Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • For me DreamHost fills the following niche.

    * Cheaper than a virtual.

    * 90% of the features I need (svn servers, cron, shell)

    * Unreachable disk and traffic limits.

    * Control panel that doesn't suck.

    * As many domains and shell users as I want.

    It's a great place to shove lots and lots and lots of generic or bulky stuff where CPU doesn't matter, distribute large binary packages, hold all my system backups, store my SVN repositories (except for svn.ali.as) and general get stuff done.

    It is, however, NOT the place w
    • I realize its discount shared hosting. But thus far, DH has had serious problems delivering simple static pages, not to mention email. Even discount shared hosting has certain minimum requirements. A great config panel isn't much use if no one can view your website. E.g., in response to everyone's support tickets for the *latest* issue, the response included this happy little tidbit (posted on 3/23):

      Some of you are also asking when this issue will be fixed, I wish I had concrete information for you, but i

      • Oh, and I forgot to mention, Bluehost has perl 5.8.8! w00t!

        Alas, they don't appear to have SVN...

        • Looks like BlueHost has had their share of problems as well.

          For example: http://mattheaton.com/?p=115 [mattheaton.com]
          • Yes, I noted some of BH's issues. But relative to DH's disasters, those seem like minor hiccups. And Mssr. Heaton's response was certainly more like a responsible CEO than the script kiddie, yuk-it-up [dreamhost.com] behavior at DH.

            FWIW: I did note a bit of slowness at BH this AM, a quick ps -ef|wc -l indicated a high process count (well, high in BH terms; on my DH server, they were mid-low end numbers...) but things have since settled down.

            I also noted, when transferring the website tarball to BH, that the tarball unbundled so fast I thought something was wrong. But it was just fast. The tarball that took DH 10 minutes to create/gzip unbundled on BH in a handful of seconds.

            But I've now steeled myself for the possibility of issues, and, having done the site xfer dance a couple times in the past 60 days, I'm ready to jump again if needed.

            And now that EC2 finally got static IPs [tinyurl.com], the next jump might be into the cloud.