Dreamhost are masters of marketing not webhosting.

My experience of Dreamhost was fantastic for the 97day money back period. Then things started to go wrong. I get ridiculously poor download speeds from my site to the point that I am not able to use my hosting package for what I bought it for. The only reason Dreamhost are are doing ok imo is because people are trying to recover some of their losses by using their promotion codes to "Sucker" soemone else in.

It sounds like you are having some major connectivity issues! There are a great many things that impact "download speed", and *most* of them are *not* server related.

Where's your site (url)? Pings? Traceroutes? What is your server load? Many times when users report slow download speeds, other users are able to get quite good results from the same site. wink .

--rlparker

Connectivity issues, such as slow download speeds, are usually NOT Dreamhost's fault, and are rather something you need to contact your ISP about. That said, have you even filed a ticket about this? Contacting support about such issues goes a long way to fixing such things, as whining about it won't get anything resolved, ever. smile

What an idiot.

Next time, go with a host that doesn't give you a money-back trial period or a $97 discount. I'm sure that will be MUCH better.

Thanks for the whiny post. It was much more productive than traceroute results or any other relevant info.

rofl...

I have used trace route... spoken to support and all the other things you have said i havnt done... I don`t consider my post "whiney" and i don`t make the habit of complaining the 1st time I have a problem. This has been an ongoing problem over several months and users of my site from around the world have complained of poor download speeds. My URL is http://www.lickwidfunk.com please feel free to download something and let me know what download speeds u get.

Thanks for flaming me...

Matchstick Man

What kind of speeds are you expecting? I am doing some downloads right now and getting 200KB/s per download - started four so far and it's maintained speed so that's 800KB/s in aggregate or 6.4Mb/s. If you're looking for testing above this bandwidth, I can repeat my tests at work where we have a full 100Mb/s symmetric internet connection. I am in New Jersey right now and my work test would be from New York.

I would be more then Happy with 200k a sec.. in fact thats way above my expectations. I only need enough speed for users to be able to stream a 320kbps mp3 from my site as this would enable me to start podcasting again.

When I 1st had this problem Dreamhost moved me to another server and it was instantly resolved.

When I download from other Dreamhost hosted sites I get reasonable speeds just not from my site anymore.

Thanks

Matchstick Man

P.S. My fastest download speed on my connection is only 120k per second. I get this from other sites and used to get that speed from mine ( I am currently unable to get more than 40k a second from my site and have been unable to get a decent download speed for about 3 months)

I didn't say that you didn't use traceroute. I said you didn't include it, or anything useful, in your post.

Now that you have...

Site loads instantly. Here's a screen shot of my super-slow 498 KB/sec download.

So much for your marketing theory.

I must admit I am truly surprised at the speeds you are getting from my site. As mentioned earlier the kind of speeds you are getting are way above my expectations and I have been (until now) unable to find anyone who was able to get reasonable speeds from my site over the last few months.

Heres a traceroute i normally get betwen 7 and 12 hops so this should be fairly representative.

1. 1.50ms 1.16ms 1.32ms nameintelligence.com
2. 1.13ms 0.55ms 0.50ms ip-64-246-162-161.ipd.CCOM.NET
3. 1.16ms 0.48ms 2.27ms 216-145-7-22.sea.fibercloud.NET
4. 1.78ms 0.70ms 0.95ms 216-145-7-121.sea.fibercloud.NET
5. 2.45ms 1.71ms 2.18ms GigabitEthernet4-1.GW10.SEA1.ALTER.NET
6. 0.92ms 1.60ms 2.49ms 0.so-0-3-0.XT2.SEA1.ALTER.NET
7. 0.85ms 1.21ms 1.36ms POS7-0.BR2.SEA1.ALTER.NET
8. 65.39ms 65.76ms 65.48ms 64.215.195.221
9. 68.27ms 68.18ms 67.38ms te1-1-10g.ar3.LAX2.gblx.net
10. 68.34ms 68.91ms 68.36ms NEW-DREAM-NETWORKS-LLC-Los-Angeles.ge-0-1-0.410.ar1.LAX3.gblx.net
11. 69.16ms 68.40ms 68.41ms apache2-cabo.dib.dreamhost.com

In reply to:
I would be more then Happy with 200k a sec.. in fact thats way above my expectations. I only need enough speed for users to be able to stream a 320kbps mp3 from my site as this would enable me to start podcasting again.

When I 1st had this problem Dreamhost moved me to another server and it was instantly resolved.

When I download from other Dreamhost hosted sites I get reasonable speeds just not from my site anymore.

BTW, my tests were done from your site - the one that was posted. I was downloading the mp3 files from your mixes page. I was also able to stream the mixes using the quicktime plugin and it worked fine.

Maybe things have been fixed? Are you still having problems from home?

Here's mine:

  1    <1 ms    <1 ms    <1 ms  <censored by lensman>
  2     6 ms     5 ms     5 ms  <censored by lensman>
  3     7 ms     7 ms     6 ms  dstswr2-vlan2.rh.nbrgnj.cv.net [67.83.246.162]
  4     *        *        *     Request timed out.
  5     *        *        *     Request timed out.
  6     *        *        *     Request timed out.
  7     *        *        *     Request timed out.
  8    10 ms     9 ms     7 ms  207.88.86.177.ptr.us.xo.net [207.88.86.177]
  9    12 ms    10 ms     9 ms  206.111.13.54.ptr.us.xo.net [206.111.13.54]
 10    80 ms    77 ms    79 ms  NEW-DREAM-NETWORKS-LLC-Los-Angeles.ge-0-1-0.410.ar1.LAX3.gblx.net [64.215.183.50]
 11    78 ms    77 ms    78 ms  apache2-cabo.dib.dreamhost.com [64.111.127.165]

Yeah.. i am still having trouble. currently downloading something from another site@120k a sec. a minute before that i was getting 60k from my site (an hour ago i was getting 40k from my site) 40 - 70k is what I generally get from my site nowadays but it goes as low as 30k. I really don`t know what to do now. Where could the problem be? and what further tests/checks can I make?

Matchstick Man

P.S. thanks to those who have taken the time to download from my site and report your results. I really do appreciate the fact that you taken time to help me with the problem I am having.

Instead of telling me I am stupid or what the problem isn`t... why not tell me what you think the problem could be or what direction you would take next.

My 1st post was just a general comment to see if other people were experiencing the same problem (other than the normal visitors to my site). Dreamhost support just blamed my connection.

Oh and rememeber I had this problem before and it WAS resolved by moving server... a fair indication imo that the problem was at Dreamhosts end on that occassion.

You strike me as one of those people who likes to sneer at others who may not have as much experience in an area as you do. I think you would chop of someone elses head to make yourself look taller. One way to improve you self esteem I suppose.

Matchstick Man

In reply to:
Instead of telling me I am stupid

Don't be stupid if you don't like being called stupid. You became an idiot as soon as you chose the thread title.

In reply to:
My 1st post was just a general comment

Now, you're just lying--unless you don't read your own posts before you submit them.

You came here to bash. Your first post was not a general comment. It was a false accusation with nothing to back it up. Big difference.

Once you actually provided some info, I (and others) tested the site and shared the results--all of which seem to indicate that your site is running just fine.

In reply to:
Dreamhost support just blamed my connection.

And wouldn't the fact that all of us have posted fast download speeds seem to indicate they might be right?

In reply to:
Oh and rememeber I had this problem before and it WAS resolved by moving server... a fair indication imo that the problem was at Dreamhosts end on that occassion.

Not necessarily. Regardless of where DH puts a customer's site, it has no impact on the rest of the internet.

Let me guess, you think we're all just faking our download speeds? Did you notice that none of us are sitting there next to you, using your computer and connection to get those speeds?

In reply to:
You strike me as one of those people who likes to sneer at others

If by others, you mean retards, then yes.

I think you're just upset that we didn't think your marketing crack was as clever as it sounded in your head.

Next time, don't word your post or title like an idiot, and you'll get better reactions. If that's too much trouble for you, then get used to being called an idiot.

So when are you gonna saying something constructive and stop trying to make yourself look good?

Tested your site from a box in Chicago with about 50 megabits of traffic being used on the line during when I tested it through *CHEAP* cogentco bandwidth and still managed to pull about 9 megabits:

root@box:~# wget -O /dev/null http://www.lickwidfunk.com/Mixes/2006/Obsidian_Dreams_-_Preview_-_Matchstick_Man_Mix_[3rd_Sept_2006].mp3
--12:28:23-- http://www.lickwidfunk.com/Mixes/2006/Obsidian_Dreams_-_Preview_-_Matchstick_Man_Mix_[3rd_Sept_2006].mp3
=> `/dev/null'
Resolving www.lickwidfunk.com... 64.111.127.165
Connecting to www.lickwidfunk.com|64.111.127.165|:80... connected.
HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK
Length: 73,186,742 (70M) [audio/mpeg]

100%[=================================================================================================================================>] 73,186,742 1.17M/s ETA 00:00

12:29:31 (1.03 MB/s) - `/dev/null' saved [73186742/73186742]

root@box:~# traceroute lickwidfunk.com -I
traceroute to lickwidfunk.com (64.111.127.165), 30 hops max, 38 byte packets
1 66.90.64.1 (66.90.64.1) 0.687 ms 26.972 ms 7.389 ms
2 66.90.127.149 (66.90.127.149) 1.214 ms 1.032 ms 1.287 ms
3 . (66.90.127.178) 0.817 ms 1.405 ms 1.704 ms
4 Te4-3.mpd01.ord05.atlas.cogentco.com (38.104.98.85) 1.262 ms 1.000 ms 0.715 ms
5 vl3496.mpd01.ord01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.3.205) 0.430 ms 0.416 ms 0.355 ms
6 t2-4.mpd01.mci01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.2.233) 60.053 ms 62.774 ms 60.668 ms
7 t4-2.mpd01.iah01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.5.221) 60.279 ms 65.794 ms 60.567 ms
8 t7-1.mpd01.lax01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.5.194) 61.584 ms 61.523 ms 60.419 ms
9 t4-2.mpd01.lax05.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.6.230) 60.212 ms 60.725 ms 60.267 ms
10 gblx.lax05.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.13.6) 60.171 ms 60.536 ms 63.726 ms
11 ge6-1-10G.ar3.LAX2.gblx.net (67.17.110.2) 60.924 ms 60.414 ms 60.265 ms
12 NEW-DREAM-NETWORKS-LLC-Los-Angeles.ge-0-1-0.410.ar1.LAX3.gblx.ne (64.215.183.50) 60.534 ms 60.548 ms 60.341 ms
13 apache2-cabo.dib.dreamhost.com (64.111.127.165) 60.812 ms 60.506 ms 61.833 ms

Message for Seiler>>

You seem to be more interested in trying to score points off me than help... If you are able to help why bother with the personal attacks? do you have nothing better to do wih your time? Either help or dont bother replying.

