It seems that the server on which all my ASP.NET/Mojo sites are hosted has suffered some sort of fatal malfunction.  I discovered this about midnight last night (EST), and 10 hrs later it's still not fixed, but there does seem to be some progress; last night all I could get was the default firefox "the server is taking too long to respond" type of error, but now I'm getting the MS error page about not finding "/" -- I guess that means that they have a server operating, but not yet fully configured and functional, plus I suppose they need to restore their own backups.  So it might be awhile yet.

I posted this here since the only one of my sites that seems to have a fairly consistent traffic is the one with Mojo skins -- which I was just about to upgrade, including all the skins, for version 2.3.5.5.  And I still plan to do that, as soon as Mocha has this server back online.  Ain't it lucky that I had just taken a backup of both the database and the entire file structure, preparatory to doing the upgrade!!

Lucky for Mocha, I have a new Michael Connelly novel to read, or I would be standing on my head hollering frantically about "99.99% up-time, my hind leg!"

Andria

Yeah, well they claim to have 24/7 tech support too, but I've already found out that's a lie -- their tech support consists almost solely with sending out links to their knowledgebase -- getting them to actually read and respond to any question in an appropriate fashion is like pulling hen's teeth -- and TWICE now they've sent me the SAME msg regarding the down server.  As far as free is concerned, I already paid for the hosting I'm currently NOT getting, and it ended up costing a good deal more than their sale page indicated. so I'm really not holding my breath on anything free from them -- they say it's an "Act of God" and that will probably be their weasel hole.

I'm really really REALLY unhappy with them -- it's been down for over 15 hours now -- but alas, paid for a year, and they're the only MS host I found that doesn't put a meter on bandwidth-- or disk space for that matter.  I tried a host once that metered bandwidth -- as soon as you start doing well, they take your site down for exceeding bandwidth.  That's why I couldn't sign up with Arvixe, they meter the bandwidth -- and the disk space.

If Arvixe would offer an unlimited plan for the budget-conscious, instead of metered plans at the low end and dedicated servers at the high end, they'd be my next choice for hosting.  But I can't deal with metered bandwidth, and I surely can't afford a dedicated server.

Just out of curiosity -- how many sites can be hosted/run off of a dedicated server?  If I could find some other broke folks who are fed up with low-end hosting, maybe we could make a "server sharing" consolidation of some sort.  I know I've gotta do something.  I'm thinking about a report to the BBB about Mocha, they suck so bad.

Andria

Not a real lot, to be honest, but I recall in the past when I've had a very-modestly-performing site get a really great link somewhere, traffic would skyrocket suddenly, and bang, there went my site.  Since that, I've made it a point to only use hosts that offer unlimited BW/disk space even on the low-end accts.

I dunno about Arvixe; maybe they have changed things, but I seem to recall a really modest 3GB or 5GB traffic allowance on their lower-end plans.  I'm sure I use a *lot* less than that on a regular basis, but if I ever got one of those "hot links," then BW would skyrocket, and there would go my site.  Disk space is another issue, especially since Mojo is not precisely small, though of course it can be made smaller by removing the unused skins and the Data/skins folder.

The major problem is that I don't host just one site per host, but a gang of them, and BW *and* disk space runs out fast in that situation -- I have one host for my Linux/Joomla sites, and one host for my ASP.NET sites -- and yes, I'm really wishing that the host I use for my Linux sites had a Windows plan, because they're unlimited, fast, and moderately responsive with their tech support, but all they offer is Linux hosting. 

I've been interested since starting with Mojo in its ability to handle multiple sites with one installation, but to be honest, I can't understand the docs explaining how that can be done.  Yeah, I get the "folder" scheme, but the "hostname" scheme, I just don't get it -- that stuff with "hosting headers", "bindings," etc -- obviously I have no access to anything like that.  I had thought maybe I just needed to use subdomains to get that to work, but I dunno, that's not really what the docs would indicate, with all that "hosting headers" and "bindings" stuff.  Maybe it's just the terminology that's messing with me; if I have a domain hosted at Mocha, then create a subdomain from that domain (which is also, of course, hosted at the same place that the domain is), isn't that the same thing?  I really don't get it.

I finally got a *real* response from Mocha, instead of their form-letter response, and they asked which of my sites was most crucial, so they could manually get it back; naturally I told them my "skins" site, so maybe that one will be back sometime tonight.  (crossing fingers!!)

Andria

Well, I like the thing they have advertised, host up to 6 domains, for $5/mo -- I could actually afford that.  But I've already commited to Mocha for a year, which was about $70, and just don't have any extra money to throw at some other host, at the moment.  But, if Mocha keeps this sort of thing up, I may have to scrounge around and see where I can find $60 -- no, I just checked again, and it would be $120 since they require a 2 yr contract to get that good price, and I just don't have it, and likely never will have that much money at one time.

