Shared Ssl Problem - Fasthosts/actinic 19/09/08

[tobyharris]

Fasthost !!!

Although I have not heard from Fasthost support, I have juste tested my site (that had the 408 error) amd it is now working. !!!!

[Darren B]

Need to do this today. Choice: Actinic, Heart (via Reseller),!

I think Jo was advising you not to consider Heart

[OriginalTouch]

Yes, you are right - I won't!

[Darren B]

Lol

[native]

Has anyone got any more info on this problem?
I'm assured it's fasthosts fault but still have no info from them or timescale.
It's with the 2nd line engineers is all they can say.

[leehack]

Move hosts, how many more people are going to make the fasthosts mistake?

[OriginalTouch]

It is quite amusing speaking to both Fasthosts and Actinic Support and their responses to "oh, that" problem.

This may be a long term problem, David. Even if its not, it is not worth risking it again in the future. Take my lead and move from Fasthosts today IMO. Lee has been warning for ages - he must be like the cat with the cream?

[leehack]

Lee has been warning for ages - he must be like the cat with the cream?

Much the opposite tbh Sam. I am actually very disappointed that between Fasthosts and Actinic, they cannot see to warn their customers about this problem. This is not isolated events, this is an epidemic. We must have had 10 fasthosters in the last 2 weeks alone. There are only two site owners who say fasthosts are fine and even one of them came out this week with a problem on one of his sites. There are in excess of 100 bad cases in this forum i reckon, you simply have to go with the majority on this.

[Rich Brady]

Lee, is there a list of tried and tested hosts that work with Actnic published anywhere? I know that there are many recommedations dotted about within threads, but is there anything a bit more difinative? If not should there be?

It seems that an awful lot of people get sucked into the cheap and cheerful hosts and then panic when the s**t hits the fan. I had a client who were hosted with Godaddy and it took me ages to convince them to change. I had to show them the site was knackered, get them to read the un-helpful feed back from godaddy support and direct them to numerous post in here supporting my claims.

The reason they were so reluctant... They'd already paid for a years hosts , some of the tried and test host providers availble may be a little bit more expensive, but average that out over a year and then offset that cost against all the trouble free order you get and there's no competition...

You buy cheap, you buy twice!

[leehack]

Oh don't get me started on the 'but i've spent £50 already' people, completely blindfolded to the possible £1,000's of lost income. Hosting can sometimes be a real false economy.

As for recommended hosts, the problem is that it is so subjective, from a personal point, I have built some sites on a £30 test domain on a stack em up high server, whereas they have been launched on a £1500 dedicated server, have I ever seen a performance difference, the answer is no, but i do expect that better hosts and more importantly dedicated servers kick into action when they are getting kicked. It is very difficult to mimic 15 people buying on your site with 50 others browsing, you need a lot of punctual friends to do that and I only have 2 as you know.

[Rich Brady]

If those two have more than one computer and more friends, you may be lucky...

[OriginalTouch]

We've eventually gone with Actinic hosting. Need high bandwidth for numerous sites. At least you know it will work. Just hope it's the right decision.

[DanielHollier]

Hi Guys,

I did post earlier, but by the time it went through moderation, it was long buried in other posts.

Here at Actinic we now offer a range of hosting packages, and the pricing now starts at £15 per month.

Please follow this link for full details of our new offerings:
http://www.actinic.co.uk/services/ecommerce-hosting.htm

[Darren B]

As for recommended hosts, the problem is that it is so subjective, from a personal point, I have built some sites on a £30 test domain on a stack em up high server, whereas they have been launched on a £1500 dedicated server, have I ever seen a performance difference, the answer is no, but i do expect that better hosts and more importantly dedicated servers kick into action when they are getting kicked.

Could not agree more, its the traffic that will show it up. If you have a high bandwidth and process thousands of orders a month then spending a couple of grand is a must. or the halfway step with vps servers, not as good as dedicated but loads better than a server hosting thousands of sites.

To be honest some people are even down to the "but its £2 a month more than i currently pay" I dont know why there is a problem with paying for hosting, at the end of the day if it dont work you lose money, but it is seen as a necessary evil not an important investment

But likewise, for someone starting a business or building one then this amount of outlay is pointless but you have to make the step before you endure the problems

[cbarling]

I would recommend that any site that has a reasonable flow of orders goes with a specialist Actinic host, be it Actinic Hosting or one of the others.

All hosts have problems from time to time. However, with an Actinic specialist, the problems should be fewer and the resolution faster.

When you look at the cost of mega cheap hosting, savings must be weighed against actual or possible down time, which costs real money on any live site with real orders.

Really, I'm just agreeing with Lee.

Chris