In reply to:
So when are you gonna saying something constructive

Has it not already been made pretty clear by everyone that has checked your site, that it seems to be a problem somewhere between you and Dreamhost?

What could any of us possibly do about that?

Try another ISP? Or even contact the one you have and ask them why everyone else can access the same sites as you with much better results.

In reply to:
This has been an ongoing problem over several months and users of my site from around the world have complained of poor download speeds.

As has been previously pointed out, there are *all kinds* of reasons that your "users all over the world" have "poor" download speeds, but my test of your site indicates the speed with which DH is serving your content is not likely to be one of them:

Dances with Noobs - February 2006 - 78 mb - *averaged * approx 520 - 560 KB/s when I *just now* downloaded it.

meh...you need to do some research to support your complaints or you are likely to continue to get "flamed" for "whining". wink

--rlparker

Thankyou for testing out my site speed. Looking at those that have tested the site. It seems to me (rememeber according to Seiler I am mentally retarded so bear this in mind when replying.. in fact maybe it would be better to draw pictures cos I probably can`t read and am too stupid to realise this xD ) that most are based in the USA. WHereas i am based in the UK and the majority of my users are from Europe and Russia. Could this be a factor?

In reply to:
I would be more then Happy with 200k a sec.. in fact thats way above my expectations.

I'm getting well over twice that speed from your site.

--rlparker

How many times are you going to reply to the same post?

You brought this on yourself, idiot. Next time, think before you post.

Your first post was pure stupidity. There's not one thing in it that deserved to be taken seriously. If you just want to cry, then go cry to your mommy--maybe you'll get more sympathy from her than you will here.

In reply to:
Either help or dont bother replying.

Boo hoo. If you don't like it, then keep your stupidity off of public forums.

And I already did help. I believe I was one of the first to give you speed test results. You can't even help yourself, so why should we? You could have came here and nicely asked for help, instead of being an imbecile. You get much better results that way.

And if you had ever actually read through this forum, you'd know my helpful posts outnumber the ones calling out idiots like you.

You, on the other hand, made an account here to contribute nothing buy whining & stupidity.

Keep crying. It seems to be accomplishing a lot. How's your download speed doing?

This is the bit I don`t understand. I do get full download speeds on my connection to other sites hosted by dreamhost. I appreciate Dreamhost is just a very tiny part of the internet. But no one has been able to explain to me why I consistently get poor downloads from my site... I have asked other people around Europe to check the speeds they get, they are on different ISP`s to me and they too get poor speeds.

I have done a connection test with my ISP. I have been with my ISP for 3 Years and never had an
ything but my full download speeds (as long as the site I am downloading from is not overloaded).

So if it is not Dreamhost or my ISp where do I go next?

Was that traceroute from the same location as your download? What is the nameintelligence.com hop?

In order to debug download speeds, you'll have to give us a tracert from the actual box doing the downloads. Please feel free to censor out the first few records that may contain personal information (as I have).

BTW, the best thing to improve download speeds for overseas sites is to increase your RWIN.

lol.. I am not crying... I am just wondering how much of you life you are going to waste having a go at me.

xD

In reply to:
It seems to me (rememeber according to Seiler I am mentally retarded so bear this in mind when replying.. in fact maybe it would be better to draw pictures cos I probably can`t read and am too stupid to realise this xD ) that most are based in the USA. WHereas i am based in the UK and the majority of my users are from Europe and Russia. Could this be a factor?

<sarcasm>
Doh! No, of course not shocked

Your problem is that DreamHost is picking on you, and *wants* your site to be slower for *you* than it is for everyone else, so that you can come on their forums and talk trash...right!
</sarcasm>

Re-read the very first response you received to this post ... and get a dictionary if any of the words are too "big"..

I'm actually surprised you are getting any help here at all considering the "drive by bashing" nature of your post. wink

--rlparker

In reply to:
It seems to me (rememeber according to Seiler I am mentally retarded so bear this in mind when replying.. in fact maybe it would be better to draw pictures cos I probably can`t read and am too stupid to realise this

Hey retard, once again, I was one of the first to post a speed test for you--and I even included a pretty screen shot for you.

You started this thread for one purpose: to bash DH. You got called out for being the idiot that you are, so you backtracked and tried to pass it off as a request for help.

Nowhere in your original thread did you say anything that wasn't pure BS, nor did you ask for any help.

Everyone else already knows this, since they actually read the thread. Go back and read this from the start and maybe you'll finally see just how stupid you are.

In reply to:
WHereas i am based in the UK and the majority of my users are from Europe and Russia.

Another thing a smarter person might have mentioned in the first post.

If you want people in that area to have the fastest times, here's a crazy idea: go with a host in that area.

I'm in the US, just like most of my visitors... AND my hosts are all US-based. Talk about a crazy coincidence!!!

In reply to:
lol.. I am not crying.

Sure you are.

In reply to:
I am just wondering how much of you life you are going to waste having a go at me

I've wasted less of my life calling you stupid, than you've wasted of yours by being stupid.

Plus, I could stop any time I want. You don't seem to have that option.

The traceroutes you provided were from

http://nameintelligence.com/

In order to troubleshoot speed and possible backbone issues this is pointless. You would need to do a traceroute from your personal computer (as others have said) as different computers will take vastly different route especially if you are in Europe. Also a traceroute while you are downloading a file would be helpful as well (two, one while download, one while not).

Tracing route to www.lickwidfunk.com [64.111.127.165]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

1 20 ms 27 ms 18 ms brnt-bam-3.inet.ntl.com [194.145.148.170]
2 17 ms 20 ms 25 ms brnt-t3core-1b-ge-112-0.inet.ntl.com [213.104.14
6.133]
3 29 ms 24 ms 16 ms bre-bb-b-so-230-0.inet.ntl.com [213.105.174.249]

4 19 ms 26 ms 16 ms 195.50.91.129
5 40 ms 35 ms 34 ms ae-0-52.bbr2.london2.level3.net [4.68.117.34]
6 39 ms 59 ms 77 ms as-0-0.bbr1.london1.level3.net [4.68.128.109]
7 18 ms 18 ms 21 ms ae-14-53.car3.london1.level3.net [4.68.116.81]
8 28 ms 20 ms 22 ms ge5-3-0-1000m.ar2.lon3.gblx.net [208.50.13.193]

9 247 ms 237 ms 333 ms new-dream-networks-llc-los-angeles.ge-0-1-0.410.
ar1.lax3.gblx.net [64.215.183.50]
10 162 ms 162 ms 167 ms apache2-cabo.dib.dreamhost.com [64.111.127.165]

here`s another traceroute

:)

OK, that's more like it. It's definitely an overseas hop.

Run the java tweak tool from here:
http://www.dslreports.com/tweaks

The results I'd be interested in are:
RWIN and the RWIN recommendation from the "Notes and recommendations" section right under the results table.

Keep em coming Seiler. Your witty insights are raising my intelligence level by the second.

/me hugs Seiler

You are a tool....and are getting *far better* treatment in this forum than your initial post deserved.

--rlparker

In reply to:

You are a tool....and are getting *far better* treatment in this forum than your initial post deserved.

Most agreed. smile

@Matchstick
I already stated what you need to do in my first post anyways - contact your ISP and ask them to fix the route between yourself and DreamHost.

As your initial post here seems to suggest that the logical thing to do is bash your host in order to somehow magically fix the situation (aka. Whining), don't expect anything less than a good bashing from those of us here in the forums who won't stand for it. Go talk to your ISP and stop wasting your time here.

http://www.dslreports.com/tweakr/block:4a5fdb9?service=dsl&speed=2200&os=win2k&via=normal

her ya go.

:)

I'm in the UK, downloading a mix starts at 200k burst then levels off at 70k. Still fast enough to be streaming at 320kbps.

Like your very first post, that one says nothing.

In reply to:
Your witty insights are raising my intelligence level by the second.

It can't get any lower.

Pretending you're not stupid isn't going to convince anyone here that you're not.

Maybe you can point out the exact parts of your first post that would indicate that you're not a moron:

In reply to:
My experience of Dreamhost was fantastic for the 97day money back period. Then things started to go wrong. I get ridiculously poor download speeds from my site to the point that I am not able to use my hosting package for what I bought it for. The only reason Dreamhost are are doing ok imo is because people are trying to recover some of their losses by using their promotion codes to "Sucker" soemone else in.

Show me exactly where you were kindly asking us for help as you claimed was the intention of your post.

