this in the forum. I hope that Endurance is still looking into this. I think they are, because some of them have noticed problems.

[gardensafari]

I am in the Netherlands too and today my website loads very quickly indeed! Even the pictures! I have no problems today (and in the last two or three days). I don't know what happened, but I am glad.

[zakallen]

My site has been slow for a long time as well. I have looked at the code and it looks good. www.zuidemafamily.com. (http://www.zuidemafamily.com/) I would like to have some speed resolution before my domain renews. otherwise i may look for a new host...

[YvetteKuhns]

I am still trying to understand why the majority of people with slow sites are using Word Press or another gallery, blog or CMS. Endurance must see a trend here. I have custom php/mysql sites for my clients and no one (in the US) has mentioned slowness. Are there problems with cgi scripts, connecting to mysql or some other issues?

zakallen, Sorry to hear about Auntie Cindy. ;)

[jorritpouw]

I am in the Netherlands too and today my website loads very quickly indeed! Even the pictures! I have no problems today (and in the last two or three days). I don't know what happened, but I am glad.

Here the same! It loads faster than normal!:cool: :cool:

Hope this stays this way,or even gets faster!!

[jpfieber]

Once again my site is unavailabe. This is getting rediculous. Here's my tracert:

Tracing route to sojoe.info [65.254.250.109]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.0.1
2 9 ms 7 ms 8 ms 10.86.0.1
3 13 ms 13 ms 19 ms gig2-1.milwwismil-rtr1.wi.rr.com [24.160.228.77]

4 10 ms 15 ms 7 ms srp4-0.milwwignfl-rtr3.wi.rr.com [24.160.228.118
]
5 11 ms 10 ms 13 ms so0-1-0.chcgilL3-rtr1.kc.rr.com [24.94.160.21]
6 27 ms 26 ms 27 ms so-3-1-0.kscymol3-rtr1.kc.rr.com [24.94.160.162]

7 33 ms 32 ms 39 ms ge-5-1-203.hsa1.StLouis1.Level3.net [4.79.132.13
]
8 33 ms 29 ms 33 ms ae-11-11.car2.StLouis1.Level3.net [4.69.132.186]

9 * 36 ms * ae-4-4.ebr2.Chicago1.Level3.net [4.69.132.190]
10 80 ms 203 ms 199 ms ae-7-7.car1.Boston1.Level3.net [4.69.132.241]
11 268 ms 208 ms 208 ms ae-11-11.car2.Boston1.Level3.net [4.69.132.246]

12 44 ms 45 ms 58 ms unknown.Level3.net [63.211.176.18]
13 59 ms 55 ms 45 ms ge6-1.aggr2.sbo.ma.rcn.net [207.172.15.136]
14 45 ms 46 ms 49 ms 207.172.31.46
15 44 ms 59 ms 45 ms 207-148-225-3.yourhostingaccount.com [207.148.22
5.3]
16 50 ms 52 ms 64 ms 65-254-250-109.yourhostingaccount.com [65.254.25
0.109]

[YvetteKuhns]

Tracing route to sojoe.info

It hangs briefly on the 7th of 9 hops. I see it go from RCN Philadelphia to RCN New York to RCN Massachusetts, then it gets stuck at the ip address before the Endurance server. On your example, it would be the 14th hop.

Your website loads quickly for me.


but the smile on my face grew much wider upon learning that Rumsfeld had resigned.

YIPPEE!

[sectioni]

Not to throw more gasoline on the fire but...

Since the buyout (or sellout, as most of us would call it), website speeds have taken a dramatic hit. I've had more down-time on my site in the last 4 months than I had in the previous 3 years combined. The sql tables freqently go down on my php-mysql driven site. Now to top it all of, I'm told that the php fopen no longer works with remote files. No reason was given - it just isn't supported anymore. I've had enough. I've been shopping around. Does any one have any opinion on the <<REMOVED>>? 55GB storage, 5TB of transfer and 55 domains. I can't see a down side, but I'm wondering if somebody switched from <<REMOVED>> to Powweb and why?

Thank You.

