Account suspended 2

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Andigator
    Junior Member
    • Apr 2004
    • 11

    #16
    Okay, I'll go ask there. It's not in the admin control panel, that much I know. I'm assuming I'd have to do it externally.

    Comment

    • KyleC
      Senior Member
      • Mar 2004
      • 291

      #17
      Originally posted by Andigator
      Okay, I'll go ask there. It's not in the admin control panel, that much I know. I'm assuming I'd have to do it externally.
      externally?

      maybe its a mod you can install.
      -Kyle

      Comment

      • Andigator
        Junior Member
        • Apr 2004
        • 11

        #18
        I found it.

        System Settings ---> CPU Savings ---> Settings ---> Server Load Limit

        Comment

        • KyleC
          Senior Member
          • Mar 2004
          • 291

          #19
          Originally posted by Andigator
          I found it.

          System Settings ---> CPU Savings ---> Settings ---> Server Load Limit
          what are you going to set it at???

          that doesnt limit it to a certain number of users, it limits the users depending on the server load...
          -Kyle

          Comment

          • Andigator
            Junior Member
            • Apr 2004
            • 11

            #20
            I submitted a trouble ticket to Andrew asking him what he wants it set at ... there really are NO guidelines for this kind of thing. This is like "You better hope your site doesn't get popular, or else!"

            I'd assume it would be set at 12-15.

            Comment

            • KyleC
              Senior Member
              • Mar 2004
              • 291

              #21
              Originally posted by Andigator
              I submitted a trouble ticket to Andrew asking him what he wants it set at ... there really are NO guidelines for this kind of thing. This is like "You better hope your site doesn't get popular, or else!"

              I'd assume it would be set at 12-15.
              a 12-15 server load would destroy the server, you usually dont want to server load higher than 1 or 2.

              you are confusing server load limit, with online user limit.
              -Kyle

              Comment

              • Andigator
                Junior Member
                • Apr 2004
                • 11

                #22
                Actually, I'm not. I've seen the server run at 16 in WHM and green lights all the way. Higher than that there are problems.

                Comment

                • Buddha
                  Senior Member
                  • Mar 2004
                  • 825

                  #23
                  Originally posted by Andigator
                  Actually, I'm not. I've seen the server run at 16 in WHM and green lights all the way. Higher than that there are problems.
                  Don't trust those little green lights their a bunch of liars!
                  "Whatcha mean I shouldn't be rude to my clients?! If you want polite then there will be a substantial fee increase." - Buddha

                  Comment

                  • KyleC
                    Senior Member
                    • Mar 2004
                    • 291

                    #24
                    he is not going to let us run the server anywhere near 12-16
                    -Kyle

                    Comment

                    • Andigator
                      Junior Member
                      • Apr 2004
                      • 11

                      #25
                      That's fine. I'm just waiting for a response.

                      Comment

                      • samsam
                        Member
                        • Mar 2004
                        • 79

                        #26
                        This issu is not going to go away...

                        This issue of how Dathorn deals with resource intensive users doesn't seem to be going away anytime soon...

                        Rather than this sort of drama recurring literally about every week, it seems, around here, isn't there a technical fix to this?

                        I know for example in virtual server software you can impose server/CPU utilisation ceilings on accounts/user processes, which is a very effective way of managing this issue.

                        Once a user process goes over a certain CPU utilisation ceilng, the process should effectively just hit its ceiling, letting the offending process still run, but slowly, and all the other users on the box still get service.

                        The owner of the offending site (or its users) will notice the slowdown, and figure out that something needs to be corrected, rather than finding out that there is a problem by discovering that their site effectively doesn't exist anymore.

                        It is pretty lousy all round if people have to always worry about the tough CPU utilisation policy on Dathorn.

                        Dathorn loses customers when their sites get suspended, existing customers on servers that host runaway processes get lousy performance, and people developing or hosting applications on Dathorn can't really do so with any confidence, as no-one can really tell with 100% certainty if the app they are installing or the site they are building will get nuked for some reason, because it is hard for anyone to predict what the risk thresholds are.