Can't find it? Okay, I'll make it easier. Where in that post is there anything that doesn't make you look like a clueless imbecile?

Again, you came here to be a trolling idiot and you got treated like one.

You're also not in a position to pretend you're smart, since you're the one that came here asking us for help.

I'll also point it out again. I've helped plenty of people here over the years--they just weren't imbeciles like you. You, on the other hand, have never contributed a single thing to this forum, other than whining and stupidity.

Keeping in that mind, do you really think anyone cares what you think about my posts? Go find a forum here where you can actually offer helpful advice to someone, then get back to me.

Go back and read this thread again. I'm far from the only one pointing out what an idiot you are.

This isn't all too difficult to explain - although certainly an unlikely situation, where all of Europe has a bad route either to North America at large, the West Coast of the US, or just the specific IP your server is on. Considering as you've stated you've tested other DreamHost sites and have seen decent/better speeds and including the fact that, after you moved to another server, speeds were "tolerable" for some time, I'd say that either a bad route to just that specific IP or some bandwidth throttling is taking place. Either DreamHost is throttling your bandwidth (which they would have told you in a support ticket) or something/someone else (your ISP?) is throttling the connection to that IP. Again, you'd be better off working with your ISP to resolve this issue as those of us in the US aren't experiencing speed issues with your site and thus eliminating DreamHost itself from being the culprit in this case.

I did actually say that I had been extremely happy with dreamhost in the first few months. I didnt come here to argue with anyone and I havn`t said anyone is wrong and that I am right. I havnt disputed the results obtained by anyone (I seem to recall thanking people for the time they have taken)

The only person I believe I have been rude to is Seiler (oh and possibly Dreamhost)... cos I find the fact he is prepared to spend so much time having a go at me fascinating, I am quite happy to return any rudeness given to me... I just prefer to make my answers short.. cos I have better things to do.

More please Seiler..

/me hugs Seiler and doesnt let go

Dreamhost say that they never throttle bandwidth (I did not accuse them of this... they added it as an aside in their reply) and thought I would pass this info on.

In reply to:
/me hugs Seiler and doesnt let go

It will take more than your homosexuality to distract people from how clueless you are.

In reply to:
Dreamhost say that they never throttle bandwidth (I did not accuse them of this... they added it as an aside in their reply) and thought I would pass this info on.

Is that some lame attempt to mitigate the unfair assertion you made in your opening post? If you were the *least bit* concerned about "fairness", you would never have let your initial post. and it's title, "stand" without further comment once it became apparent that the DreamHost server was not the problem you thought it was.

Interestingly, your lame attempt at bashing DreamHost for your connectivity problems only resulted in DreamHost looking *good*, while you end up looking clueless. Karma can be a bitch at times, eh? wink

--rlparker

To hug someone is not gay.

/me hugs Seiler some more

Free hugs for anyone who wants em... I have a limitless supply

No its a fact....

And why exactly would Dreamhost be 'rude' in this situation? Because they told you to contact your ISP about the issue? Or did I miss something else?

As far as the title and contents of your first post go - you *did* come here to start *something*. An argument perhaps not, but you certainly didn't come here initially asking for help, as Seiler has already pointed out. That is why some of us have a problem with you anyways.. but whatever - I just don't see how DreamHost can really help you out in your current situation at all as, thus far, all evidence points to issues with your ISP or something inbetween, which perhaps even your ISP may not be able to solve immediately.

I didnt say Dreamhost were rude... I said Seiler was

So..you think it is "cute" to keep tickling the thread so the title you gave it stays "active"? C'mon and be an adult...you were wrong and unfair in your initial assertion; at least have the decency to admit that and move your continued witicism's and/or quest for help to a relevant forum/topic (like maybe "Troubleshooting").

Your placing your nonsense in the "Curious About Dreamhost" was a pretty good indication of what you *intended* to do when you wrote that first post. If you really *do* want troubleshooting help, why not ask for it in an appropriate forum, and let this bit of idiocy die on it's own? Or don't, and thereby remove any doubt that you *are* the complete troll you appear to be.

--rlparker

It looks like according to your tweak test:

http://www.dslreports.com/tweakr/block:4a5fdb9?service=dsl&speed=2200&os=win2k&via=normal

You are running at the 17k receivew window buffer which is the default for windows XP if you are on a wireless connection (wired is 65k). 17k is way way too low of a receive window (I have 6 meg DSL and mine is at 300k). You should set yours to atleast 64k (65535) if not around 100k. I would think you are lucky to get your full download speed even to local sites with an rwin that low.

I am on Win2k Sp4 and do not have a wireless connection

Hey seiler, you need to lay off man. Being mean doesn't make you look smarter than him. And bigoted remarks are not appreciated on this forum.

I just thought I add.

Rwin size is calculated by throughput (in kilobytes/sec) * latency = Rwin in bytes.

If you have a 2.5 megabit connection and want to get 2.5 megabits overseas (~200ms latency), then:

312.5 (kilobytes/sec = 2.5 megabits) * 200 (ms latency) = 63,000

With 17k you would be looking at:

17000/200(ms)= 85 kilobytes/sec at best.

In reply to:
I didnt say Dreamhost were rude... I said Seiler was

Waaaah! Well, "rude" or not, he was "spot on"! He just is a tad more "direct" than some of us (who agree with him!) wink

--rlparker

I am just replying to posts. If no one replies then I will have nothing to reply too... like i said earlier.. if you dont wanna help... don`t waste your time posting replies.

"I am on Win2k Sp4 and do not have a wireless connection"

I am not sure what the default R-win on windows 2000 is I jsut happen to know taht when you add a wireless adapter on XP it goes from 64k to 17k I guess the default on 2k might be only 17k which is a setting for dialup not broadband.

I suggest downloading this:

http://www.dslreports.com/drtcp

And setting your receive window to around 75000-100000 (you have to restart your comp to take effect) and see if speeds are better.

Ya sorry, I read that wrong, heh.

Thanks to you and Lensman... I will look into changing the rwin setting on my pc and see if this helps.

NP mousee... I have a hug for you too :P

/me hugs Mousee

Got it! True "troll" status confirmed, so there is no point in feeding you further. You are getting more than adequate help ( houkouonchi is giving you accurate and very useful advice!) .

That said, as you chose to post your "support request" in the manner that you did, I *don't* consider it a waste of time to point out the inaccuracy and unfairness of your initial post. That's been pretty well covered at this point, so ..meh!

Michael (DH honcho) has, in typical gracious Dreamhost fashion, taken the "high road" with you in spite of your disingenuous bashing of his company in his own Forums, and I'm now gonna follow his example...

/ignore Dipstick , er...oops..Matchstick

--rlparker

You are entitled to your opinion. I just don`t happen to agree with it.

I hope you have a wonderful, long, productive and enjoyable life and may you live in interesting times.

Matchstick Man

I noticed in your tweak test that the number of retransmitted packets is pretty high - 10%. In fact, that number is so high that it is likely the cause of your limited throughput because your throughput is limited to

                0.7 * MTU
<  ---------------------------------------
   RTT * sqrt(probability of packet loss)

or in your case approximately 17kB/sec or 130kbs.

Your high packet loss could be coming from bit errors or (more likely) from congestion - remember that if a hop in your route becomes congested beyond its capacity to store and forward, it is likely to start dropping packets.

Anyway, as suggested, try upping your RWIN through the DRTCP program that houkouonchi linked to and look at the effect on both your throughput and your "Retranmitted packets". Do let us know the results. Experiment with different RWINs.

In reply to:

In reply to:
I do find it interesting that a fellow UK person is getting the same speeds as me. this bears out what visitors to my site and friends have said about poor speeds.

Try out a couple of different speed tests from this url:
http://www.dslreports.com/speedtest?more=1

From my home in the U.S., I get 7-10mbs to London, about 1.5kbs to a couple of the German sites, and about 200-400kbs to a couple of the French sites.

From East US. First one was twice as fast, from baesse.dnb-music.com. Others are decent speed though.

14:04:50 (326.90 KB/s)

14:12:57 (163.34 KB/s)
14:21:13 (159.94 KB/s)
14:34:55 (170.56 KB/s)
14:47:15 (151.81 KB/s)
14:53:05 (144.28 KB/s)
15:07:37 (162.27 KB/s)
15:25:21 (143.18 KB/s)
15:47:26 (110.52 KB/s)
15:54:50 (169.87 KB/s)
16:12:51 (145.65 KB/s)
16:21:06 (144.51 KB/s)
16:28:30 (165.07 KB/s)
16:36:10 (166.98 KB/s)
16:52:42 (160.50 KB/s)
17:09:42 (136.43 KB/s)
17:24:56 (133.13 KB/s)

> Thanks for flaming me...

How can we not flame a matchstick? wink

>> Being mean doesn't make you look smarter than him. And bigoted remarks are not appreciated

Woohoo. Nice to see seiler called out for that!

It's not just you; it's him and everybody. laugh

Thanks to everyone who has offered there time/help with this. I definately have more than one avenue to try and resolve the issue I am having, but its nearly 1am here in the Uk.

I will spend time on pursuing the solutions people have posted here and will report back how I get on (hopefully tomorrow).

It is beginning to seem to me that the mistake I may have made was going with an American host when the majority of my users are in Europe. Hopefully this isnt the case as I have over 12 months left on my Dreamhost package.

Matchstick Man

In reply to:
It's not just you; it's him and everybody.

There's no way we could have juicy flame war without me and Bob chiming in at some point. We feel it's our solemn duty to whack the hornet's nest.

In reply to:
It is beginning to seem to me that the mistake I may have made was going with an American host when the majority of my users are in Europe. Hopefully this isnt the case as I have over 12 months left on my Dreamhost package.