[IanS]

Doing a simple search for "<<REMOVED>> sucks" gives this posted on 03Nov06

I’ve had enough of the **** performance, poor customer service, incompetent technical
staff and childish forum administrators over at <<REMOVED>>. so think carefully before going to that host.

[sectioni]

Thanks! I didn't think about the 'reverse lookup'. I was just searching on '<<REMOVED>> review', etc. I guess most hosts have their detractors, but I think <<HERE>> is creating an awful lot since the buyout.

[rfrick]

I was loading a 1K page. It took 14 seconds. The page then requests a 20K image. That took another 14 seconds. (9:40 EST). I am in NY.

Usually my pages load quickly. But the old powweb was always fast. That was something for me to brag about to my clients.

I did a tracert. All the times were essentially less than 100 ms, maybe a few hitting 120 ms.

Repeated the same steps, with the page again taking 14 seconds and the image about 7. Same results for tracert, everything 120 or smaller.

[Hokietalk]

my website is getting faster all the time.
let's hope powweb don't mess with anything.
my daddy once said "if it ain't broken, don't mess with it."

[JJRO]

This <<EDITED>> thread is starting to look like a <<NAZI>> gosh <<REMOVED>> darn <<HERE>> classified <<OMITTED>> CIA <<EXPLETIVE>> top secret document!!!

[bwhite]

What I find happening is that the speed is inconsistent. One moment it is normal and the next it is hanging. I was on with support when this happened and they experinced at the same time I did. I was in Hawaii, support was in the Philippines and Canada.

I was told they know about this problem and hope to implement a change by Thanksgiving that will be better at spreading the load. I think that was the concept. I hope it is soon, I find it frustrating. So far I have not had any complaints by customers, but who knows if I have lost a sell because of it.

[YvetteKuhns]

I am glad someone admitted that he/she saw the problem. And that they may be doing something about it soon.

[puntademita]

2 30 0 0.0 16 214 49 dsl-servicio-l200.uninet.net.mx [200.38.193.226]
3 30 0 0.0 21 25 22 bb-jal-ctg-8-ge1-3.uninet.net.mx [201.125.75.93]
4 30 0 0.0 53 59 54 sl-gw39-fw-9-0.sprintlink.net [160.81.155.9]
5 30 0 0.0 53 241 77 sl-bb27-fw-9-0.sprintlink.net [144.232.11.66]
6 30 0 0.0 55 100 59 sl-st20-dal-13-0.sprintlink.net [144.232.20.83]
7 30 4 13.3 498 544 523 p3-3.core01.dfw03.atlas.cogentco.com [154.54.10.17]
8 30 1 3.3 71 198 82 t3-1.mpd01.dfw03.atlas.cogentco.com [154.54.5.178]
9 30 4 13.3 493 646 533 t3-2.mpd01.dfw01.atlas.cogentco.com [154.54.6.57]
10 30 0 0.0 81 90 83 t9-2.mpd01.mci01.atlas.cogentco.com [154.54.2.230]
11 30 0 0.0 99 292 118 t2-3.mpd01.ord01.atlas.cogentco.com [154.54.2.234]
12 30 0 0.0 120 125 122 t2-1.mpd01.bos01.atlas.cogentco.com [154.54.6.17]
13 30 0 0.0 114 119 116 g11-0-0.core01.bos01.atlas.cogentco.com [154.54.5.21]
14 30 0 0.0 122 128 124 g0-3.na21.b006523-1.bos01.atlas.cogentco.com [66.28.65.70]
15 30 0 0.0 116 156 119 EnduranceInternationalGroup.demarc.cogentco.com [38.112.14.62]
16 20 20 100.0 0 0 0 [-]
17 29 4 13.8 544 580 565 65-254-250-101.yourhostingaccount.com [65.254.250.101]

[bwhite]

A customer was trying to make a purchase but could not get through...

"I am trying to connect to your website, but cannot. The screen tells me that the page cannot be displayed. Judy"

I wrote back for her to please try again in a few minutes... but so far I never heard back. This is frustrating.

