Hacker News Reader

Comment by colbyolson | Hacker News Reader

Now I know downtime is normal for a host. Yes, even Google.

But when you visit the homepage of their status-blog[1], don't you think that's a bit too many updates a little too frequently?

Or should we commend Dreamhost on being super-transparent in their network/uptime issues?

[1] http://www.dreamhoststatus.com/

View on HN

DH are mostly just very transparent about downtime - more so than most hosts. They are also very cheap. If you would like more nine's, you will need to pay more. MT, rackspace, etc... are all considerably more expensive.

I always appreciate transparency in support issues. I'm much happier knowing that an issue is being worked on than sitting in the dark wondering if anyone has noticed.

I also see that they host their status blog outside their core network. Good idea :)

They are just very bad. I am so glad I moved away from them a year ago.

what is funny about the status page is that it isn't a day that they don't run into an issue ..

Given the number of domains they host (nearly a million: http://www.webhosting.info/webhosts/reports/total_domains/DR...), I'm shocked they don't have more outages to report. Perhaps they do. They've got enough hardware that system failures are bound to be a daily occurrence. And I'm sure software problems stack right on top of that.

if you look at the issues too there's a lot of "this server had to have an fsck to resolve something" and "theses servers were slow so we fixed them".

99.9% uptime is still something like 8 hours downtime - this big outage was about 40 mins so they've some leeway yet.

If it's of any concern, Dreamhost is also the host for two of my websites.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com