You may be right, but as my tests to UK sites show, links between the US and London can be just as fast as from east coast US to west coast US. It's really only continental Europe where I clearly have higher pings and less throughput.

In other words, depending on which country your users are in, it might just be that they would have bad throughput even if you were hosted in the UK.

In reply to:
Woohoo. Nice to see seiler called out for that!

Isn't that great?!

Now, if we could just get him to call out Ardco for his multiple troll-accounts, starting with Anonymous2.

Just a quick update.. My ISP says the most likely cause of the problem is my Host... My Host says the most likely cause of my problem is my ISP... Seiler says the most likely cause of my problem is that I am stupid and/or a Homosexual.

ahh well

Happy Happy Joy Joy

xD

Matchstick Man

The hardware vendor says it's most likely a software problem, and the software vendor says it's hardware. laugh

To cap off your happy days, it's almost USA Independence Day!

Of course they'll tell you that. Did you explain to them that other users are experiencing normal speeds? Providing them with as many details as possible usually works best smile

In reply to:
Just a quick update.. My ISP says the most likely cause of the problem is my Host... My Host says the most likely cause of my problem is my ISP...

Did you try out the various speed tests in the link I posted? Also, as houkouonchi mentioned, you should look at the traceroutes while you're downloading and see if there's any correlation between download speed and the traceroute at the time it's running (though it's not absolutely guaranteed that the route will be the same as the one taken by the download.

This will give you the information you need to send to your ISP - or to research a new one if that's an option for you. As you may already know, an ISP's (or hosting company's) backhaul is an important aspect to evaluate when choosing a good one!

Yeah... I explained that USA peeps were able to download at speeds of upto 500k a sec.

I think I am gonna buy a dead horse... so I can flog it.

Out of those 3, the ISP is clearly wrong.

If you told them about how others are getting fast speeds from the same host, and their answer was to blame the host, then you should ask to speak to someone that's not reading from a script.

Did I miss the part where you changed the RWIN settings, rebooted the computer and tried again? Results?

Ok.. sorry for the delay.. but I only have so much time a day to devote to this. I wanted to get back to you when I had done all the tests suggested. But here`s where I am so far.

I have experimented with different RWIN settings 65535 75000 and 100000. Unfortunately this made no difference to the speeds.

I am downloading from my site and getting getting 33k/s as I type this and have done a traceroute... its still only 10 Hops, similar to when I got good download speeds

1 19 ms 19 ms 19 ms brnt-bam-3.inet.ntl.com [194.145.148.170]
2 19 ms 19 ms 29 ms brnt-t3core-1b-ge-112-0.inet.ntl.com [213.104.14
6.133]
3 29 ms 29 ms 19 ms bre-bb-b-so-230-0.inet.ntl.com [213.105.174.249]

4 19 ms 19 ms 19 ms 195.50.91.129
5 19 ms 19 ms 30 ms ae-0-52.bbr2.london2.level3.net [4.68.117.34]
6 29 ms 29 ms 19 ms ae-1-0.bbr2.london1.level3.net [212.187.128.57]

7 19 ms 29 ms 29 ms ae-24-54.car3.london1.level3.net [4.68.116.113]

8 19 ms 19 ms 19 ms ge5-3-0-1000m.ar2.lon3.gblx.net [208.50.13.193]

9 200 ms 350 ms 230 ms new-dream-networks-llc-los-angeles.ge-0-1-0.410.
ar1.lax3.gblx.net [64.215.183.50]
10 190 ms 189 ms 189 ms apache2-cabo.dib.dreamhost.com [64.111.127.165]

The various speed tests are next on my todo list.

:)

Ok here are some results... I think these prove that my ISP is OK (as I thought) Is that correct?

Seattle - 987 kbps up - 240 kbps down
San Franscisco - 986 kbps up - 239 kbps down
Los Angeles - 986 kbps up - 241 kbps down
Dallas TX - 986 kbps up - 240 kbps down
Chicago IL - 986 kbps up - 243 kbps down
Last Result:
Download Speed: 986 kbps (123.3 KB/sec transfer rate)
Upload Speed: 243 kbps (30.4 KB/sec transfer rate)

120k up and 30k down are my maximum connection speeds.

France - 4080 Kbit/s Down
500 Ko/s Up

France - Your current bandwidth reading is:
930.60kbps
which means you can download at 116.33 KB/sec. from our servers

Gernmany - 748912 byte got transfered in 4.89260 seconds. That's 149.483 kb/s.

At the end of these tests I started a download from my site and got between 25k and 35k a second :/

Reply to

thanx for cheering my day.. I like your sense of humour ;P

Did you reverse "up" and "down" on Seattle, San Francisco, LA, Dallas, and Chicago?

In reply to:
Seattle - 987 kbps up - 240 kbps down
San Franscisco - 986 kbps up - 239 kbps down
Los Angeles - 986 kbps up - 241 kbps down
Dallas TX - 986 kbps up - 240 kbps down
Chicago IL - 986 kbps up - 243 kbps down
Last Result:
Download Speed: 986 kbps (123.3 KB/sec transfer rate)
Upload Speed: 243 kbps (30.4 KB/sec transfer rate)

Anyway, if you have, this means that you're getting decent download speeds from Los Angeles, where your DreamHost server is located.

What you need to do now is do a traceroute to each location while the speed test or download is occurring and also try downloading file sizes approximately the size of the tests - sometimes in downloading a big file you'll start to see some throttling back of the download rates. BTW, you should be very careful with your use of little "b" and capital "B". It can be very confusing in the Germany case, for example, where your transfer rate is 149.483 KB/s or 1.2mbps.

So when you download from your site, you're getting 25KB/s right, not 25kbps?

BTW, another test you could run is to test the throughput to your server using ftp and sftp. This may give you a better indication of where the problem lies - as the throttling may be protocol based.

lol... errr yeah i did
rushing and not checking.. sorry... but u get the gist of it

yyeah... 25k a second
the differnet testing servers threw up the figures in different units

In reply to:
I think I am gonna buy a dead horse... so I can flog it.

Now *there's* a good plan! wink

--rlparker

450k/s from a German connection, which is decent for US-based sites; I can saturate at 1.7M/s with more than one connection.

For my tastes you are taking things waaaay too personal and love to use hyperbole. That's bound to get you the answers you got. Your posts insinuate conspiracies on behalf of DreamHost, out to get you since you are out of your trial period. Either come out and say that, provide proof, or don't insinuate it.

RWIN tweaking is a good idea for overseas connections. Yes, if the majority of your viewership is from Europe -- guess what, European hosts will get you a better RTT and throughput to your average listener (not due to the ISP of your listeners or the Webhost, but rather due to the default TCP settings in many operating systems); though in most cases, DH should be plenty to serve 320kbit/s without a hitch. There is a reason Akamai has servers in every major datacenter in the world, and not just one HUGE pipe somewhere in Texas (which would be a lot cheaper ;)

When there is an actual non-settings based problem, your ISP will blame the Webhost and the Webhost will blame the ISP. Oftentimes, the party to blame is in between, with no direct contracts to either the Webhost OR the ISP. Both your ISP and your Webhost /could/ work with their upstreams to figure out a better route or avoid oversaturated links; though quite honestly, you won't get that for the prices you pay for a consumer internet connection or a shared webhosting plan, at least not in a guaranteed fashion. Most people complaining about slow speeds have no idea what they are talking about when they blast off on the phone to their ISP or webhost; even to weed out those who actually have a legitimate beef and are not just unconstructive whiners takes a decent chunk of time and some decent tech on the phone; elevating it through to the higher support tiers is then needed, and communication between your ISP and their upstream(s). This is where the time of the people involved becomes expensive. Really expensive if your ISP's upstream has to talk to their peers; Every report cannot be handled that way. If they are any good at all they will monitor trends though, and if many people complain, they will work out a solution. If you are the only problematic customer, they'll probably just tell you it's you or console you on the problem, hoping it will go away soon. :)

TBH I am getting a bit sick of people telling me what I think. I have not cried a single tear through this process...I do have an odd sense of humour (but it helps me get through the day with a big smile on my face) I don`t think the world is conspiring against me and I do believe Dreamhost is better at marketing than webhosting.

By their own admission they have over oversold (I agree overselling is necessary) and to claim Files Forever is better than I-Tunes is pure hype imo (even though I am no fan of I-tunes).

Dreamhost ARE masters of marketing and hype. It would be very hard to be as good at webhosting as marketing.. because their marketing is so inspired. Just look at all the people they have spamming promo codes... thats marketing genius! Where`s the genius in their webhosting? they couldn`t even find a building with a backup power supply system, that could supply their power needs during a powercut. Hardly the actions of a Master Webhoster. If I said Bill Gates was a master of marketing not software development I am sure many would agree... yet despite this he has managed to saturate the market with his O/S and application software. Popularity and saturation do not necessarily equate to the quality and reliabilty of a product.

As for this I should have bought hosting in the UK/Europe. It shouldnt make much difference. I do have a lot of american visitors too so if I hosted in the UK I would get the same problem. Its not like I am playing a game where I need a decent ping. Hosting in the US should not provide me with major problems I just want to stream a 320kCBR mp3`s hardly groundbreaking.

When downloads from my site are slow, they are also identically slow from my ftp.

I did some more traceroute tests while downloading this morning. My site is working at full speed for me for the 1st time in over 6 weeks (120k a sec download) so these traceroute results are both done when receiving at full speed. I notice the route to my site is identical to the one I got when I was getting slow speeds.

