x10Hosting Server Monitor (created by Piotr GRD)

[Piotr GRD]

I only pointed that such silent acceptance exists.
And yes, it's different I do provide service for x10Hosting USERS, so asking x10Hosting admins for comments is only my good will. I did follow their suggestion about not showing full hostnames, I did wait for some other comments - there was no any. The same amount of time that took writing to me the message about not displaying hostnames can take writing a message with any other comments or with request to not dipsplaying results publicly.


When some webmasters are using the "uptime buttons" from various monitoring services and are displaying these buttons publicly on their websites - it's technically publicly available monitoring statistics of the server that the website is on, right? They very often share the information about on various forums with other webmaster in kind of "my website on hosting ... has such and such uptime". Do you think that all of these webmasters should also ask the server admins - no matter if x10Hosting or any other webhost - for acceptance for using such monitoring service and displaying the data publicly for everyone usage? The "buttons" are from various services, some from more some from less reliable services and also may decide that visitors of the website and other webmasters may take true or false assumptions as to the usage of the server where that specific website is on. This would be quite radiculous in my opinion considering how often people these "uptime buttons" use. (Should I create such free to use buttons instead of advertising my page with the results?... ; ) No, don't answer.)


And this is the end of my conversation with Sharky regarding acceptance or not from the admins side.

 

[Sharky]

See, you're missing the point again. I provided written agreement to the bank etc that these changes to the future would take place. An agreement was already in place.

And ... end of conversation? I was so enjoying banging my head against a brick wall. To quote a Bryon-ism, get a job.

Whether you take it personally or not, there are more important things to life than server monitors. I do not understand your insistence to force this service.

And for the record I really don't care - I just like to debate but despite many attempts you just come along, throw your toys out of the pram and scream "I'm not talking to you any more".

Last time someone did that it was a 'final offer not open for debate' to do with rent and my claims of substandard accommodation. Suffice to say I got double the offer and a new kitchen/bathroom/boiler.

Good luck in your (ad)ventures.

 

[callumacrae]

Piotr GRD: Please take down your server monitor. Corey clearly doesn't want you using it, I thought he made that fairly obvious.

~Callum

 

[Piotr GRD]

@ Alex Mac
Where? Whithin the words that he will ban the IP if found?
For me it's not a valid request to turn the service off. It's not the right way of one admin communicate with other admin.

I did wait many days before publishing the service for comments or yes/no/whatever - I did get only note about not displaying hostnames and nothing else. I am waiting now for request to turn it off from x10Hosting admin. Scaring with banning IP is not the right way to do such thing, this should be last thing to do if someone won't reply for a normal correspondence through email for example.


@ Sharky and all the others.
Does ANY uptime trackers admins, either more or less reliable services, do ask x10Hosting or any other webhosts admins if they can provide the monitoring services for the clients of these webhosts? Some customers are using all these uptime trackers for personal purposes only, some are sharing the data with other webmasters and even make the results public on various websites. Do they, admins of uptime trackers, server monitors etc. ask webhosts admins if they can monitor their servers for the purposes of users/customers on these servers? I believe they not. But I did and I think that was my mistake in here. If I would simply monitor the servers and announce it everywhere but not on this forum - there would be most probably no this conversation at all.


So if there is any other uptime tracker / monitoring service that is used by various x10Hosting users and the service is not enough reliable in opinion of Corey - will it be banned, too? Oh no, wait - Corey have to know about existence of it before banning.

I've decided to not hide, I did wait for any comments from x10Hosting admins about, I followed their suggestion that I received, but now my service is unwanted - just because it's known and not enough reliable in your opinion. If this would be unknown for you there would be no case at all - right?


I provide service for webhosts USERS, I should care only for their opinions, the admins do have access to their own monitoring results, users usually don't. Instead of hundreds people monitor own website on their own, instead of hundreds bots accessing the servers there could be one widely available - no, you think it's worse solution...



--------------------------------------------

I am ready to hide results from being publicly available, but for a normal civilised request.
Warning about banning IP is not the right way of communicating admins of various services between each other.

--------------------------------------------



edit:
By the way - I don't know what you're afraid of... massive amount of users using it?... No possibility.
Check this screenshot, please. Really, check it out.

http://i55.tinypic.com/2ivn2h5.png

Even on the service that exists for over the year I've got only dosens pageviews per day (~10% of it from webhost owner by himself) and only when servers are really down little more users check my pages for confirmation of the problem that they have.