The thing is, I don't make any money at this.  Every now and again I get a custom design job, for a site or a template, for which I might make anywhere from $50-$200 -- but it's nothing I can count on.  I do this mainly because a) I love it, b) I've been a housewife for 20+ years and the only kind of "real job" I might be able to find would be fast food (but I tried that, in October, and this middle-aged body just won't do that kind of physical work anymore).  So, this web stuff is really more of a hobby than a real business, though I work at it daily as if it were a real business -- since 1999 I've been trying to carve a niche for myself online, but I don't really know anything about business; I know what looks good, I know what makes a site really easy to use (or the reverse), and to me, this is art -- so I guess I'll keep doing it -- but I have to really scrounge hard to find the funds for 7 domains and 2 hosts a year (it used to be 10 domains, but I had to let some go, in the interest of economizing).  I just really hate it when one of the hosts turns out to be a "bum steer."  I can't afford to waste $60+ a year.

Andria

Oh, and the Michael Connelly novel, "9 Dragons," was as awesome as all his others -- a Harry Bosch mystery, but at the end, it brings in another of Connelly's major characters -- I almost named that character, but decided it was a spoiler, since it was such a surprise to me, so I'll leave it for any other Connelly fans to discover for themselves.  Might as well read a good book on a sub-freezing day, since I can't work on my sites.  That's right, sub-freezing in Atlanta, and it's not even winter yet.  Man, I can't wait for January!

Andria

Well, that sounds highly do-able; I have mojo.crypticsites.net, mojoskins.crypticsites.net (where I test things), and blog.crypticsites.net -- I had been waiting to put anything at just-plain crypticsites.net until I had learned how to do a manual install of *some* ASP.NET CMS, and guess what, I've finally learned to do just that with mojo -- in fact I *just* did the manual install of 2.3.5.5 at crypticsites.net -- one of those which are down, alas -- so theoretically, I could run the subdomain sites off that one mojo installation -- since all those subdomains are active at my host.  I guess it's just the terminology which sometimes confounds me with this ASP.NET stuff.  But, my host uses dotnetpanel, which forces you to create a domain for any type of domain you want hosted there, whether top-level or sub, then it forces you to "create web site" to have anything at that domain's address -- a sort of "provisioning," I suppose -- so yeah, I guess all those subdomains qualify for "hosting company has entries in their published DNS for each of your subdomains".

If I can get that setup, it would sure simplify doing version upgrades -- do it once, instead of once for each site!  It would also greatly reduce my disk space needs, for future consideration in choosing a host.

Thx!

Andria

Hmm, yes, it's actually "WebSitePanel," but I got that link to the docs for it, so just identified it as "dotnetpanel".  There doesn't seem to be anyway of having a site there without having a domain for it, whether TLD or sub.  In the domain admin, the only type of "alias" offered is the instant alias for use when the DNS hasn't yet resolved.  However, in the Website admin, I do see a link for "create website pointer," but never had any understanding of what that was for, so have left it strictly alone.  At the moment, although I can access my websitepanel admin, since the sites are down at the server, the website admin page is useless -- the domains aren't resolving to anything until they get that server back up.  It doesn't appear too likely to be happening this evening, so I guess I have to find another book to read, to keep from having a serious connimption fit -- my family hates it when my sites are down, I'm unbearable to be around.

Yeah, I could go work on my Joomla sites, but after getting used to Mojo, Joomla feels like... hmmm, like trying to cook dinner with my teeth, while blindfolded... Seriously, that whole "backend admin" thing seems a lot like those robot arms they use to deal with deadly microbes, in the movies.    There needs to be something as transparent as Mojo for the Linux environment.

Andria

Well, Mocha is still down this morning, so it's going on 36 hours now.  I told them that if they can't get my sites online by 11am EST, which would be right around the 36-hr mark for the outage, then I'd like a refund of the 11 months left on my account.  Not really sanguine that they'll go along with that, but maybe the BBB can convince them that it's in their own best interest, marketing-wise.

