Brohoster: Proving their Excellent Services Yet Again
3,001 replies, posted
I'll bet half the people posting in this thread haven't used brohoster before and are going purely by what they see.
If someone has a good experience with a game host (or general host) they are not likely to make a thread about it. On the other hand, with bad experiences like this people feel the need to rant about it, which is totally understandable and I can understand your frustration OP
But what everyone sees is the bad things about Brohoster, and the good things are unheard of because who goes around making threads saying "I've had a really great experience with Brohoster"? It's not nearly as interesting and so it never happens (Unless it's in a testimonial section or something)
[QUOTE=Trumple;30468103]The prices have reduced overall since then:
So that email was written by Jacob (The one you quoted) and so that was at the time he was still CEO
Whats that got to do with anything happening now?
They are still going ahead with the expansion I don't see what point you are trying to make?[/QUOTE]
I'd really like to see some benchmarks or proof that you (you as in brohoster) can actually host 128 players without lag on a bukkit server with only four gigs of ram
[QUOTE=Shadaez;30457537]JWJ's gone? Guess I have no reason to continue using it, I pay for their cheapest hosting plan quarterly and don't do anything with it, I just have domains going through their nameservers or whatever, just too lazy to switch.[/QUOTE]
Namecheap has really good freedns to use
[QUOTE=Protocol7;30459859]Hosting services come and go.
Xenon was the GMod standard awhile back, now they aren't, Brohoster came by. Now Brohoster is doing bad. They aren't really any "good" long-standing services.[/QUOTE]
Allgamer is pretty good stuff
-snip-
[QUOTE=Dragonblz;30471094]I'd really like to see some benchmarks or proof that you (you as in brohoster) can actually host 128 players without lag on a bukkit server with only four gigs of ram
[/QUOTE]
Why are you asking me? Getting 128 players is impractical, it's difficult to even get 30 at any one time
If you had hosted anything serious before you would know that
I'm on diamond tier now but I have not had my server maxed out before. The only thing I can vouch for is the lower tiers, when I used to be on Iron tier 16 players ran fine. Assuming constant proportionality as we go up (which may or may not not be true) then we can assume that 4GB would indeed be capable of hosting 128 players
[QUOTE=Trumple;30471762]Why are you asking me? Getting 128 players is impractical, it's difficult to even get 30 at any one time
If you had hosted anything serious before you would know that
I'm on diamond tier now but I have not had my server maxed out before. The only thing I can vouch for is the lower tiers, when I used to be on Iron tier 16 players ran fine. Assuming constant proportionality as we go up (which may or may not not be true) then we can assume that 4GB would indeed be capable of hosting 128 players[/QUOTE]
I've gotten to 87 at once (And I averaged 34 before 1.6) with moderate lag on an 8GB alloc server with dual E5620's (Running in a ramdisk even). Minecraft is really a clock based game, so it may or may not run better with something like an x3470 compared to the dual e5620s. Brohoster's performance at that level (128 players) would, I imagine, depend on the cpu's in their boxes, if java didn't start throwing exceptions because it ran out of memory (It probably would, considering it started throwing exceptions about 60 players with a 4gb alloc)
[QUOTE=Dragonblz;30471993]I've gotten to 87 at once (And I averaged 34 before 1.6) with moderate lag on an 8GB alloc server with dual E5620's (Running in a ramdisk even). Minecraft is really a clock based game, so it may or may not run better with something like an x3470 compared to the dual e5620s. Brohoster's performance at that level (128 players) would, I imagine, depend on the cpu's in their boxes, if java didn't start throwing exceptions because it ran out of memory (It probably would, considering it started throwing exceptions about 60 players with a 4gb alloc)[/QUOTE]
I guess it's down to how well Minecraft is coded for now. How long ago was that? (when you had 87 and it was lagging)
My only guess would be recent code improvements, if not then we would have to ask Brohoster for proof
[QUOTE=Trumple;30472029]I guess it's down to how well Minecraft is coded for now. How long ago was that? (when you had 87 and it was lagging)
My only guess would be recent code improvements, if not then we would have to ask Brohoster for proof[/QUOTE]
1.4 & 1.5. It still gets up near there (high 70s) when we make group announcements. I hope with the modding API coming out soon someone will refactor the server to be a bit more optimized.
[QUOTE=Dragonblz;30472254]1.4 & 1.5. It still gets up near there (high 70s) when we make group announcements. I hope with the modding API coming out soon someone will refactor the server to be a bit more optimized.[/QUOTE]
Hopefully by the time it's fully released it will be more optimized anyway
I'm going to throw this out, moving from 1.5 to 1.6 boosts resource usage A LOT, almost doubled essentially.
Wonders of adding a bit of code for maps and long grass ain't it.
[QUOTE=EDDY TT;30472472]I'm going to throw this out, moving from 1.5 to 1.6 boosts resource usage A LOT, almost doubled essentially.
Wonders of adding a bit of code for maps and long grass ain't it.[/QUOTE]
But then 1.6 was a disaster in terms of testing and stability, so perhaps 1.7 could even go down? Just a guess
Well most of the code is done by Jeb so it should hopefully be better.
Mainly as Jeb knows how to optimise shit before releasing it.