Tracing route to lax.speedtest.dslextreme.com [66.51.206.103]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

1 17 ms 17 ms 16 ms brnt-bam-3.inet.ntl.com [194.145.148.170]
2 16 ms 15 ms 18 ms brnt-t3core-1a-ge-112-0.inet.ntl.com [213.104.14
6.5]
3 63 ms 108 ms 202 ms bre-bb-a-so-130-0.inet.ntl.com [213.105.174.245]
4 365 ms 102 ms 18 ms gfd-bb-b-so-120-0.inet.ntl.com [213.105.172.150]
5 236 ms 366 ms 18 ms redb-ic-1-so-700-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.185.78]
6 20 ms 79 ms 83 ms linx-1.wvfiber.net [195.66.224.233]
7 * 432 ms 440 ms nyc60-pos-1-0.oc48-lon-c00-pos-3-0.wvfiber.net [
63.223.28.145]
8 356 ms 345 ms 373 ms 66.216.1.173
9 1245 ms 1940 ms 2554 ms ash-c01-tge-3-3.tg-nyc-c01-1-1.wvfiber.net [66.2
16.1.161]
10 180 ms 180 ms 178 ms atl-c01-tge-3-1.tg-ash-c01-3-1.wvfiber.net [66.2
16.1.157]
11 127 ms 126 ms 138 ms 64.127.130.58
12 174 ms 178 ms 176 ms 66.186.197.109
13 166 ms 196 ms 165 ms ctr-dsle.law-a00-ge-5-0.wvfiber.net [63.223.32.1
38]
14 169 ms 166 ms 165 ms netblock-66-51-206-103.dslextreme.com [66.51.206
.103]
Trace complete.

Hi Matchstick,

From some replies there is a suggestion to do change the RWIN Setting. Have you done it ? And what's the result ?

I did try it because I never know anything about the tweaking and try to see what happens. Somehow my site loads quite faster than before. smile

Jonathan

I'm not sure of the significance, but I have a couple of observations:
1. The route to lax.speedtest.dslextreme.com is different from the one to DreamHost. It seems to use WV Fiber instead of Global Crossing for the long haul segment.
2. The latency to intermediate nodes goes up significantly when downloading from your site (the second example). You should take this into account when you calculate your optimum RWIN.

Speaking of your RWIN, I'd be interested to see if you new bigger RWIN affects your retransmit rate.

Anyway, keep up the good work and try not to get bogged down with all the judgementalism (both sides of it). :)

I take it Lensman that you mean recalculate my RWIN? I did change my RWIN before. to the 3 settings suggested. With no effect.

Did I make it clear that I got full download speeds during the above two traceroutes? Both from my site and the other LA site.

Yeah I did change my RWIN and it didnt work. Although it looks like I am being asked to re adjust them. The settings I tried before were 65535 75000 and 100000.

I am glad that adjusting these helped you out though Jonathan

I think some are saying change and others are saying calculate. The link I posted before shows how to calculate it: http://www.dslreports.com/faq/3704

I'd like to see your dslreports tweak tests for different RWINs. Run it and post the links as you did the first time. Try 50,000 and 120,000 and post those links!

Thanks

If you are getting sick and tired of people telling you what they think of your post, read it before you post, and be sure to read it while keeping in mind that those who will read it later will not be able to see your face or understand sarcastic remarks unless accompanied by a smirk.

"By their own admission they have oversold". Yeah. It's nothing you have to admit to. It's nothing you have to apologize for. It's not even anything that has to impact your webhosting experience in any way whatsoever. So long as the ACTUAL USAGE levels stay below 90%, you will never notice that there is overselling taking place -- and dreamhost can add more resources long before that happens.

To claim Files forever is better than ITunes is a matter of perspective. The usability is not on par, the rights the users of the service get are far superior to what iTunes will provide.They are different services though, of course. And the marketing is decent, but not exactly hype.

Do you really want to make the case that Bill provides shoddy software and due to his marketing, they all buy it ? M$-bashing is so much fun, huh ? Too bad your premise has a problem -- namely that the software ain't shoddy. It provides what people want -- a consistent UI, wide-spread hardware support, a decent network of support, etc. Of course it is not king everywhere, and it does not cater to every group of users. It does not have to. It does well at many things a LOT of people care about, so it sells well. (And there is a reason Vista isn't selling that well -- it just isn't much better than XP, marketing or not :)
Popularity and saturation have a great deal to do with quality and reliability; the former cannot exist without the latter.

As for EU-based hosting : I agree that 320kbit/s should not be a problem (and indeed they are not a problem. Right now the speed to your site is plenty for me). My point is simply that the fewer miles your packets will have to travel to their destination, the better, since the fewer intermediary network providers can screw up, transatlantic pipe saturation doesn't matter, etc. The ideal option is to have a geographically dispersed edge network to deliver your content. But that costs more moolah. :)

I'm sorry you're having problems, but honestly, I don't think Dreamhost is your problem. I get decent speeds from two places in Germany and two places in Switzerland. If you have a lemon route to DH, that's a problem, and unfortunately a hard one to solve, since it's gonna be a whole lot of fingerpointing.

Did you try RWIN adjustments yet ?

In reply to:

Tracing route to www.lickwidfunk.com [64.111.127.165]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

1 248 ms 242 ms 255 ms brnt-bam-3.inet.ntl.com [194.145.148.170]
2 255 ms 256 ms 266 ms brnt-t3core-1b-ge-112-0.inet.ntl.com [213.104.14
6.133]
3 291 ms 273 ms 290 ms bre-bb-b-so-230-0.inet.ntl.com [213.105.174.249]
4 292 ms 302 ms 316 ms 195.50.91.129
5 121 ms 143 ms 130 ms ae-0-52.bbr2.london2.level3.net [4.68.117.34]
6 161 ms 184 ms 172 ms ae-1-0.bbr2.london1.level3.net [212.187.128.57]
7 193 ms 202 ms 201 ms ae-24-54.car3.london1.level3.net [4.68.116.113]
8 205 ms 226 ms 215 ms ge5-3-0-1000m.ar2.lon3.gblx.net [208.50.13.193]
9 384 ms 390 ms 415 ms new-dream-networks-llc-los-angeles.ge-0-1-0.410.
ar1.lax3.gblx.net [64.215.183.50]
10 427 ms 439 ms 425 ms apache2-cabo.dib.dreamhost.com [64.111.127.165]

This is problematic IMO; your first hop is already at ~220ms. This would indicate that your ISP has big buffers in front of your connection (ASSUMING that your upstream is not saturated during this test). This can cause retransmits or slowing down of the connection, and there is pretty much nothing you can do (short of trying to limit inbound connection speed by stochastically dropping packets on purpose). In any case though, you should only see these high RTTs when your line is saturated, so now your route seems to have cleared up :)

As for routes seemingly being the same : it's entirely possible that one of the ISPs governing the hops has noticed a congestion problem and rerouted other traffic to other routes, clearing up the congestion and allowing you free passage through the pipes.

I am tired of people telling me what I think... not what they think of my post. READ THE TEXT before you go off on one.

i said "over oversold" not oversold

You do not have a direct line to my head.. so u cannot tell what i am thinking/feeling. Thats the point I was trying to make... sorry u missed it.

I can`t even be bothewred to read the rest of your post... its based on you misreading what I said and putting your own meaning on it.

I don`t think the upstream was saturated during this test... as I was downloading not uploading.Oh I was getting poor speeds again less than an hour ago (40k a sec)
Edited by Matchstick on 07/03/07 09:23 AM (server time).

Would you care to back up "over oversold" and "by their own admission", then ?

Sure I don't communicate with you telepathically. I am beginning to think I wouldn't want to. If you can't be bothered to read, why should I, or any of us ?

Sorry, but you're behaving like a baby. You may not like what people here say, and it seems you're hell-bent to blame it on DH (note that I say SEEMS). When somebody makes a point you disagree with, you make it seem as if it's all just a big misunderstanding, without clearing it up.

You get answers to what you write. If that part of communicating is beyond you, too bad.

50000
http://www.dslreports.com/tweakr/block:26ec8d8?service=dsl&speed=2200&os=win2k&via=normal

120000
http://www.dslreports.com/tweakr/block:1675a8c?service=dsl&speed=2200&os=win2k&via=normal

Just tried download from my site... getting 25k a second (current RWin 120000) below traceroute was during download.

Tracing route to www.lickwidfunk.com [64.111.127.165]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

1 62 ms 19 ms 19 ms brnt-bam-3.inet.ntl.com [194.145.148.170]
2 19 ms 29 ms 29 ms brnt-t3core-1b-ge-111-0.inet.ntl.com [213.104.14
6.129]
3 19 ms 19 ms 19 ms bre-bb-b-so-230-0.inet.ntl.com [213.105.174.249]
4 49 ms 19 ms 29 ms 195.50.91.129
5 19 ms 29 ms 39 ms ae-0-56.bbr2.london2.level3.net [4.68.117.162]
6 29 ms 19 ms 19 ms as-0-0.bbr1.london1.level3.net [4.68.128.109]
7 29 ms 19 ms 30 ms ae-14-53.car3.london1.level3.net [4.68.116.81]
8 19 ms 19 ms 29 ms ge5-3-0-1000m.ar2.lon3.gblx.net [208.50.13.193]
9 220 ms 169 ms 169 ms new-dream-networks-llc-los-angeles.ge-0-1-0.410.
ar1.lax3.gblx.net [64.215.183.50]
10 180 ms 190 ms 179 ms apache2-cabo.dib.dreamhost.com [64.111.127.165]

jsut thoguht i would add this... test to server (non dreamhost) LA straight after getting 25k from my site.
Last Result:
Download Speed: 985 kbps (123.1 KB/sec transfer rate)
Upload Speed: 240 kbps (30 KB/sec transfer rate)

I will dig out the info when I have more time. But sorting this slowness of speed is a higher priority to me atm.