                        For example, if a forum app is likely to cause problems on Dathorn if it just gets 30 users online at once, as KyleC suggests, that's a pretty low threshold. You have to ask - if the threshold is that low, effectively you may as well not run one. Ditto for any CMS, shopping cart etc. And the policy on Dathorn gives site developers little room to grow either.

                        A humble suggestion for Andrew would be to at least examine if there are any technical fixes to this issue of runaway server processes that could be implemented on the Dathorn servers. I mean, this is not the first time this issue has confronted the IT world. Many multi-user systems must have had to deal with this, so there must be a Linux-based fix for it. There must be tools to do this.

                        Another humble suggestion for Andrew would be to put in place some sort of warning protocol, which would at least see a Dathorn tech drop the site owner an email saying 'your site is running wild and hogging all the server resources on cpanelxx. If you do not address this immediately your site will be suspended for 3 hours. If the problem recurs, your site risks being suspended completely. Love, Dathorn'.

                        Sam.

                        Comment

                        • AndrewT
                          Administrator
                          • Mar 2004
                          • 3653

                          #27
                          We've already looked into this, it simply is not a viable option and we are not about to "warn" users and let abuse continue to kill a server until they get around to fixing it. There is always a bigger, more important side to the story which involves everyone else but this customer that is on the server. There is an obvious level of priority here.

                          Comment

                          • Andigator
                            Junior Member
                            • Apr 2004
                            • 11

                            #28
                            Originally posted by AndrewT
                            We've already looked into this, it simply is not a viable option and we are not about to "warn" users and let abuse continue to kill a server until they get around to fixing it. There is always a bigger, more important side to the story which involves everyone else but this customer that is on the server. There is an obvious level of priority here.
                            What exactly is the priority? As a customer I would much rather have my site run really slow now an then instead of the constant worrying, "When is the axe going to fall on me?" I understand that once a site outgrows your servers then it's time to move on. But this "no tolerance" policy makes it sound like people are intentionally out to hurt your business. I appreciate you letting us back on to back up the site before leaving, but we were down for a long time with an embarrassing "This Account Has Been Suspended" message (which could NOT be editted from WHM, by the way) ... when there had to have been a better solution.

                            I'm not saying that we should be able to contribute that much to the server load. Just SOME kind of warning or even a notice once it's already been done ... some instructions on what to do next, perhaps?

                            KyleC himself said that he's been noticing our site for a "Long time." We could have gotten a warning then instead of just cutting us off one night at 5:00 in the morning. I just wonder why you do what you do ... if it's for the customer's sake, why don't you try listening to what they want?
                            Last edited by Andigator; 04-04-2004, 08:24 PM.

                            Comment

                            • AndrewT
                              Administrator
                              • Mar 2004
                              • 3653

                              #29
                              We can NOT and will NOT warn users before hand and let their sites continue to hurt EVERYONE ELSE on the server until they get around to resolving the problem. Forget it. That IS the priority - everyone else on the server that you are hurting by not monitoring your sites.

                              Just think about it, would you want all of your accounts running slow (if running at all) because we went ahead and just warned another user that was crashing the server?

                              Your site in particular caused no real issues up until the point that it was suspended yesterday where server loads were over 100 and you had well over 1,100 processes running by the time I finally got it suspended. That's why you received no warning, there was nothing to warn about until the whole thing just exploded into a huge problem.

                              Comment

                              • ChrisTech
                                Senior Member
                                • Mar 2004
                                • 530

                                #30
                                Edit
                                ------
                                Remember, shared enviroment. Everyone gets their piece of pie, but when you try to take more than your share, you might get your hand slapped. (or in your case, the whole pie, plus more)
                                Hosting at Dathorn since March 2003!

                                My Interwebs speed on Charter Cable!

                                Comment

                                Working...