[QUOTE=Dragonblz;30471993]I've gotten to 87 at once (And I averaged 34 before 1.6) with moderate lag on an 8GB alloc server with dual E5620's (Running in a ramdisk even). Minecraft is really a clock based game, so it may or may not run better with something like an x3470 compared to the dual e5620s. Brohoster's performance at that level (128 players) would, I imagine, depend on the cpu's in their boxes, if java didn't start throwing exceptions because it ran out of memory (It probably would, considering it started throwing exceptions about 60 players with a 4gb alloc)[/QUOTE]
We can do it, and we do it every day.
I just put mc.bro.cm:25575 online. If you get 128 people in there, it should be lag free.
We have numerous clients that run large online Minecraft worlds with hundreds of users, with 100+ consistently logged in throughout the day without any issues at all.
Edit: To note, we run Dual Xeon 5675 servers in most cases, although the server this one is on is a Dual Xeon 5620 server.
[QUOTE=EDDY TT;30471248]Allgamer were supposed to be hosting the Weekend of Minecraft primary public server and Brohoster hosting the secondary.
When the event came they threw some half arsed response that they were struggling to keep up with the load and setup a redirect from their server to ours.
Everyone who tried to connect to the primary server ended up on the secondary.
It was like that for the whole event and our server stayed online all the way through it, theirs was up a total of around 5 hours and they didn't even tell us about the fact they were redirecting players to us.[/QUOTE]
Once again, we got hit with a multi-gigabit ddos that was hitting the server while the other server did not. When players were re-directed (Benefiting players so they could actually play) the ddos stopped hitting. (And no it was not like that the entire event). Load was not an issue and the box we were using was actually equal to if not better speced, I don't remember exactly what it was. We were in direct communication the entire time so please don't spread false rumors about us.
Thank you.
My last experience with Brohoster's support was bad.
Overall slow response time and didn't even bother to help me in any way.
The problem was mainly my fault in the begining, but if they hadn't responded 24 hours after I posted it I wouldn't of wasted the last 1/2 month of my server [with them doing nothing and just saying "Oh... well nothing we can do, it's automated" even though 2 hours after my ticket my server still could've been saved]
[QUOTE=Keegs;30483394]My last experience with Brohoster's support was bad.
Overall slow response time and didn't even bother to help me in any way.
The problem was mainly my fault in the begining, but if they hadn't responded 24 hours after I posted it I wouldn't of wasted the last 1/2 month of my server [with them doing nothing and just saying "Oh... well nothing we can do, it's automated" even though 2 hours after my ticket my server still could've been saved][/QUOTE]
Let me know what your client ID number is and I'll look into the issue. If your server was rendered unusable, then you deserve an account credit.
JWJ was a really nice guy sad to see him go over something stupid
[QUOTE=CU-MattR;30483668]Let me know what your client ID number is and I'll look into the issue. If your server was rendered unusable, then you deserve an account credit.[/QUOTE]
Thank you for your concern, but it was over 2 months ago and I'd have no use for the server anymore.
screw you like a ho
Just like a ho, they take your money and never talk to you again.
JWJ was a bro
[QUOTE=ExplosiveCheese;30484088]JWJ was a bro[/QUOTE]
JWJ was THE company. It's just not Brohoster without him.
[QUOTE=Keegs;30483920]Thank you for your concern, but it was over 2 months ago and I'd have no use for the server anymore.[/QUOTE]
Well, either way: If you decide to come back, you get two months free. Just give me your client ID and I'll add the appropriate notes into your account.
Matt why were you so mean to JWJ :frown:
[QUOTE=Raptor;30484714]Matt why were you so mean to JWJ :frown:[/QUOTE]
he was jealous that jwj got all the ladies
[QUOTE=Raptor;30484714]Matt why were you so mean to JWJ :frown:[/QUOTE]
People assume that I was mean to JWJ. I've even got him in writing agreeing that he would have done what I did to him to any of his staff members.
He and I have both agreed to stop discussing it publicly, so that's what I'm doing now. The last I'll say is that I wasn't "mean" to him and that he brought everything that happened onto himself.
[QUOTE=CU-MattR;30484827]People assume that I was mean to JWJ. I've even got him in writing agreeing that he would have done what I did to him to any of his staff members.
He and I have both agreed to stop discussing it publicly, so that's what I'm doing now. The last I'll say is that I wasn't "mean" to him and that he brought everything that happened onto himself.[/QUOTE]
That's fair, I understand.
I don't get what everyone's deal is. My Garry's Mod server runs fine, and has proven itself to be fairly crash proof (as far as that goes what with the core instability of it and the fact that I have the Gravity Hull Designator installed).
Still love how my shared hosting have been fucked up, after they changed where it was hosted.
Got no mail about a new IP, or that i'd have to change nameservers.
And when asking the support, no one had an idea of what was going on.
So because they stop selling shared hosting, thet screw one over?
And I Can see someone on page 1 has had the exact same experience.
I'm glad most of my stuff is on my FanaticalVPS <3
[QUOTE=AG_Clinton;30478441]Once again, we got hit with a multi-gigabit ddos that was hitting the server while the other server did not. When players were re-directed (Benefiting players so they could actually play) the ddos stopped hitting. (And no it was not like that the entire event). Load was not an issue and the box we were using was actually equal to if not better speced, I don't remember exactly what it was. We were in direct communication the entire time so please don't spread false rumors about us.
Thank you.[/QUOTE]
In that case I apologize but what I said was the story I was told at the time.
[QUOTE=EDDY TT;30490477]In that case I apologize but what I said was the story I was told at the time.[/QUOTE]
Don't repeat unverified information? Most companies are [I]usually[/I] smart enough to abide by that rule to not embarrass themselves, or piss other people off for slanderous remarks.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.