[_Lemon_]

I have 307 servers from the smallest to the largest and thousands of customers all round the world so I see the bandwidth problems first hand. There have been a couple of occasions when there network just hasn't been available to parts of America (measured in number of complaints I have to deal with).

The concern is, just because it works for you, doesn't mean it will work for all of your customers. Especially if they're not in the EU.

I'm not so sure on the cooling either -- their hard disks are very hot (I admit I don't know enough about hardware to say whether this is a problem) but generally I don't see many hardware failures.

I do however see plenty of random reboots -- only the HG servers (and strangely a few 19.99 servers with over a year uptime) seem to survive these as you'd expect.

[Loic]

Just wondering, you seams unhappy but at the same time you stay with them, is there a reason? I am adding new servers to my infrastructure with them on a regular basis and may end up having that many too. The question is serious, when you do your analysis between cost/quality/service, why is it still good for 300+ servers and why are you not going the collocation way?

[_Lemon_]

I believe I've come up with an effective solution to the problem: to not have all my eggs in one basket. I realise I do lead a bit of a love/hate relationship with OVH though.

I've taken new servers with Leaseweb and I'm building up with them now, I also have a few with 100TB in the US too. So now that when a customer says they are having poor speeds I just need to verify that it's to do with the bandwidth and explain the situation and this works very well for me. I can then move them to a new server and everyone is happy, it's an easier way to deal with something other than "err, sorry, would you like a refund?"

Although I realise I'm unique in that I can just move them around (well, 95% of the time). What would concern me is running a business critical website on a provider that doesn't provide international bandwidth.