Choosing a Web Host: Part 1 (The Oversell)

Originally Posted by Salathe You base your entire argument around an idea that the web hosting sphere is somehow fixed, solid and unchangeable (or so it reads). So, a host offers 1000 clients space on a server assuming that they'll all happily co-exist and use far less resources than advertised. Most of them will. Some of the clients will strike it lucky and have popular websites that use up more resources than their "fair share" but less than they were advertised.

I don't have an "argument" here at all, and I fail to see where people are getting this from. I wrote an article explaining what overselling is, why it is generally speaking a very bad thing, and how it can affect people. The responses from others appear to be "overselling is fine, it's what everyone does, it's not a bad thing" - completely neglecting to take into consideration most of the points I raise.

Yes, hosts can oversell happily providing (as you say) their clients use "far less resources than advertised". And that's exactly the point. If I pay for a package, I expect to be able to use it. If somebody purchases hosting expecting to be able to use massively high traffic and bandwidth, they deserve to know that in the vast majority of cases they can't. Just because they say you can, doesn't mean you actually can - and therein was the purpose of the article.

Now the host can take two paths; boot off the resource hogger (with a made up excuse about breaking the AUP) and still have 999 happy customers, or make allotment for the customer and give them what they paid for (or at least what they need) by perhaps migrating them to another server. Some hosts will take the easy, first option. These are the oversellers that you want to avoid. Some hosts will take the also fairly easy second option, and these are the oversellers that there's no reason to avoid. It strikes me that overselling in and of itself isn't a bad thing. It's what the individual hosting provider does with regards to people using more than the "average" resources that really matters. Hold on a minute, lets back track. Overselling in and of itself isn't a bad thing.

Overselling *is* a bad thing, and you practically admit that and then contradict yourself by backtracking and saying that it's not a bad thing if the host choose the higher path and move you to another server. Make your mind up here, you can't have it both ways.

The fact remains if they didn't oversell in the first place, they wouldn't need to move your account to a different server. You can still generate a profit in the hosting industry without overselling, regardless of what anyone may say. I've seen it done many times.

From what I can see (which isn't a lot, stupid myopia) the entire argument boils down to don't go with a bad host, in it's simplest form. I fail to see your intended point that all overselling is bad.

Again, no argument here, merely education. If you couldn't see using basic mathematics how overselling is bad, then I cannot help you

Interestingly, but completely off topic, I get only 75,000 results for "dreamhost sucks" in Google [cf, Jules' 137,000]. I also get 894,000 results for "google sucks". D'oh guess it's time to stop using the latter's services.

Well that's no surprise considering Google retrieves different results depending on your country of origin. Don't expect them all to match

Even thinking you can make the comparison between "dreamhost sucks" and "google sucks" is completely illogical. They're vastly different.

Originally Posted by JulesR I don't have an "argument" here at all, and I fail to see where people are getting this from. I wrote an article explaining what overselling is, why it is generally speaking a very bad thing, and how it can affect people. The responses from others appear to be "overselling is fine, it's what everyone does, it's not a bad thing" - completely neglecting to take into consideration most of the points I raise.

You do have an argument, used in the sense of portraying a statement, reason or fact for or against a point. My use of the term was precisely that; not in the sense of some form of conflict or oral disagreement.

Originally Posted by JulesR Yes, hosts can oversell happily providing (as you say) their clients use "far less resources than advertised". And that's exactly the point. If I pay for a package, I expect to be able to use it. If somebody purchases hosting expecting to be able to use massively high traffic and bandwidth, they deserve to know that in the vast majority of cases they can't. Just because they say you can, doesn't mean you actually can - and therein was the purpose of the article.

Then your point should be not to believe what you see. Just because a host that does not oversell promises x, y, z doesn't mean you can actually have x, y, z. Right? I don't believe overselling is the monster you make it out to be (for want of a better phrase) in this topic. There are amazing hosts who oversell, amazing ones who don't. Crappy ones who oversell and crappy ones who don't. I could equally put up a topic explaining why hosts who have and support Ruby on Rails on their servers are to be avoided, giving mathematical formulae and citing published sources. Perhaps a silly example, but just as much so as targeting overselling.

Originally Posted by JulesR Overselling *is* a bad thing, and you practically admit that and then contradict yourself by backtracking and saying that it's not a bad thing if the host choose the higher path and move you to another server. Make your mind up here, you can't have it both ways.

I don't see overselling as a bad thing, even with all of your effort in trying to persuade me/us otherwise. Merely emphasising that "fact" over and over isn't going to impress much sway in my own understanding of the subject. Maybe my post was worded badly but I certainly didn't intend to "practically admit" that overselling is bad. I don't believe that for a second.