 

[callumacrae]

How clear do you want him to make it?!

~Callum

 

[Piotr GRD]

Not the thing in being clear or not.
The thing is in the way it's being wrote. "If I find IP I'll ban it" - why scare other people with bans?... Isn't this much better to simply send a normal message without scare with bans?...


I've edited my previous message, check the stats.

 

[carl6969]

I am curious about something.
Did you obtain permission to use the x10Hosting logo in the banner at the top of your site?

I provide service for webhosts USERS, I should care only for their opinions

Okay. Here is an opinion from an x10Hosting user (myself);
In my opinion your "service" is extremely unreliable for many reasons stated by many others including Corey - Owner / CEO of x10hosting.

 

[Piotr GRD]

I am curious about something.
Did you obtain permission to use the x10Hosting logo in the banner at the top of your site?

Before publishing I've asked for any comments, suggestions etc. etc. from admins. The page looked exactly as it is now (except removed now full hostnames and except added now second time line in other time zone). I didn't receive any comment about using webhost logo either from x10Hosting admins or any other webhost admins (20 webhosts in total so far) that I do monitor. Should I've remove it OR add a note in the footer that the logo and the name is owned by x10Hosting and used on my service only for informational purposes? (Just like many times various logos and trademarked names are used almost everywhere.)


Thank you, this is the kind of comment I've been waiting for. You have doubts about usage of the logo, you're posting opinion about reliability. No scaring with ban without prior request/question for this or that. Civilised comment. Thank you.

 

[Smith6612]

How about this to clear up the whole situation, since it seems as though everyone on this planet lately has been insane (no offense). I'm rather neutral sided in this whole issue as you guys are toying with what is essentially a logic program which can make mistakes despite the amount of effort put in to it. What you should do to see whose monitor is more accurate, is reveal the complete, and raw logs from each monitor used for each of the monitoring services along with the exact settings each service is monitoring with (time-outs, pages it is calling, content type, etc) on a "bad" day for the servers. Along with this, you should have a human physically check the servers at set intervals when one of the monitors is reporting the server as down, or perhaps have someone who is willing to spend enough time to check each server's services out for things such as page replication time, any unusual behavior with the service. All of this info should be made public in an unedited form, and all variety of pages that can be served should be tested.

Can't figure this out or achieve this, I'd rather suggest you guys find something else to argue about. I don't buy guarantees, whether it's from a free or paid service as things are after all, best effort, even in the business world Sharky (which should be common sense). So right now I suggest this thread gets the padlock. As much as I trust Corey and his monitors, I feel as though GTR's monitor better reflects what I'm physically seeing at *MY* home on a residential connection. He already mentioned that after 15 seconds his script calls it "down or no answer" can is very broad. Personally, if a service or page will not load within 8 seconds, I will stop the request and re-attempt it. If it takes longer than 10 seconds, I give up and try something else. On the bad server days, I know that after 30 seconds you'll get an nginx page unavailable page for PHP/MySQL pages whereas HTML/Static pages or content might only take a second or two tops. Despite the connection being there, I see that as "down" or unusable. I don't care if the physical server is up. It's down, and that's it.

I use SiteUptime.com for my website monitoring service, which uses a simple HTTP GET command to see if it can load up a page on my website. If it loads, it sees it as "Up." If it takes 10 or more seconds to load, it sees it as "down" and I get an e-mail letting me know of a possible issue. Of course, it's the free version which checks every half hour only the HTTP portion of my site, and for the most part it's been decently accurate, but it doesn't mean it's 100% accurate or should be trusted. I know there are discrepancies in it and I have no problem living with that fact, just as long as the site is reachable almost all the time. KEEP IN MIND IT IS COMPUTER SOFTWARE, AND YOU ARE CONSIDERING IN A TON OF DIFFERENT VARIABLES THAT CAN HAPPEN. YOU CANNOT HAVE 100% FAITH IN ANY MONITOR.

Threads like these make me want to leave. Don't make me feel like that as my clan's been through similar topics and it broke the place up like crazy and hasn't recovered. It might spread to others if they see this thread :\

 

[callumacrae]

Pingdom is amazing

~Callum