Reseller Central Location Ideas

So lately I've been thinking and I guess I don't fully see the need to have so many US locations within Reseller Central (Georgia, Virginia, Florida) as the data centers we're using are really lacking. What I would like to see is maybe changing reseller central a bit to work more off of a Country Basis rather than Country and State. Meaning we could use Texas for our primary US location, Berkshire for the UK, Singapore for ASIA, and even add Australia. If I'm missing something with the benefits of the different states besides relying on one data center in the status please feel free to post here or if you would like to add your opinion please feel free to do so as well.

The reason Texas would be our primary location is because not only do they house over 50,000 servers at The Planet but they have remote reboots, instant support, and several things to protect against DDoS attacks such as Cisco Guard. With other data centers we're seeing delays in reboots, lower grade of hardware, and less network uptime. With the planet we have improve the base hardware for the same price and have them sitting on one of the best networks in the world.

Please note I'm not saying that this is what we're doing but it's just an idea to improve the performance of our servers and network behind Reseller Central.

[zanass]

Are you saying if this goes into effect the only reseller data center in the US will be Texas? I am not sure i like this, I have my accounts spread out over 4-5 nodes and imo the Texas nodes have had the worst track record when it comes to how fast the page loads, ddos attacks, I do not monitor uptimes.

One of the reasons I came back to H9 is because you were pushing this great Reseller Central system and the fact I could have the choice of many US data center, now you might make me have all my accounts on one data center?

[jleemc44]

I was excited about being able to choose deferent servers but not sure if we need to choose deferent locations other then by country. If you buy your services through one provider that has a good track record and fast response time then you may have more pull to get cretin things done when needed. You know, a little higher on the totem pole?

However it feels really nice to offer various server locations by state on my site considering I only deal with American clients. Even though a data server in one state may be more reliable than another, clients feel more confident when they can choose a server near by.

So it’s a toss up for me.

Hiya,

I don't think Ben meant all the US would be gone, I believe we'd keep one other US dc like the Illinois one

The other major problem we're running into is IP's as well, some of these other US providers are very tighta** about giving out IP's and in turn, we have to be just as tight

Great feedback!

What locations do you use most? Maybe we can narrow the US locations down a bit because most of them are barely used.

Great idea here:

US East - New York
US Central - Texas
US West - California

How would something like that work out?

We have three solid data centers in those locations that would be very good to work with.

[jleemc44]

Sounds good by me.

[zanass]

Originally Posted by H9Ben

Great idea here:

US East - New York
US Central - Texas
US West - California

How would something like that work out?

We have three solid data centers in those locations that would be very good to work with.

I LOVE this idea, if the servers are not overloaded because people do not like the Texas servers.

And we must have the option to migrate form one Texas node to another, this is not an option now in RS.

Thank You
Greg V

HIya,

Nope, not gonna happen. Can't allow you that option, gives you way too much control and we hate that

But seriously, if we do that, it will allow overload, and thats no good

I like the idea except for Cali .... they p*** me off about IP's

[zanass]

Originally Posted by H9Joshua

HIya,

Nope, not gonna happen my dear Can't allow you that option, gives you way too much control and we hate that

lol, just lockout the server(from migration) when it reaches a certain capacity, this will also reduce manual migration requests to support.

Greg V