[rfrick]

I was working on webpages this morning and did it on Powweb so I could make lots of requests. I started at 7:26 AM (EST). Until 7:49 at least, the page loads were nearly instantaneous. Okay, less than a second. I was requesting a 2-4K page which then requested a 16-35K picture. (Apparently my browser isn't caching pictures.)

At 7:56, the two load times were 5 seconds for the page and 5 seconds for the picture, making a total of 10 seconds. This was a striking contrast from previous loads.

Then, until 9:00, there were no instantaneous loads. The total load times: 12,12,8,3,5,5,13,15,40,11,30,10,21,44,15,5,7. Then I got the < 1 sec load time at 9:00, 6 seconds at 9:05, <1, 3 seconds at 9:19, and <1 after that, but I didn't do much more checking.

So, it seems to be a slowdown of the entire system, not just some servers.

But if the system was just really busy sometimes and not busy other times, you would expect the load times to be about even, or longer for the picture. Instead, the longest load time was 8 seconds for the page and 36 seconds for the picture. But another instance was 27 seconds for the page and then only 3 seconds for the picture. And usually the load time was longer for the page than the picture.

I was doing all of this visually, so there is a now-open assumption that my browser was displaying the page as soon as it got it then displaying the picture as soon as it got that. I did one tracert during the slow time and didn't see any long times. (I think they were all under 27 ms.)

Bob

[bwhite]

To me it is like Russian Roulette. One moment it is good... a minute later the site hangs. This is happening everyday now. On and Off. I worry about losing customers if they can't access the site at the very moment they need to.

Will one of the official moderators for the company please comment on when is this going to be fixed. My busiest time of the year is now. Customer support said before Thanksgiving. I would really appreciate knowing more about this.

Aloha ... brad

[IanS]

Moderators don't have any extra information on this so I can't comment. We're here to moderate the forums and assist where possible.

[bwhite]

Thanks Ian, I understand... I actually meant one of the Powweb people. :)

[YvetteKuhns]

During the migration, some people told me that they moved. A few days later, they told me they had similar problems at the new host. I agree that the migration has been rough, but Endurance really has been communicating with us. I can name several web hosts that don't communicate well at all. I just can't post them here.

[rfrick]

Again, my experience yesterday was different from Brad's. I did not experience that one minute my website was fine and the next minute it wasn't. Instead, there was a period from around 7:50 to around 9:05 that there were problems. The rest of the day (I worked on and off) the website was always functionally instantaneous.

Here is yesterday's log for the longest delay in sending the image:

68.161.110.233 - - [16/Nov/2006:08:35:58 -0500] "GET /rfdesign.htm HTTP/1.1" 200 3887 "http://www.rfrick.info/" "Opera/9.02 (Windows ME; U; en)"
68.161.110.233 - - [16/Nov/2006:08:36:45 -0500] "GET /images/redleaves3d.jpg HTTP/1.1" 304 - "http://www.rfrick.info/rfdesign.htm" "Opera/9.02 (Windows ME; U; en)"

47 seconds for a 17K image. Here is the second longest. There are two intervening entries, so the system is not completely hanging.

68.161.110.233 - - [16/Nov/2006:08:19:12 -0500] "GET /rfdesign.htm HTTP/1.1" 200 3450 "http://www.rfrick.info/" "Opera/9.02 (Windows ME; U; en)"
152.163.100.202 - - [16/Nov/2006:08:19:16 -0500] "GET /images/skyf2j.jpg HTTP/1.1" 200 12939 "http://www.libridge.com/" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; AOL 9.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322)"
205.188.116.74 - - [16/Nov/2006:08:19:40 -0500] "GET /gr/06111518749c1.htm HTTP/1.1" 304 - "http://www.110bridge.com/results.htm" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; AOL 9.0; Windows NT 5.0; .NET CLR 1.0.3705; .NET CLR 1.1.4322)"
68.161.110.233 - - [16/Nov/2006:08:19:43 -0500] "GET /images/redleaves3d.jpg HTTP/1.1" 304 - "http://www.rfrick.info/rfdesign.htm" "Opera/9.02 (Windows ME; U; en)"

For both entries, the response was 304, "file not modified", so actually the image wasn't sent.

