Just wondering if anyone can tell me their opinion on Savvis bandwidth/company preferably from a web host perspective. Considering a connection. Thanks, David
Have used them since the days of Cable & Wireless - almost flawless. -- ***Stefan http://twitter.com/netfortius On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 12:35 PM, David Hubbard <dhubbard@dino.hostasaurus.com> wrote:
Just wondering if anyone can tell me their opinion on Savvis bandwidth/company preferably from a web host perspective. Considering a connection.
Thanks,
David
David Hubbard wrote:
Just wondering if anyone can tell me their opinion on Savvis bandwidth/company preferably from a web host perspective. Considering a connection.
I've only had them for three years and I've been extremely happy. They catch outages faster (if it's down for over a minute they've already opened a ticket and called me about it) than anyone else I've dealt with. I'm very much a self-service type of customer and I like their web account management thing, too. No performance issues I've ever noticed or heard about. Sadly, I'm going to disconnect it in a few months because I'm outside of their normal service area and it's cost prohibitive to upgrade. If you're in to IPv6 I had talked to them a few months back about it and I was told it can be done as a custom request. I never perused it though after the upgrade quotes came in. ~Seth
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 1:35 PM, David Hubbard <dhubbard@dino.hostasaurus.com> wrote:
Just wondering if anyone can tell me their opinion on Savvis bandwidth/company preferably from a web host perspective. Considering a connection.
They might be a good provider for reaching Comcast (when they're not advertising inconsistently), but so are Level3 and Global Crossing. I hear they've got some pretty serious peering problems in the US. Drive Slow, Paul Wall
Paul Wall wrote:
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 1:35 PM, David Hubbard <dhubbard@dino.hostasaurus.com> wrote:
Just wondering if anyone can tell me their opinion on Savvis bandwidth/company preferably from a web host perspective. Considering a connection.
They might be a good provider for reaching Comcast (when they're not advertising inconsistently), but so are Level3 and Global Crossing.
I hear they've got some pretty serious peering problems in the US.
I got an offlist to my response asking about their peering issues. I said I couldn't comment because I haven't personally experienced any problems. If anything, I rerouted traffic through SAVVIS heavily during the Sprint/Cogent peering thing since one of my upstreams is Sprint. ~Seth
On May 27, 2009, at 10:35 AM, David Hubbard wrote:
Just wondering if anyone can tell me their opinion on Savvis bandwidth/company preferably from a web host perspective. Considering a connection.
I wouldn't touch them with a 10g pole. They were the first and only provider we have dropped for inability to provide reasonable service. 1. They have problems in the bay area (and I've heard other places but I can't confirm) coming up with ports to connect to people on. We had long since outgrown 100mb (was 1g or higher with everyone else) but they couldn't come up with a 1g port to sell us. Then when one became free, they demanded a 700mb commit to get it. After I argued that we never run ports at that level of congestion they backed down to a 500mb commit but that was as low as they'd go. They had no budget to deploy more ports in any of the bay area peering facilities. 2. Their national NOC staff was gut-stripped down to 3 people. 24 hours a day I'd find the same person answering issues we reported. Often outages weren't resolved until they could wake the engineer up. (this isn't surprising in a small company, it's very surprising in a network the size of Savvis) 3. We had repeated issues that needed escalation to our salesperson for credit. We never got calls back on any of these, even when we had escalated through phone, email and paper letters to him. 4. One day they changed the implementation of their community strings to start putting other providers and international customers in their US-Customer-Only community strings. We escalated this issue through management, and the final conclusion was that their community strings advertised to us had to be inconsistent to meet their billing needs. (ie get peers to send them traffic they shouldn't have gotten) We were forced to drop using their community strings and instead build a large complex route-map to determine which traffic should be routed to them. That's nonsense, and was the final straw. In one of the marathon phone calls with the NOC staff about this, a NOC manager frankly told me that Savvis had been stripped and reamed, and they were just trying to stay alive long enough to sell the low- cost carcass to another provider. Yeah, I think that pretty much sums it up. -- Jo Rhett Net Consonance : consonant endings by net philanthropy, open source and other randomness
Jo Rhett wrote:
On May 27, 2009, at 10:35 AM, David Hubbard wrote:
Just wondering if anyone can tell me their opinion on Savvis bandwidth/company preferably from a web host perspective. Considering a connection.