I think I have to go with Arvixe; I scoped out their plans a little more, and I could get a year for $72, which ends up being about the same as what I paid Mocha; that's for the 6-domains plan, but I only own 7, and have 2 or 3 of them at my Linux host, so 6 would do me nicely; no plans to add any, anytime soon, but to develop the ones I have already.  I also ascertained that I could get a 6 month plan for $42, which is much to my liking whenever I try out a new host -- if it's not a good fit, I'm not committed for a longterm contract.  In fact I did exactly that, with Mocha; had a 6-month in which I determined that they seemed alright in terms of server speed and the "unlimiteds" (disk, BW, and since I upgraded, domains and dbs) -- I figure it's worth it to pay a bit more per month, to find out if a host is suitable for my needs, but during that initial 6-month with mocha, there were no outages, so I never had a chance to see how they responded to emergencies -- not well at all, I'm now finding.  My linux host, Hobersoft, suffered a DDOS thing at one point, and they had everything pretty much back to normal well inside a 24 hr time frame, and in the past with them, when I've noticed a problem with a slow server, they volunteered to move my site to another server for me, and get it done inside 12 hrs, so maybe I'm just spoiled with their above-and-beyond customer svc.  Anyway, Arvixe seems to offer the most for the low end, and it's certainly helpful that they're apparently very conversant and experienced with things Mojo.  I may end up just having to eat this year's investment with Mocha, but maybe, just maybe, I can manage the $42 for a 6 month with Arvixe.  Or who knows, maybe Mocha will pull their thumb out and get my sites back online before I'm forced to any such conclusion.  I guess stranger things have happened.

Bummed out and at loose ends with no sites to work on...

Andria

Ok, this question again pertains to this difference between 3.5 and 4.0 deployment files.

I have managed to download a backup of the database for my blog, which was, I'm almost certain, the last pre-2.3.5.5 site I installed; I'm pretty sure it's 2.3.5.4.  At mocha, this was not 4.0, I'm pretty sure it was 3.5.  So, to install the correct files to match the database, do I need to also use the 3.5 deployment files, or does it matter which files -- is there some matching necessary, to the database?  So, at Arvixe, do I want to use the 4.0 integrated pipeline, or 2.0, or 2.0 integrated pipeline.  All these designations mean absolutely nothing to me, so I really need advice here -- since I have the db backup for this site, if I can get the correct version of the files installed, I think I can get this site back just as it was.

Wallowing in and despairing of my ASP.NET ignorance...

Andria

Well.  The permissions aren't the reason, apparently, because it's still getting the server 500 error.  At this point, I guess what I need to do is delete all the files from crypticsites.net; restore the backed-up site to its original domain of mojo.crypticsites.net, so it's running, then do a whole new install of 2.3.5.5 into crypticsites.net, and simply re-create the site.  I had excellent luck upgrading old-to-new versions at the old host, but at this one I can't seem to make it fly, and I have no earthly idea why.  I surely don't want to trade an actually-functional host (with tech support folks who actually answer you! GASP!) for the old one, you can bet on that.  I note that this server seems quite spry, which is a real nice change.

So I guess I'll be busy tomorrow, re-creating my skins site in Mojo's new version (that's a lot of pages to re-create!)

Think I'll pack it in for tonight, though, after last night's all-nighter and only 4 hrs sleep today.  Scarlet had it right (tomorrow is indeed another day).

Thx again!

Andria

Well no, because they set it back to 2.0 integrated for me, so I got my old version working again, and when I tried to do the upgrade, I used the 3.5 files, not the 4.0, which is why I'm so puzzled about the server 500 error. 

I won't be touching that 4.0 stuff again, until I have some understanding of why it's better than 3.5 and what actually makes it different; or, why you run a 3.5 thing under something that says "2.0", but you can run a 4.0 thing under something that actually says 4.0.  That makes absolutely no sense at all.

So, in the ideal way you outlined: 

1) ok, got that, or at least, I did;

2) even with the 3.5 files, running under 2.0, the upgrade doesn't work -- I upload all the 3.5 files, in the order and manner suggested, then edit the web.config and user.config and upload, then try to run the /Setup/Default.aspx -- it gets the 500 error.

Maybe I need a new download of 2.3.5.5; I got that one when the WebApps Gallery was freaking out and wouldn't do the install -- though I did actually get it working, twice, once as a new install and once as an upgrade -- but that was at the old host.  Really not sure why I'm having this problem at a host which is so much better in so many ways, but maybe my unzipped copy of 2.3.5.5 has somehow gone awry.

Andria

Glad you explained about the various version numbers of ASP.NET, because I was just about totally lost on that issue.

I don't really blame the host; the host seems pretty awesome compared to Mocha; heck, GoDaddy would probably seem awesome after Mocha.   Mostly I blame 1) me, for being so dang ASP-ignorant, and 2) the old "feces-occurs" phenomenon; I'm thinking upload error is a good possibility, or as I said, something happened to the extracted files here before they got uploaded, or who knows, maybe I used a 4.0 web.config when I should have used a 3.5. 

At the moment I'm in the process of going ahead and getting everything back onto mojo.crypticsites.net, exactly as it was.  It's not really such a horrible idea to re-create the site, if I'm going to be relocating it to a different domain; I need to go over each of the skins I've made anyway, to make sure they all still look good with the new version of mojo, and to add the various bits that have been added since I made them, which was circa version 2.3.4.3.  Of course page-creation is a snap in mojo (which is just one reason I why I love it so much!), so getting even that many pages added isn't that onerous a task.

Andria