But in their newsletter Dreamhost admitted that they had been victims of their own success and that they had now decided to start cutting back on the massive increases in bandwidth and space that they had offered out. I Signed up for 20GB HD space and 1.2TB bandwidth (afair) offering 200gb space and 2.sommat bandwidth to users who don`t use it isnt generous and is just another marketing ploy. They should concentrate on providing what people have paid for, not offering them something they are not going to use. The customer should allow for future Bandwidth/Space increases when deciding what package they select.

and I didnt say Bill Gates software was rubbish... its getting quite good now we have all bugtested it. I merely said he was a far superior marketer than software developer. People will end up using Vista.. like it or not. Look how many unfortunate people ended up with Windows ME xD

Oh and if I am hellbent on blaming Dreamhost why am I changing Rwin settings and contacting my ISP? It seems to me the dreamhost fanboys/coupon spammers are hellbent on blaming my ISP.

In reply to:
But in their newsletter Dreamhost admitted that they had been victims of their own success and that they had now decided to start cutting back on the massive increases in bandwidth and space that they had offered out.

You've got to be kidding, right? That's your source?

That was a joke that got them a lot more attention & sign-ups. Not a confession.

Notice that the decreases aren't enough to matter and that the weekly increases didn't go anywhere... and that those that use promo codes (just about everyone) aren't hit with the decreases.

Doesn't quite look like a panic move to recover from "over overselling."

> Would you care to back up "over oversold" and "by their own admission", then ?

Come on, it's a running theme and subject of jokes. Look at the winner photo:

http://blog.dreamhost.com/2007/07/02/photo-finish/

http://blog.dreamhost.com/2006/05/18/the-truth-about-overselling/

http://blog.dreamhost.com/index.php?s=oversell

Everyone who thinks they don't do some behind the scenes bandwidth throttling, raise your mouse.

Why cut back.. if you don`t need to? to offer something then take it back is bad for business... unless you announce it as time limited offer. to say we are offering "this" from now on and then take it away sounds like an odd form of comedy to me. Doesn`t sound like a joke to me.

I would be interested to know your opinion on the power situation. fortunately uptime is not a massive priority for me as my site is just a hobby site (I have never served more than 300gb in a month). But if it was, I would have been less than impressed with Dreamhost because they have had more than their fair share of downtime over the last 10 months. I notice no one has commented on the power/downtime issues I eluded to.

rofl.... I nearly wet my pants laffing at the picture of the Iraqi information minister saying "There is no downtime. We can see your site just fine."

In reply to:
Why cut back.. if you don`t need to?

As a joke. The joke shows that it's not an actual problem--and the amount they take away (if you don't use a promo code), you get right back at the end of the week. The next week, you have even more than you signed up for, and so on.

In reply to:
I would be interested to know your opinion on the power situation.

Are you referring specifically to power outages at the data center? I think all forms of downtime suck, but it's not their data center and there's nothing they (or the other hosts there) can do. Same goes for any data center.

Alabanza isn't cheap and their DC catching on fire was the cause of the longest downtimes I've ever experienced... all while paying more for less than DH offers. None of their backup systems worked as planned and they got a hard time for it.

You also have to remember not to mistake other hosts as trouble-free, just because they don't publicize their troubles. I've dealt with hosts that seemed to spend more time deleting negative threads on their forum than they spent answering support tickets. Most hosts would have deleted this thread on day one, and some that wouldn't, would likely have at least edited the title.

In reply to:
fortunately uptime is not a massive priority for me as my site is just a hobby site (I have never served more than 300gb in a month). But if it was, I would have been less than impressed with Dreamhost because they have had more than their fair share of downtime over the last 10 months.

The reasons not to rely on DH 100% for anything are the reasons why you shouldn't rely on ANY shared host 100% for anything (important--not hobby sites).

Redundancy is cheap. Two hosting plans & failover DNS will give you better uptime than any single shared host. Throw offsite/redundant mail service into the mix and you have a pretty reliable setup.

But since cheap != free, people would rather complain about downtime than achieve better uptime.

Scale up from there, as needed. Some people get by with two small shared accounts in different DCs, others have a ton of dedicated servers spread out all over the place.

Also, how bad a problem seems is a matter of timing. All hosts have problems, but you only notice them if you're a customer at the time.

Free tip: If you don't want to keep getting asked if you changed RWIN settings, start a new thread that's specific to the problem, including what you've already done.

There could also be others with more info that are never going to click this thread because of the title alone.

In reply to:
There could also be others with more info that are never going to click this thread because of the title alone.

...and others than won't even bother to comment on his stupid remarks anymore, because he is obviously completely clueless. and likely only trolling anyway (given the speeds everyone who has tested his site here has reported). wink

--rlparker

In reply to:
Dreamhost is better at marketing than webhosting.

Marketing only gets people in the door.

Dreamhost's size seems to show that they retain people. Their willingness to offer a 97-day money back period, as well as practically giving away the first year, aren't really the actions of a host that can't retain customers.

In reply to:
By their own admission they have over oversold (I agree overselling is necessary)

Hosts oversell. The biggest difference is that companies like DH have the money and hardware to back it up, where your average 13 year old doing it from a $5/month reseller account doesn't.

It's probably safe to say that the phrase, "overselling is bad," was first spoken by a host that was trying to sell 100 MB of disk space & 1 GB of bandwidth for $45/month.

In reply to:
Just look at all the people they have spamming promo codes... thats marketing genius!

A full price promo-code is the closest thing you can get to an honest referral anymore, with the exception of recommending a host that doesn't have an affiliate program (rare).

Before promo codes, people actually got paid $97 per referral.

Promo codes give the money away to strangers. Anyone doing it for money would be out spamming for just about any host on the planet that isn't DH.

Recommending Dreamhost over another host is the easiest way to not make money. Sure, there are $5 secondary referrals--but it's hard to call that a motive, when it would only take a few minutes to sign up as an affiliate for a $100+ host.

If you had seen this forum before promo codes, and moused over everything that appeared to be a helpful link, you'd see it was worse then.

It doesn't mean that there aren't people that post to get their promo codes out there, but it was the same back then with referral links. The biggest difference is that a promo code is clearly advertised as such, which wasn't quite the case with referral links.

I didnt really expect any help from this thread...the fact some people have offered to help is nice and has surprised me. The point of starting it was to see if anyone agreed with me and vent my spleen ( I think it achieved that), Before going back to the only 2 routes I can. Raising support tickets with Dreamhost and my ISP as they are the only 2 organisations I have contracts with and the only organisations (afaik) that are going to be able to help me resolve this issue. Although tbh when i link Dreamhost support to this thread, to save me typing/pasting out all the results, I would not blame them for just paying lip service to me. I am prolly more hassle than I am worth to them financially.

In reply to:
Come on, it's a running theme and subject of jokes.

Actually, I think of it more as a running "joke" DreamHost enjoys telling those who have no clue how this stuff works...what makes it funny is that the clueless are *so clueless* they don't get the joke ("OMG DH *admits* it"). Now, *that's* funny! wink

--rlparker

> his stupid remarks anymore, because he is obviously completely clueless. and likely only trolling anyway

Quoting Mousee quoting Michael

In reply to:
Being mean doesn't make you look smarter than him. And bigoted remarks are not appreciated on this forum.

cool

In reply to:
It's probably safe to say that the phrase, "overselling is bad," was first spoken by a host that was trying to sell 100 MB of disk space & 1 GB of bandwidth for $45/month.

I think the *first* to utter "overselling is bad" were poor unfortunate folks that couldn't get on an airplane with their confirmed reservations and tickets! wink

--rlparker

In reply to:
I didnt really expect any help from this thread...the fact some people have offered to help is nice and has surprised me. The point of starting it was to see if anyone agreed with me and vent my spleen

That fact that you think you need to even explain that is hilarious - as it was obvious to the most casual observer...er, troll-roller.

--rlparker

--

er..right! And that is relevant to the post you responded to in exactly *what* way?

1) His remarks *are* stupid - and that comment is directed at his *remarks* , not at *him*. meh... OH! saying that somebody wrote something stupid is "mean"! I understand now! Thanks!

2) Where do you see any indication of "bigoted remarks" in that post, or in *any* of my posts?

Or does any of that really even matter - I already expect any post I make is likely to draw some (usually fairly pathetic) criticism from you. Like I said before, it's always a pleasure to read what you have to say, cause you are generally so helpful and positive and all. wink

--rlparker

Crap... forgot about the airlines. Someone will surely blame DH for that as well. tongue

ha ha ha - moral teaching in a promo code touting sig. Nice! You always were "innovative" with your promo pimping...I *like* it!

That's a great quote!

--rlparker

In reply to:
50000
http://www.dslreports.com/tweakr/block:26ec8d8?service=dsl&speed=2200&os=win2k&via=normal

120000
http://www.dslreports.com/tweakr/block:1675a8c?service=dsl&speed=2200&os=win2k&via=normal

Just tried download from my site... getting 25k a second (current RWin 120000) below traceroute was during download.