I wouldn't touch them with a 10g pole. They were the first and only provider we have dropped for inability to provide reasonable service.
1. They have problems in the bay area (and I've heard other places but I can't confirm) coming up with ports to connect to people on. We had long since outgrown 100mb (was 1g or higher with everyone else) but they couldn't come up with a 1g port to sell us. Then when one became free, they demanded a 700mb commit to get it. After I argued that we never run ports at that level of congestion they backed down to a 500mb commit but that was as low as they'd go. They had no budget to deploy more ports in any of the bay area peering facilities.
2. Their national NOC staff was gut-stripped down to 3 people. 24 hours a day I'd find the same person answering issues we reported. Often outages weren't resolved until they could wake the engineer up. (this isn't surprising in a small company, it's very surprising in a network the size of Savvis)
3. We had repeated issues that needed escalation to our salesperson for credit. We never got calls back on any of these, even when we had escalated through phone, email and paper letters to him.
4. One day they changed the implementation of their community strings to start putting other providers and international customers in their US-Customer-Only community strings. We escalated this issue through management, and the final conclusion was that their community strings advertised to us had to be inconsistent to meet their billing needs. (ie get peers to send them traffic they shouldn't have gotten) We were forced to drop using their community strings and instead build a large complex route-map to determine which traffic should be routed to them. That's nonsense, and was the final straw.
In one of the marathon phone calls with the NOC staff about this, a NOC manager frankly told me that Savvis had been stripped and reamed, and they were just trying to stay alive long enough to sell the low-cost carcass to another provider.
Yeah, I think that pretty much sums it up.
Out of curiosity, how recent was all this? It doesn't really match my experience, however mine isn't very recent. I'm going to be disconnecting my last SAVVIS circuit in a few months so I haven't really tried to do anything new with them. ~Seth
This is quite similar to experiences we have had with them. Again the only carrier we have dropped for technical reasons. Blake Dunlap
-----Original Message----- From: Jo Rhett [mailto:jrhett@netconsonance.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 9:59 PM To: David Hubbard Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Savvis quality?
On May 27, 2009, at 10:35 AM, David Hubbard wrote:
Just wondering if anyone can tell me their opinion on Savvis bandwidth/company preferably from a web host perspective. Considering a connection.
I wouldn't touch them with a 10g pole. They were the first and only provider we have dropped for inability to provide reasonable service.
1. They have problems in the bay area (and I've heard other places but I can't confirm) coming up with ports to connect to people on. We had long since outgrown 100mb (was 1g or higher with everyone else) but they couldn't come up with a 1g port to sell us. Then when one became free, they demanded a 700mb commit to get it. After I argued that we never run ports at that level of congestion they backed down to a 500mb commit but that was as low as they'd go. They had no budget to deploy more ports in any of the bay area peering facilities.
2. Their national NOC staff was gut-stripped down to 3 people. 24 hours a day I'd find the same person answering issues we reported. Often outages weren't resolved until they could wake the engineer up. (this isn't surprising in a small company, it's very surprising in a network the size of Savvis)
3. We had repeated issues that needed escalation to our salesperson for credit. We never got calls back on any of these, even when we had escalated through phone, email and paper letters to him.
4. One day they changed the implementation of their community strings to start putting other providers and international customers in their US-Customer-Only community strings. We escalated this issue through management, and the final conclusion was that their community strings advertised to us had to be inconsistent to meet their billing needs. (ie get peers to send them traffic they shouldn't have gotten) We were forced to drop using their community strings and instead build a large complex route-map to determine which traffic should be routed to them. That's nonsense, and was the final straw.
In one of the marathon phone calls with the NOC staff about this, a NOC manager frankly told me that Savvis had been stripped and reamed, and they were just trying to stay alive long enough to sell the low- cost carcass to another provider.
Yeah, I think that pretty much sums it up.
-- Jo Rhett Net Consonance : consonant endings by net philanthropy, open source and other randomness
participants (6)
-
Blake Dunlap -
David Hubbard -
Jo Rhett -
Paul Wall -
Seth Mattinen -
Stefan