Thanks Fred! My understanding was that it works with an arbitrary number of levels but that the parent level must be the wildcarded one (at least in the Microsoft world, IIRC) - so for sitennnn.hosting.example.com, you’d need a wildcard cert for *.hosting.example.com, *.example.com wouldn’t work.
(Usual caveats about often being wrong and not knowing everything apply) 
They support PHP and ASP on the same server. Interesting…
Jeff,
glad I could help you guys in getting that server. But I am sad to report that I no longer work from CT. I moved on shortly before you guys got the server.
I took a look at their prices and they seem a bit high. I’ve been using Rackshack, which changed to Ev1Servers which was bought by The Planet (as you can see I’ve been using them for years) and the prices are more competitive for dedicated hosting.
I’m not sure how involved in the server maintenance these guys are though, I like having full control and maintaining it on my own schedule so The Planet is perfect for my needs.
I’ve been using CrystalTech for years now to host my site, and loving it. Just doing shared hosting at this point as the dedicated is a little expensive for me, but I’ve had great experiences. Good choice to go with them.
Sadly, there are a couple of reasons to be stuck with 32-bit servers. Some apps (Exchange 2003) still require it, 64-bit terminal servers can be really odd, and since +80% of clients are 32 bit, you get all sorts of pain with printer drivers if you’re hosting a print server.
However, for a website server, 64 bit is the best way to go.
How did you get CrystalTech to give you a 64-bit machine? If I click over to their dedicated hosting services, all the machines are 32-bit with 2 gigs of ram (max). What did you do to get the big boy?
@Matt
According to this five-year-old press release, Cogent has metro fiber in Kansas City:
http://www.cogentco.com/htdocs/press.php?func=detailperson_id=50
I would start there. The only reason to use a T1 today is for the 24 analog voice ports. If you’re doing strictly data, then a T1 makes about as much sense as using a fax machine to send messages to your co-workers.
If you were facing the multiple machines on one IP issue in the Linux ecosystem, the solution would be the Linux Virtual Server (http://www.redhat.com/docs/manuals/haserver/RHHAS-1.0-Manual/ch-lvs.html)
It essentially does the same thing, redirecting requests made to a given IP to various servers based on whatever rules are set up. Like ISA, this can give you a simple cluster or a single IP on which multiple services are hosted on multiple machines.
Of course, there are also solutions using things like BigIP, which is a boon when you are doing load-balancing and need sticky connections or other such features.
There is a lot of interesting stuff happening in the virtualization world with respect to hosting. More tier one providers are moving to a power consumption model because the scarce resource is no longer space. Multi-core processors are allowing us to do more in less space which in part drives this change. I just started some research into it as a way to spin up additional web capacity on short notice without long term hardware commitments. There are some interesting things happening in particular to promote grid-like hosting using VMs. I wish more providers would move to this model. I want control, but not necessarily dedicated hardware. In the mean time I watch Terremark, Flexiscale, and others hoping that someone goes the route of MediaTemple in pushing prices, but gives me full VM access.
If I click over to their dedicated hosting services, all the machines are 32-bit with 2 gigs of ram (max). What did you do to get the big boy?
We had to push for 64-bit. It’s part of a new offering they’re rolling out-- you may have to ask for it via email until they get it formally up on the website.
I also had my first support incident a few days ago. I emailed support at around 11 am, I had a response within 5 minutes, and within 45 minutes, the problem was fixed and a confirmation email sent. So I can vouch for the good CT support so far.
Bandwidth is cheap. You can get 15Mbps at home from FiOS. An office can get 100Mbps from a local fiber provider for $1000/month.
We have two T1s, and that is the deeper issue. I agree. Based on earlier feedback on bandwidth/pricing, I’ve urged the powers that be to look at alternatives. We have a quote coming in tomorrow.
Jeff - what virtualization sotware are you using for your site? VMware server, vmware workstation, MS Virtual Server etc. plus the version would be great to know.
We have two T1s, and that is the deeper issue. I agree.
!! What a curiosity you have there.
Hey Now Jeff,
Sound like good news I sure learned some virtual server info.
Coding Horror Fan,
Catto
The real performance hit this blog placed on Vertigo Software is not important when compared to the perceived hit. When ever the network is slow “its Jeff’s fault” It is kinda like church and State- work life and personal life - keep them separate and everybody is happier.
david
We are using the 64-bit flavor of Virtual Server 2005 R2 SP1. Quite a mouthful… it’s Microsoft’s free server-oriented virtualization environment, fronted by a web UI.
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/virtualserver/software/default.mspx
The only thing I don’t like about it is the fact that guest VMs will “only” see 1 CPU, although the server will obviously use all 4 CPUs to share the work. Also of note is that the guest operating systems have to be 32-bit, which is no big deal-- as long as the host is full-bore x64, I’m cool with that. Other than those two caveats, Virtual Server 2005 has worked great for me over the last year.
whenever the network is slow “its Jeff’s fault”
Exactly, and who likes apologizing for their own inherent awesomeness? It just doesn’t work.
“I’m sorry I’m so awesome.”
See?
You made a great choice with Crystal Tech - I know they have great representation with the AZ .Net groups; I have yet to hear a single complaint about them.
Ok Jeff…I need your help with this one. I host 400+ unique sites across a virtual cluster. Each site requires an individual mapped IP address for SSL cert purposes (obviously removing the option of host headers). This IP requirement is problematic for a number of reasons not excluding load balancing and IIS configuration management. Off loading the SSL processing to the load balancers is not an option at this point. Can ISA Server help me here? Any other ideas to help reduce the number of IP addresses needed?