Suggestion To Change The Way Suspensions Are Handled

[dbfcs]

I have been a loyal reseller customer of H9 for around 2 years. I have been through a lot from super fast support and great uptime to nodes that resemble a plane going through turbulence.

I have always stayed within the rules but on 2 occasions I have had an account suspended for too much CPU usage. 2 single occasions in 2 years.

My proposal is that H9 change the way suspensions are handled as each time I have been treated like a second class customer, despite my loyalty. I am treated more like a criminal running dodgy code than the respectable client I am in terms of service, responses and speed.

The technology exists to monitor all my sites for CPU usage - that's how I got suspended. Surely that is only one step away from the server being able to automatically stop a script from running, if it has run for too long?

1. My idea is to set this up so if a script runs too long (3 mins), it is automatically aborted. The account holder is warned via email but the site is allowed to continue live on the web. The account holder can then assess the script (via FTP) and make changes where required.
2. This incident is logged by H9. If the same script hangs again in the next 30 days, the account is suspended pending either removal or a definite solution.
3. Once H9 are happy, the account can then be reactivated. If a solution has been given and it hangs again within 30 days, the account is suspended and the offending script has to be removed.

After 30 days of no issues, the site is de-listed from the H9 warning logs and allowed to run fresh. If a script issue arises in the future, the process would start at number 1, receiving a warning rather than immediate suspension.

Alongside this, I would like to suggest a maximum time-scale is imposed for replies. I was advised this time that suspensions could take up to 48 hours to resolve. On a popular business critical site where I have a solution ready to roll out, waiting this long is costly, can potential affect SEO and is very poor customer service. If support can reply in typically less than an hour, why can't suspensions?

I agree with the suspension policy in theory to ensure the greater good for the rest of the users. I simply disagree with the way it is managed at present. The vast majority of H9 customers are like me and would never knowingly do anything to affect the service of others. Granted, there is inevitably a minority that do run poorly coded or malicious scripts. These would by handled by the new policy in the same way but would fall into step 2 and 3 very quickly. The majority of users would probably find themselves in Step 1 at some stage but rarely step 2 and 3.

Imposing a warning system before a complete suspension allows users to identify and fix the issue. As it stood, the first time I heard about the issue was receiving an email sayings I had been suspended. Had I have received a warning first, I would have checked everything out and made some changes without affecting my website's uptime.

The suspensions policy is contentious and twice now I have found myself researching other hosts. I don't want to switch hosts but the current policy leaves me feeling vulnerable and insecure with regards to my hosting. A small change could eliminate that completely.

I'm not sure how feasible this concept is but I believe it to be possible. I believe it would reduce the amount of account suspensions, support time required and customers leaving H9 based on such experiences. I believe these changes would make for a better H9.