Tracing route to www.lickwidfunk.com [64.111.127.165]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

1 62 ms 19 ms 19 ms brnt-bam-3.inet.ntl.com [194.145.148.170]
2 19 ms 29 ms 29 ms brnt-t3core-1b-ge-111-0.inet.ntl.com [213.104.14
6.129]
3 19 ms 19 ms 19 ms bre-bb-b-so-230-0.inet.ntl.com [213.105.174.249]
4 49 ms 19 ms 29 ms 195.50.91.129
5 19 ms 29 ms 39 ms ae-0-56.bbr2.london2.level3.net [4.68.117.162]
6 29 ms 19 ms 19 ms as-0-0.bbr1.london1.level3.net [4.68.128.109]
7 29 ms 19 ms 30 ms ae-14-53.car3.london1.level3.net [4.68.116.81]
8 19 ms 19 ms 29 ms ge5-3-0-1000m.ar2.lon3.gblx.net [208.50.13.193]
9 220 ms 169 ms 169 ms new-dream-networks-llc-los-angeles.ge-0-1-0.410.
ar1.lax3.gblx.net [64.215.183.50]
10 180 ms 190 ms 179 ms apache2-cabo.dib.dreamhost.com [64.111.127.165]

jsut thoguht i would add this... test to server (non dreamhost) LA straight after getting 25k from my site.
Last Result:
Download Speed: 985 kbps (123.1 KB/sec transfer rate)
Upload Speed: 240 kbps (30 KB/sec transfer rate)

Interesting. Would you try downloading the trailer from this site and telling me what the download rate is?

BTW, I just did a couple of tests from here at work and had 4 simultaneous 600KB/s downloads going for an aggregate 19mbps download from your server.

It's a long shot but have you tried downloading using a different browser? Also, have you tried SFTP - just to make sure it's not some kind of wacky QoS going on?

downloading that file now.. it ran at pretty much my full download speed starting at 120k and dropping to 100k by the end of the download.

dowloaded a file from my site immediately afterwards and got a less stable download that eventually levelled out at around 70-75k a sec

Not keen on the idea of changing browsers... if I do which one? Opera? Firefox?

Seeing as we now seem to be testing longshots I think I would rather try Dreamhost/My ISP`s support again before setting up an SFTP server. I think I have a lot more information on the problem for them this time round. With all the traceroutes, speedtests and tweaktests I have done with your help.. maybe it will give them more of a chance to understand what is happening.

Reply to

In reply to:
Not keen on the idea of changing browsers... if I do which one? Opera? Firefox?

Just download and run Firefox. You can easily uninstall it later, though you might find you like it. :)

In reply to:
Seeing as we now seem to be testing longshots I think I would rather try Dreamhost/My ISP`s support again before setting up an SFTP server.

You don't have to set up a server at all, just download and run WinSCP on your home machine. You should be using this instead of FTP for uploading to your site anyway. You login using your shell account name and password. I'm wondering whether your slowness is due to your content type or the download protocol. This will help you out in your discussions with your ISP.

In reply to:
lol... i think you are guilty of trolling... your posts here are designed to antagonise me... not help me... please leave this thread....

Your opinion on that is noted. My first post here was designed to point you toward some tools to help identify your problem.

Some of my later posts were designed to point out what you just admitted; you were not looking for help, your purpose "was to see if anyone agreed with me and vent my spleen" (your words!) Both of which are fine, if done without unfairly maligning others (Yes, I am referring to DreamHost here). I've pretty much accomplished that to my satisfaction at this point so ...

Here's a plan: I'll leave the thread if *you'll* leave the thread ... you continue this thread, and I'll keep reading (and possibly commenting).

If you're ready to move past your "vent" mode into legitimate "help" discussion, kill this thread and start a *help* related thread with a reasonable title, and you'll likely never hear from me again...or don't, and risk, in spite of my best intentions to ignore you, my occasional inability to refrain from replying to a particularly inane remark. wink

I promise you, when this thread "dies", I'll not respond to you again until/unless I have some real help for you (that I think there is some chance you might actually find useful) *or* you perpetrate another "drive-by bashing" where you malign another to "vent your spleen" or whatever.

You seem to be quick to forget that I was one of the first to try to help you, in spite of the provocative title of your post and with all sincerity, by pointing you toward some of the tests you are now doing. wink

--rlparker

> that comment is directed at his *remarks* , not at *him*

You wrote

In reply to:
You wrote "he is obviously completely clueless. and likely only trolling anyway..." That is directed at *him*.

Ah! I see now, and that is "mean"? Okay, I suppose for the truly "tender" that *was* harsh. Point taken.

In reply to:
I will say the tendency to cast someone into a group, such as spammer, troll, clueless idiot or whatever, and then treating them with contempt, hatred and for example "troll-rolling," is characteristic of bigoted behavior.

Well, you left out one other obvious candidate from the list; You forgot "sock-puppeteers". wink

I take great care to refrain from exhibiting "bigoted" behavior relating to persons based on race, religion, creed, color, sexual preference, age, and gender...but that's all the "political correctness" I attempt.

I see no moral necessity to curtail my prejudices against the "spammer, troll, clueless idiot, or whatever" who wanders around in public with a sign on his/her back saying, "Kick me!", and I *do* hold some them in contempt (*except for the truly the clueless idiots who can't help themselves) As for "hate", not so much - meh.

I admit to rolling the occasional troll, because I think it ads some balance to some of the malicious things that are said, so, you are correct, my mileage does vary. smile

I guess I need to go into "rehab" now, as that seems to be all the rage.

--rlparker

> based on race, religion, creed, color, sexual preference, age, and gender

Setting your standards to about the minimum required by law. Oh well.

In reply to:
Setting your standards to about the minimum required by law. Oh well.

Oh yeah! I forgot "disability" (which I suppose could be construed to include "clueless idiots") smile

Hey, who knows...the way things are going maybe even spammers, trolls, and such will actually get their own "protected class" one of these days. wink

--rlparker

Reply to

In reply to:
Self appointed police are very dangerous people imo. Those who crave power shouldn`t have it.

"Troll-rolling" is *not* a "police" action, and it's not at all about power - it's about "fairness" and *peer pressure*. wink

BTW, your quoted phrase was out of context in your response; my admission that I do "roll" the occasional "troll" was in response to another user and the act itself is only directed at *trolls*.

Did you have any comment that was at all relevant to the post you responded to, and just forget to include it or are you just trying to prong our discussion?

--rlparker

Definition of Police for you : Regulation and control of the affairs of a community, especially with respect to maintenance of order, law, health, morals, safety, and other matters affecting the public welfare.

A troll roller is someone who is trying to police. Whether or not they are right to do this is irrelevant... they are still Policing.

I think you should leave the Policing of the forum to those who run it.

P.s. i do start reading your posts... but I find them so irrelevant and boring I tend to stop after a line or two. You just enjoy arguing...imo

I want you to leave this thread.. so Lensman can continue helping me without your interruptions.

In reply to:
I want you to leave this thread.. so Lensman can continue helping me without your interruptions.

I showed you a way to get me to "leave this thread", but it seems you would rather engage me in conversation! shocked

My posts are only "interruptions" if *you* take the time to read, and respond to, them.

In reply to:
A troll roller is someone who is trying to police. Whether or not they are right to do this is irrelevant... they are still Policing.

I suppose, at this point, I should not be surprised that you missed the whole point of "fairness" and "peer pressure," and retreat into the role of the persecuted "newbie" who believes that shouting in a hotel lobby is a proper way to get help in a civilized community.

Anyway...you have *several tools* at your disposal to enable yourself to never hear from me again....if you really don't want me "in this thread", then *use them* instead of prolonging the banter.

Your abandoning this thread, and it's original "subject line", to create a *new and improved* thread for you to continue to work through your issues(s) will leave all this unpleasantness behind. It will *also* allow your unfair and provocative "subject" line to roll into oblivion, where it belongs, and result in my having *no interest at all* in it. wink Carpe Diem! and all that!

--rlparker

Edited by rlparker on 07/03/07 06:28 PM (server time).

Sheetz, RL, just walk away now, and quit trying to force your terms on the person.

You are trying to Bully/Harass me into leaving this thread on your terms... You pulled me up for commenting on a response to someone else`s comment. Something you have done in this thread... but it was OK when you did it. One rule for the self appointed Police and one rule for the acused Troll?

In reply to:
Sheetz, RL, just walk away now, and quit trying to force your terms on the person.

Good advice, but you miss the point...

There is no "forcing of terms" involved at all here ... if he wants a "clean" thread; he should go make one. the OP "soiled" this one from the first post. This thread, and it's original subject tag, is a "trainwreck" and should be "put down".

You are probably right though, about just walking away...tell, you what...I'll *try*! Hows' that? wink

--rlparker

meh... you will learn, eventually, or you won't... here's a hint..*your* responses trigger *my* responses..

I tell you what, if it's a "last word" thing - let 'er rip and post one last rant about how badly you've been treated, and I'll ignore it. How does that sound?

I'll not post, in response to *you* again for the life of this thread, and will refrain from posting in this thread at *all* as long as you continue to focus on *your problem* rather than how you are being so badly served by DreamHost (since it's been pretty well demonstrated *that* is clearly not the case).

I'll also apologize publicly if/when you demonstrate that the poor functioning of the DreamHost server is why you and your users' download speeds vary so wildly. Anything else you want? Let's put this puppy down on *your* terms, since you seem to only be able to see the issue in that light.

--rlparker

The title of this thread is a slight on me... I havn`t complained or replied on a different thread name. You are entitled to your opinion... I don`t happen to agree with it.

Reply to

I have nothing to add other than to say thanks for the entertaining read. smile

Ok ... tested downloads with firefox as my browser, and download speeds were identical to those I got with IE.

Just the SFTP check to do now.

:)

Cool. One other long shot you can try is to create a little test site for yourself with a variety of different files to test download speeds since it seems that your site on your server exhibits slowness through your ISP.

You can create a subdomain for youself or a dreamhosters.com subdomain. Just a static page with a couple of links - one to one of your mixes and one to that wmv file you downloaded. I'd be interested to see if there was any change - both in the case where the domain name was the only difference, the IP address of the server was the only difference, and finally if the file type is the only difference.

