I am implementing one of my clients new sites ( the old site is written in plain html), and their new site uses ASP on every page.
The problem is that their old index.htm page has a pagerank of 4 which we want to keep.
And I have been advised that i need to do a 301 redirect to pass that PageRank onto their new index.asp page.
The other problem is that they are on a shared IIS hosting solution (with FastHosts), and obviously I don;t have total control over the server so cannot get into the root control panel.
My question is, whats the IIS alternative to .htaccess, which can be implemented on a limite-controlled IIS server?
JavaScript, I have heard is completely out the question
im trying to remotely install WS2003 EE R2 on a dedicated server I have purchased and have an issue. I'm installing it via KVM IP which is cool
however, after installing the network card drivers, I get a "There is no or limited connectivity" etc... so I cannot access the internet or anything on that box.
what do I do from here? how can I make the card work? It is configured to obtain the IP Address automatically as well as using the default DNS. I do have 2 IP Addresses "assigned" to me/my account but dont believe I need to configure them in WS2003?
We have a developer doing some work for us and only want to allow them FTP access to the directory they are working on. How can this be accomplished? I am not sure how to limit ftp access to certain directories?
I'm reading a lot of negative experiences here, and of course positive ones as well. When I was looking for a new company to host my website, I had some clear 'demands'.
I'll explain first, I am a player of the MMO EvE online [url] and I'm the CEO of a corporation in that game. For our corporation I wanted to create a portal from which to host all our out of game content. That content includes the usual forum, a killboard, a so called POS tracker, to keep track of fuel levels in our stations, a Shoutcast radio station to provide us with some added entertainment during our gaming, a webmail application to keep in touch with each other and last but not least a teamspeak server so we can chat.
Because it's quite a bit of stuff that I needed hosted and the bandwith some of it swallows up, especially the Shoutcast station that was something I had to look for. I was referred by one of our members to a UK company called FragSwitch Limited [url]. They've got several packages to choose from. I picked their "HARD" package that gives me 5Gb of webspace and 50Gb of traffic, plenty to suit our every need. It's a unlimited package where I can have as many of whatever I want, including e-mail addresses and subdomains. I like cPanel, so any host that uses it gets a plus from me anyway.
I've had my site hosted with them for 3 months now and haven't experienced any downtime, and since the server park is in the UK, lines to at least my country are short and fast, though I haven't heard any of our US based members complain.
So perhaps if you are looking for a complete host, you might wanna look them up, I give them a big thumbs up at least! They may not be the cheapest host out there, but they don't have to be, the service I got when I needed help to set up both my shoutcast and teamspeak servers was excellent and fast and that counts for much more to me.
I signed up for a hosted account with gator and I don't understand something. They tell me it's a policy change for security reasons but the simultaneous SSH connections has been limited to 2. That's just nuts. Is there a real reason why someone would limit this? i need two for editors, one for shell and one for mysql. Minimum of 4. What security concern could cause them to pick 2 as the number?
I just don't get it.
Here's what they said to me.
info: Please wait for a HostGator operator to respond.
Channel Sanderson: Hi. We're working on our website and have run into a small snag. It seems we can only have two open SSH connections at a time this week. We were able to open more a couple weeks ago. Is this something that you can change?
Kella J.: Ok, the issue is.. You are only alllowed 2, no matter what.. Channel Sanderson: I believe we are not understanding each other. We're not trying to connect 10 times in a minute. We just need more connections. 2 is insufficient. We need a minimum of 4 simultaneous connections to our server.
Kella J.: I am sorry, I checked with my admin.. he said there is only a limit of 2, period..
Channel Sanderson: This is an unnecessary limitation in my view and badly limits my ability to do what I need to do.
Just wondering if anyone facing same problem like me on VPS.
i have a VPS which has 512 MB memory.
i'm hosting few sites on this VPS, and it does not allow more than 100 connection at a time. when i check apache it shows 100 connection, when i try to visit my site i cant.
So, is there any way i can make it more connection at a time?
Hydrya Host they are claiming they are a limited company. I have searched company house and no results show from there name. Anyone else seen this? I am in no connection but just saw there claiming it on the WHT signature.
I've always used German hosts because they are much cheaper than my homeland Greek alternatives, the latency (70ms Germany vs 30ms Greece) is bearable.
Until recently I used Strato single cpu dedicated servers, which allowed me 2000gb at 100mb/s. Although I came close, I never actually reached that 2000gb allocation.
Ever since moving to 1und1 (to a quad core) the server's speed difference has attracted more visitors and pageviews. Now my bandwidth usage has gone to 3000gb per month and at peak it requires 20-30mb/s.
The problem is that 1und1 limits you to 10mb/s if you go over 1000gb, and then requires 'resetting' it every 250gb in order to get back to 100mb/s speed.
Does anyone know of a european host that offers truly unlimited bandwidth? Every time I hit the 10mb/s limit, my pageviews go down, users leave the site.
I've contemplated writing a simple heartbeat script that polls the control panel every 5 minutes and checks if the limit has been crossed, at which it will automatically reset it for me.
Last week, we received a letter [url] from Companies House (the UK entity which governs companies).
It was addressed to Exoware, with all the correct contact details, reminding me to submit statutory documents by a certain date or face a fine and/or prosecution. It was sent to us, because apparently, Exoware is a director of Jarhosts limited. This is not true. We have never even heard of Jarhosts limited up to this point, but it appears they had ceased trading by the time we received the letter.