Originally Posted by JulesR Again, no argument here, merely education. If you couldn't see using basic mathematics how overselling is bad, then I cannot help you

I clearly understand the mathematics involved, yet you've not done a good job of explaining (or maybe I really am too ignorant to listen ) your point. We're all clear about what overselling is, your points as to why some hosts who oversell might not be the best to choose, etc. but to brand all overselling hosts (ie, the act of overselling itself) as bad... I can't fathom that at the moment.

Originally Posted by JulesR Well that's no surprise considering Google retrieves different results depending on your country of origin. Don't expect them all to match Even thinking you can make the comparison between "dreamhost sucks" and "google sucks" is completely illogical. They're vastly different.

I'm well aware of Google offering different results based on varying factors, and that comparing apples to oranges never really adds up. That was my point, and one which I think we both agreed on even if it wasn't explicitly stated. That was merely an aside, an observation is all.

Originally Posted by Salathe You do have an argument, used in the sense of portraying a statement, reason or fact for or against a point. My use of the term was precisely that; not in the sense of some form of conflict or oral disagreement.

I don't have an argument, I'm providing information, there's a difference. But thanks for attempting to tell me what I'm saying.

Then your point should be not to believe what you see. Just because a host that does not oversell promises x, y, z doesn't mean you can actually have x, y, z. Right? I don't believe overselling is the monster you make it out to be (for want of a better phrase) in this topic. There are amazing hosts who oversell, amazing ones who don't. Crappy ones who oversell and crappy ones who don't. I could equally put up a topic explaining why hosts who have and support Ruby on Rails on their servers are to be avoided, giving mathematical formulae and citing published sources. Perhaps a silly example, but just as much so as targeting overselling.

My "point" is to explain what overselling is and why it's a bad thing. This also involves explaining that "What you see is not what you get". For some utterly bizarre reason you seem to be taking this almost personally and inciting specific hosts and examples in a response to somehow try and discredit my information. Why? It's illogical. My information is sound, solid and proven. Just because *you* personally have never had an issue with certain hosts that oversell does NOT make my information any less accurate or credible, nor does it "prove" that overselling isn't a bad thing.

Sure, some hosts may oversell and not have any issues. That's completely besides the point. Overselling creates risks - I've proven that, and I've even give you the maths to back it up. Should you really have to play server lotto when purchasing hosting, though? Should you have to ask your host to move you to a less overloaded server, because the one you're on is oversold to hell? No, you shouldn't. You may find it agreeable, but I don't, as do countless others.

I don't see overselling as a bad thing, even with all of your effort in trying to persuade me/us otherwise. Merely emphasising that "fact" over and over isn't going to impress much sway in my own understanding of the subject. Maybe my post was worded badly but I certainly didn't intend to "practically admit" that overselling is bad. I don't believe that for a second.

If you don't personally believe overselling is a bad thing, fine, that's your own opinion.

Yet again, though, your only single response appears "it's not a problem until it affects me". I don't even need to point out how laughably ignorant that is. Oh wait, I guess I just did.

I clearly understand the mathematics involved, yet you've not done a good job of explaining (or maybe I really am too ignorant to listen ) your point. We're all clear about what overselling is, your points as to why some hosts who oversell might not be the best to choose, etc. but to brand all overselling hosts (ie, the act of overselling itself) as bad... I can't fathom that at the moment.

Clearly you don't understand the mathematics involved at all, or you just choose to not see it as an issue. If you offer 'X' amount of space across 'Y' number of clients (resulting in a combined disk space offering of 'Z') and yet you don't have 'Z' amount of space available, please explain how this is NOT a bad thing? I can't break this down any simpler than that.

Are you going to claim that false advertising isn't the same as overselling again? Because it is, regardless of whether or not you accept that. And again we come full circle back to your single response of "it's not a problem until it affects me". This is how hosts can oversell and get away with it - because people like you expect it and practically condone it.

I'm well aware of Google offering different results based on varying factors, and that comparing apples to oranges never really adds up. That was my point, and one which I think we both agreed on even if it wasn't explicitly stated. That was merely an aside, an observation is all.

If you're aware that Google and Dreamhost are completely different, and that a search for "Google sucks" would yield significantly more results because of their greater range of products, what was the possible logic in posting the numbers? It made no sense, and didn't contribute anything to the discussion.

Originally Posted by Soskel I can't wait until the next article. if you're so against overselling hosts, then why work for them?

I don't work for any web host that oversells, conveniently.