Okley Dokley.... done the SFTP check and got slow speeds still. But at least now I am using a more secure transfer (I was unaware FTP was that vunerable) should I disable my ftp access and only allow sftp access? would seem to make sense now I have SFTP setup.

The username is Aladdin and the password is OpenSesame in case u want to test it (just kidding... felt the need to inject some humour.. well I thought it was funny)

I already have a subdomain setup.. so I will do the other check tomorrow/later depending on what time I have.

In reply to:
Okley Dokley.... done the SFTP check and got slow speeds still. But at least now I am using a more secure transfer (I was unaware FTP was that vunerable) should I disable my ftp access and only allow sftp access? would seem to make sense now I have SFTP setup.

Sure, may as well, though as long as you don't actually use ftp, it shouldn't be a problem.

What do you get when you run a speed test on:

http://www.dhspeedtest.com/ ?
(this is hosted off a regular shared DH server)

Also another good site is:

http://nitro.ucsc.edu/

This site is good if you click more details as it can give you all sorts of good interesting facts.

Did speedtest on the Dreamhost Speedtest page..
958 / 244 (Kbps)
(117 / 29.8 KB/sec)

Tested my site before and afterwards and got 75KB/sec

Trace Routes were done straight after each speedtest

Tracing route to www.dhspeedtest.com [208.113.132.26]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

1 25 ms 19 ms 19 ms brnt-bam-3.inet.ntl.com [194.145.148.170]
2 19 ms 19 ms 19 ms brnt-t3core-1b-ge-111-0.inet.ntl.com [213.104.14
6.129]
3 19 ms 19 ms 19 ms bre-bb-b-so-230-0.inet.ntl.com [213.105.174.249]
4 29 ms 29 ms 29 ms lee-bb-a-so-110-0.inet.ntl.com [213.105.175.25]
5 29 ms 29 ms 29 ms 213.152.245.53
6 29 ms 29 ms 29 ms globalcrossing-mfn.mfnx.net [208.185.188.66]
7 170 ms 170 ms 169 ms te2-1-10g.ar3.lax2.gblx.net [67.17.108.154]
8 170 ms 169 ms 170 ms new-dream-networks-llc-los-angeles.ge-0-1-0.410.
ar1.lax3.gblx.net [64.215.183.50]
9 170 ms 169 ms 170 ms apache2-grog.hyperion.dreamhost.com [208.113.132
.26]

Trace complete.

Tracing route to www.lickwidfunk.com [64.111.127.165]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

1 22 ms 19 ms 19 ms brnt-bam-3.inet.ntl.com [194.145.148.170]
2 19 ms 19 ms 19 ms brnt-t3core-1b-ge-111-0.inet.ntl.com [213.104.14
6.129]
3 29 ms 19 ms 19 ms bre-bb-b-so-230-0.inet.ntl.com [213.105.174.249]
4 19 ms 19 ms 19 ms 195.50.91.129
5 19 ms 19 ms 19 ms ae-0-56.bbr2.london2.level3.net [4.68.117.162]
6 19 ms 19 ms 19 ms as-0-0.bbr1.london1.level3.net [4.68.128.109]
7 19 ms 19 ms 19 ms ae-14-53.car3.london1.level3.net [4.68.116.81]
8 19 ms 19 ms 19 ms ge5-3-0-1000m.ar2.lon3.gblx.net [208.50.13.193]
9 240 ms 159 ms 160 ms new-dream-networks-llc-los-angeles.ge-0-1-0.410.
ar1.lax3.gblx.net [64.215.183.50]
10 160 ms 160 ms 170 ms apache2-cabo.dib.dreamhost.com [64.111.127.165]

Trace complete.

Wow... seven pages so far for this topic. But I learn quite a lot. smile

Thanks everyone !

Dino

In reply to:
Tested my site before and afterwards and got 75KB/sec

So you got halfway-decent transfer rates for once? (75 KB/s = 600kbps) Uh oh. This may make debugging even harder...

BTW, just to make sure we have all the bases covered, how are you checking for transfer rates on downloads from your site? I'm just looking at the rates quoted by the browser during the download, which are always in KB/s (kilobytes per second). As you know, for good or for bad, people quote line speeds at kbps (kilobits per second).

Anyway, once you're back to getting slow rates on your main site, I'd like to test out whether there's some funny business going on with transfers to your site or your server's IP address, which is why creating a new test site and downloading from it is on your todo list. smile You'll have to make sure that you get assigned a different IP address from your main site - though it will be interesting to compare rates to a different site hosted on the same IP address.

BTW, what rates did you get on the SFTP test? I believe it quotes throughput in KB/s, not kbps.

I am measuring download speeds from my site using the browser once the download has settled for a few seconds and am quoting in KB cos thats what I understand easily. Downloads vary from 120KB a second (my maximum dl speed) to as low as 25KB a second.

The SFTP test was 75KB a second but it will match whatever the speed of the site is. If my site was running at 25kB/sec the SFTP would match this.

I consider 70KB to be at the top end of slow... I would put up with this if it never dropped lower than 70KB. 100KB is what I consider acceptable. Most of the files on my site are 100MB plus, so anything slower than 100KB a sec means a fair wait. OK for streaming but not good if you are downloading a mix to put on your portable mp3 player for the journey to work etc..

sorry I havnt done the subdomain test yet... I don`t have as much spare time as I would like to devote to this.. but it will get done. I had intended to leave the problem for today so I could get some serious vinyl/cd/mp3/flac shopping done. No point having a site at all If I have no new mixes to put on it. I am being gently pressured to make a new mix as I normally upload at least one a month. :)

As usual, lensman, you are giving *great* advice! smile I just ran across an article yesterday that deals with many ISP related speed issues, and thought you might find it interesting. wink

--rlparker

Dreamhost are masters of marketing not webhosting.

Dreamhost are masters of marketing not webhosting.

Re: Dreamhost are masters of marketing not webhost

Re: Dreamhost are masters of marketing not webhost

Re: Dreamhost are masters of marketing not webhost

Re: Dreamhost are masters of marketing not webhost

Re: Dreamhost are masters of marketing not webhost

Re: Dreamhost are masters of marketing not webhost

Re: Dreamhost are masters of marketing not webhost

Re: Dreamhost are masters of marketing not webhost

Re: Dreamhost are masters of marketing not webhost

Re: Dreamhost are masters of marketing not webhost

Re: Dreamhost are masters of marketing not webhost

Re: Dreamhost are masters of marketing not webhost

Re: Dreamhost are masters of marketing not webhost

Re: Dreamhost are masters of marketing not webhost

Re: Dreamhost are masters of marketing not webhost

Re: Dreamhost are masters of marketing not webhost

Re: Dreamhost are masters of marketing not webhost

Re: Dreamhost are masters of marketing not webhost

Re: Dreamhost are masters of marketing not webhost

Re: Dreamhost are masters of marketing not webhost

Re: Dreamhost are masters of marketing not webhost

Re: Dreamhost are masters of marketing not webhost

Re: Dreamhost are masters of marketing not webhost

Re: Dreamhost are masters of marketing not webhost

Re: Waaaah! My Intarweb are Borken !

Re: Dreamhost are masters of marketing not webhost

Re: Dreamhost are masters of marketing not webhost

Re: Dreamhost are masters of marketing not webhost

Re: Dreamhost are masters of marketing not webhost

Re: Dreamhost are masters of marketing not webhost

Re: Dreamhost are masters of marketing not webhost

Re: Dreamhost are masters of marketing not webhost

Re: Dreamhost are masters of marketing not webhost

Re: Dreamhost are masters of marketing not webhost

Re: Dreamhost are masters of marketing not webhost

Re: Dreamhost are masters of marketing not webhost

Re: Dreamhost are masters of marketing not webhost

Re: Dreamhost are masters of marketing not webhost

Re: Dreamhost are masters of marketing not webhost

Re: Dreamhost are masters of marketing not webhost

Re: Dreamhost are masters of marketing not webhost

Re: Dreamhost - masters of webhosting

Re: Dreamhost are masters of marketing not webhost

Re: Dreamhost - masters of webhosting

Re: Dreamhost are masters of marketing not webhost

Re: Dreamhost are masters of marketing not webhost

Re: DreamHost Rocks!

Re: Dreamhost are masters of marketing not webhost

Re: Dreamhost are masters of marketing not webhost

Re: Dreamhost are masters of marketing not webhost

Re: Dreamhost are masters of marketing not webhost

Re: Seiler Rocks!

Re: DreamHost Rocks!

Re: Dreamhost are masters of marketing not webhost

Re: Dreamhost are masters of marketing not webhost

Re: Dreamhost are masters of marketing not webhost

Re: Dreamhost are masters of marketing not webhost

Re: DreamHost Rocks!

Re: DreamHost Rocks!

Re: Dreamhost are masters of marketing not webhost

Re: Dreamhost are masters of marketing not webhost

Re: Dreamhost are masters of marketing not webhost

Re: Dreamhost are masters of marketing not webhost

Re: Dreamhost are masters of marketing not webhosting.

DreamHosters are masters of baiting

Re: Dreamhost are masters of marketing not webhost

Re: Dreamhost are masters of marketing not webhost

Re: Dreamhost are masters of marketing not webhosting.

Re: Dreamhost are masters of marketing not webhost

Re: Dreamhost rocks!

Re: Dreamhost are masters of marketing not webhost

Re: Dreamhost rocks!

Re: Dreamhost are masters of marketing not webhost

Re: Dreamhost are masters of marketing not webhost

Re: Dreamhost are masters of marketing not webhost

Re: Dreamhost are masters of marketing not webhost

Re: Dreamhost are masters of marketing not webhost

Re: Dreamhost are masters of marketing not webhost

I got bumjped

Re: I got bumjped