A few emails were exchanged between us and Companies House, which didn't really get us anywhere as they couldn't seem to understand our position, so I phoned them up myself. I got through to someone and explained our position and she informed me about the company and said they registered Exoware as a director of Jarhosts limited on 05/12/08 and they themselves promptly resigned from the company afterwards, so Exoware was the only remaining director.
After I declared that Exoware had no affiliation whatsoever with Jarhosts limited, she promptly forwarded the case to a department for dealing with fraudulent documents and said the company will dissolve soon and that we may hear from Companies House fraud department in the future.
So, my concerns are now at ease, but my curiosity still remains.
Does anybody know Jarhosts; how long they were around for, who they were owned by, or any relevant information about them? Or does anybody know of any reason that people would sign up a random business in the same industry as a director before bailing out of their own company? It all seems very obscure.
I am using their RVPS-3 plan (30$/mo, 1024 MB RAM, 40 GB drive, 500GB BW) and I am pretty unhappy about the connection and response speeds of their servers - especially during traffic peaks in the US. The server is sometimes so slow that I have to wait 5-10 seconds for a simple HTML page to load. :/
However the hardware itself works fine and for the money is IMO a very good deal. Also tech support is fine, I've had 3 requests so far and all were solved almost immediately (<20 mins). Although during the setup stage they changed the OS WITHOUT letting me know due to installation of an admin panel. They quickly changed it back when I asked them, but it's pretty strange anyway.
It really is a pity that the connection speed is so bad, because other than that I couldn't say a bad word about them. Now I have to consider moving somewhere else...
I was looking at the offer section and I found that there is limited choices for providers that is on the west coast. I am just looking for simple and cheap server to run on directadmin for my adult site but I can't seem to be able to find one. Anyone knows of any decent providers in the west?
I used to create a user by using /usr/sbin/sysinstall in freebsd, but how do i limit that user so he can't view important files (like: dhcpd.conf, rc.conf....) or can't do such as command pico, nano, vi ...etc?
All i want is that user can log in to my freebsd box and then he will ssh to other local servers, I just want my freebsd box is a bridge/gate for him to ssh to local servers which behind that freebsd box. Is it possible ?Thanks.
I know that i have to create a group with has only ssh permission but how do i do that?
When I SSH'd into my box, I received this message:
example.pl is on this server. HTTPD connections have been limited to restrict this script from overloading server. All servers that have hosted this file need to have extremely limited http connections or have this file removed. It is poorly written and intense on CPU/memory.
How do I go and allow example.pl to be run on my server again? I use it solely for personal sites, so I wish to not have this file blocked and be allowed to run. I've searched for almost an hour now so I figured I would go ahead and post to see if any more experienced members could assist.
I am having trouble working out which host to choose for a new project.
I usually opt for Webmania or Heart Internet - they are excellent providers but Webmania now applies a bandwidth cap that may be too low and Heart's cheapest package does not provide sub-domains. I can't be sure whether 12GB will be big enough for a site that will contain galleries of high-res images (I have no prior experience with caps and traffic predictions are impossible at this time) and to get sub-domains from Heart means a £90 per year package (too much).
Streamline is one of the few good-value providers that do not cap bandwidth, but I have concerns about the effect that this may have on server speed given that it is bound to attract the kind of sites that are really heavy on bandwidth. This point was mentioned in an article recently.
If I take the last option, will I be hampering the performance of my site?
i'm asking about the script which install in linux servers and automatic suspend sites which over it's limit resources in ram and cpu , like used in big hosting company ....
I have recently upgraded mysql server from 5.0.75 to 5.1.31 on my Ubuntu server 9.04 32 bit. After that when I am running phpmyadmin it is printing a warning :
Your PHP MySQL library version 5.0.75 differs from your MySQL server version 5.1.31.
I installed the MySQL binary packages in /usr/local/mysql/ after removing the MySQL RPM package. MySQL is functioning when I executed /usr/local/mysql/bin/safe_mysqld. I reinstalled MySQL before I installed PHP. When I used a PHP script to access a MySQL database, it outputs an error:
Code: Warning: mysqli::mysqli() [function.mysqli-mysqli]: (HY000/2002): can't connect to local mysql server through socket /var/lib/mysql/mysql.sock in index.php on line 2 However, I installed MySQL in /usr/local/mysql, not in /var/lib/mysql. How do I fix MySQL?
This is sort of a continuation to this thread here
Based upon the screenshots I provided below. What server would best suit my needs. I need this server to be able to handle the mysql usage and server load.
This server will be only for mysql. The rest of the site (html, videos) will be hosted on a different server.
If you think these servers are not enough for this please let me know any suggestions you have pertaining to server specifications.
Server 1:
Dual Core Core 2 Duo E4500 2.2Ghz 2MB Cache 500 GB SATA II Hard Drive 2 GB DDR2 SDRAM
Server 2:
Dual Core Core 2 Duo E8400 3.0Ghz 6MB Cache 500 GB SATA II Hard Drive 4 GB DDR2 SDRAM
Server 3:
Quad Core Core 2 Quad Q9300 2.5Ghz 6MB Cache 500 GB SATA II Hard Drive 4 GB DDR2 SDRAM
My site is getting big and my server can barely hold all the mysql processes.
Once I had a similar problem with bandwidth because my media files were eating quite a big chunk of it. So, I just bought a media server and changed some HTML to hotlink all the media from the media server. I would like to do something like that with my MySQL databases, to get some load off my main server.
Should I get my current host to cluster another server for mysql? Or can I use a completely different server (from a different webhost) for mysql?