Here is an "instantaneous" log report from later in the day:

68.161.110.233 - - [16/Nov/2006:16:02:36 -0500] "GET /rfdesign.htm HTTP/1.1" 200 5476 "http://bridge.rfrick.info/" "Opera/9.02 (Windows ME; U; en)"
68.161.110.233 - - [16/Nov/2006:16:02:36 -0500] "GET /images/redleaves3d.jpg HTTP/1.1" 200 16704 "http://bridge.rfrick.info/rfdesign.htm" "Opera/9.02 (Windows ME; U; en)"

Now the image was sent (I don't know why). But I have other instantaneous entries where the image was a 304 response.

Bob

[rtoohil]

We're doing lots of behind the scenes stuff to try to improve performance/speed/etc. Sometimes, we have no control over it. In other cases, yeah, things get slow and it's our fault.

But, there are lots of things going on that should help. One of them was yesterday's announcement about the locked down /tmp directory, which should further help eliminate resources wasted by stupid CGI exploits.

[YvetteKuhns]

there was a period from around 7:50 to around 9:05 that there were problems.

Now I know why I rarely saw problems. I was usually washing dishes and getting my son ready for school during that time.

[rfrick]

Well, I now feel obligated to report. Yesterday was Perl day. I occasionally checked my htm pages, and they always loaded instantly. Did they change something (that worked)? Or maybe I just didn't catch the slow times, I can't tell.

I was running a long, time-consuming Perl program that reports the time difference from start to end. That isn't the run time, that includes all the time my program spends sleeping because resources are low and someone else has higher priority. It isn't too much resources -- I just got a reading of 2 seconds, and yesterday I got one of 1 second.

I also got two readings of 35 seconds and another for 33 seconds. Here are readings from 12:00 in the afternoon (EST) to about 1:00. 7, 8, 17, 4, 8, 23, 2, 35, 5, 10, 3, 14, 6.

A hang time of 6 seconds I probably would not notice. I first noticed a slow time at around 8:40 AM, when I experienced times of 16 and 30.

So, this DOES fit Brad's experience of one time the site working and the next time it being really slow. It started later than the htm slowdown I reported on Thursday, and lasted a lot longer.

BTW, nothing I do uses powweb's TMP directory.

Bob

[HalfaBee]

I have a very simple speed test script, here are 10 figures in seconds.
0.527610063553
0.217900037766
0.856613874435
0.249857187271
0.200811862946
0.306768894196
1.91419410706
4.45169997215
0.124181032181
0.373190164566

As you can see most are reasonable but 2 are excessive, approx 35 times slower than the quickest.
Due to their special linux setup, it is not possible to identify which server is slow.
If I could, I would do my own loadbalancing.

[YvetteKuhns]

0.124181032181 compared to 4.45169997215 is quite a difference! :eek:

[Grymwulf]

I'm running TikiWiki as my main CMS, and it has a debug readout of Server loads. Now please understand my ignorance in Linux/Unix, but I was under the impression that Server Load should always be #CPUs X 1 or less. IE in a quad-cpu (or quad-core) setup the max server load should be approx 4.0, otherwise your system will start slowing down. This has nothing to do with Network/Disk Access/Memory Access/etc concerns.

Well over the past several weeks, I've noticed that not ONCE has the readout of Server load been less than 10. Most cases it's up near 20 or 30. Does this mean that <<redacted>> is completely over-selling their services? IE they are trying to host too many sites on too few servers?

[Grymwulf]

And as an aside, the post above? 45 seconds from pressing the button is when the resulting page was served.

[YvetteKuhns]

I have over a dozen sites hosted here and we have not seen the problems, though someone overseas mentioned that some sites did not load as fast as they could. None of our sites use open source CMS that are popularly exploited. I think Endurance actually is on the right track when they search for exploits.

But there are other problems as well for those who have been checking hops. Any new information about those who get stuck? Still curious. I don't have the problem, but people visiting my sites may have this problem. This concerns anyone who has a site hosted here. I hope something can be done for this.

[HalfaBee]

Grymwolf, I am not sure how your server load is calculated.
UPTIME, the standard unix server load utility is not available, as the servers are not setup in a standard Linux manner.