|
Post by Sticks on Jul 18, 2007 11:35:44 GMT -4
Oh no not again I tried just before 16:00 and it was not there, have just tried again and it is not there
|
|
|
Post by grmcdorman on Jul 18, 2007 19:10:41 GMT -4
I'm getting 'unknown host'; that means more than just a simple problem. Possibly their entire provider is down.
According to Verisign (which manages the .COM domain), badastronomy.com is registered to NETWORK SOLUTIONS, LLC. Their 'whois' server (whois.networksolutions.com) is not responding - so that's the problem.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jul 18, 2007 19:14:27 GMT -4
Working for me. :shrug:
|
|
|
Post by grmcdorman on Jul 18, 2007 19:21:28 GMT -4
Working for me now too. Presumably a hiccup at Network Solutions (or a failed failover )
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Jul 23, 2007 13:43:12 GMT -4
Seems to be down here, again.
EDIT: Nevermind.
|
|
|
Post by Sticks on Jul 28, 2007 2:01:19 GMT -4
I have not been able to get on this morning. Ever since the updating of Phil's blog this has become more frequent.
|
|
|
Post by Count Zero on Jul 28, 2007 3:16:38 GMT -4
Yeah, it crapped-out a couple of hours ago. This is getting really tedious!
|
|
|
Post by Sticks on Jul 28, 2007 4:56:03 GMT -4
Came back and it is still down
|
|
|
Post by Count Zero on Jul 28, 2007 14:39:28 GMT -4
It came up for a few hours. Now it's back down again. Whoever is paying for that site (Phil?) ought to be rightly ticked-off about this!
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Jul 28, 2007 14:49:14 GMT -4
Like I've said before, it is the consequence of popularity. I imagine Phil's host will simply tell him, if he complains, that he is welcome to upgrade to a server that is more capable of handling the load his visitors place on it. If Phil is unwilling or unable to pay for that server then he is going to have to put up with problems like this occasionally.
I've never heard of a computer that never crashes, software that is 100% secure, or hardware that never fails. Expecting a web host to provide 100% up time is unrealistic. It might not even be his host's fault, it could be anywhere along the line in between the user and the host.
|
|
|
Post by agingjb on Jul 28, 2007 16:10:29 GMT -4
BAUT has come and gone today. It's a pity.
I also notice that OEDILF (the one with many definitions of words in limerick form) has also been out today. I do wonder if there's something more widespread going on.
|
|
|
Post by Sticks on Jul 28, 2007 17:15:07 GMT -4
Is there a DOS attack going on?
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Jul 28, 2007 18:20:05 GMT -4
It is working for me now... here's the scoop, straight from Phil:
So there you go... in an attempt to provide better service to it's customers his host is moving into a new data center. It's a good thing.
Things like this are unavoidable. There isn't a web hosting company on the planet that can honestly guaranty 100% up time, and when they do go down it's often to improve the service. If Phil was running a brick-and-mortar business he would suffer much more down time than this: he wouldn't be able to remain open 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, like he can with a website.
So like Phil said, just be patient. If the site goes down again, and I guaranty it will, just sit back and wait for it to come back. It will come back. Complaining about it does nothing to fix it.
|
|
|
Post by ishmael on Jul 28, 2007 20:30:03 GMT -4
So there you go... in an attempt to provide better service to it's customers his host is moving into a new data center. It's a good thing. So when the service isn't working, that's a good thing? I wish I could find customers like you Things like this are unavoidable. There isn't a web hosting company on the planet that can honestly guaranty 100% up time, and when they do go down it's often to improve the service. If Phil was running a brick-and-mortar business he would suffer much more down time than this: he wouldn't be able to remain open 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, like he can with a website. So like Phil said, just be patient. If the site goes down again, and I guaranty it will, just sit back and wait for it to come back. It will come back. Complaining about it does nothing to fix it. Well, I agree none of them can provide 100% reliability, but there is close to 100%, and there is far from 100%
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Jul 28, 2007 21:35:28 GMT -4
So there you go... in an attempt to provide better service to it's customers his host is moving into a new data center. It's a good thing. So when the service isn't working, that's a good thing? If it results in an improved service it's a good thing. It's like if someone offered to replace the engine in my car with something better but in order to do so I would have to be without my car for a day. I can get by without my car so the sacrifice is worth it. It sometimes goes down... it always comes back. I just think web hosts often get a lot of undeserved criticism. Any business person who compares the downtime of a website to the downtime of a bricks-and-mortar business will agree that web businesses have it good. I run two websites, they are rarely down. My host is up approximately 99.8% of the time which is about 8742 hours (out of a maximum of 8760 hours) every year. I also work in a retail job... the store is open 11 hours on weekdays, 8.5 hours on saturdays, and 6 hours on sundays. Take away maybe 7 days for holidays and 3 days of closures due to bad weather and you're left with about 3500 hours of uptime (or open business). Suddenly the rare downtime experienced by a website doesn't look as bad from a business point of view. I wonder if the people complaining about BAUT being down for a few hours a year also complain about Wal-Mart (for example) being closed for at least 12 hours every day? The uptime experienced by Phil's host is a lot closer to 100% than it is 0%. According to this site BadAstronomy's host has an uptime rating of 99.46%, measured between April 2006 and July 2007 (although it doesn't take into account today's downtime).
|
|