Hi Tom,

I sent you an email

Hi Scott,

No, I have not heard from Jeff.

I am on a semi-dedicated plan.

I have been struggling with the same issue with WSS for some time now.  I have anywhere between 5-15 separate 12 month accounts there at any given time (I need to keep them separate for billing reasons - so I don't do dedicated), I have been hoping to run flv's on them all along , but to no avail.  I have never even gotten as much as an explanation as you though... I only got "No... it hasn't been approved for security".

I have been using brightcove for video though (sort of a higher-end version of youtube).  You can see it on one of my sites at http://www.w4rg.org  it works well, but I would prefer having the flexibility of implementing my own methods using FLV files.  This issue combines with limitations with email have really left me having to start looking elsewhere for hosting too.  It's a shame, because I do like them a great deal, but it seems that whenever I need something outside of what they normally offer, there is no discussion... it's just "NO".

Pricing

• Pay only for what you use. There is no minimum fee, and no start-up cost.
• $0.15 per GB-Month of storage used.
• $0.20 per GB of data transferred.

Firefox users can also get the S3 Organizer addon at
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/3247

This is a ftp program made to upload files to s3.

Rhuber,

IMHO - If a hosting company is more concerned about their needs than yours, you have to do something about it. You can't miss out on a technolgy trend, like flv. You would be doing your clients an injustice and you are losing the ability to monetize.

I have several sites running flv files and custom swf players. You can get around this by hosting your vids on Amazon S3 and calling them on your WSS hosted site. That doesn't make the situation right, it makes it doable.

TIA
Buck

 Hi Rhuber,

Yes, we switched over to a VPS server at WH4L. I am fairly satisfied with the performance. We have been having out of memory issues as of late. This has occurred since we upgraded 3 of our sites to DNN 4.6.2

I had all sites down all day Saturday. Quite disappointing since we launched a major campaign for a new audio CD release on Friday.

After much discussion, with WH4L support staff, I pointed them to the article by Shaun Walker regarding the memory issues that he was having on the DotnetNulke site.

Here is an excerpt:

http://www.dotnetnuke.com/Community/Blogs/tabid/825/EntryID/1608/Default.aspx


You will remember that a 32 bit Windows box only has 2.0 GB of memory available to all application pools. The memory is allocated equally across the application pools. So with 11 active application pools, the dotnetnuke.com website app pool did not have enough memory available to satisfy its needs - it was starving. How?

The DotNetNuke web application relies on caching to achieve optimal performance. When the application needs data, it makes a call to the database and then stores the result in the ASP.NET cache so that it does not need to call the database on subsequent requests ( retrieving data in-process from the cache is far more efficient than retrieving data out-of-process from a database ). But this model falls apart when there is not enough memory available. ASP.NET will attempt to insert the data into the cache, but will be unsuccessful because it is full already. As a result, when the application needs to access that same data in the future, it will be forced to go to the database again ( and again and again and again.... ). In our case the database was being hammered so hard that it was spiking the CPU utilization at 100%, blocking SQL Server threads. The meant data was not being passed back to the web application, which in turn, resulted in the web application not being able to issue a response to the web browser. So it would "hang". So how to fix it?

Well, as it turns out, we did not actually need to have 11 application pools on our web server. We had provisioned them that way to provide isolation for various applications, but the reality is that we could group some of the applications together. Consolidating the applications pools down to 5 pools resulted in more than a 2X memory allocation increase for the remaining pools. With more memory available, DotNetNuke could cache data efficiently and take the burden off of SQL Server, bringing back down to <20% CPU utilization.

They replied and the sites have had no issues so far.

Here is the  reply from WH4L tech support:

I have re-organized your application and reduce the number of application pools. Would you please monitor the sites to see if it is improved? Thank you.

Rhuber,

I neglected to mention that we have opted not to host videos on the VPS server. As I have mentioned previously,we are using a service from Amazon. I will be posting a video screencast on this service in the next few weeks on dnnprofessor.com.

Pricing

Pay only for what you use. There is no minimum fee.

Storage
$0.15 per GB-Month of storage used

Data Transfer
$0.10 per GB - all data transfer in

$0.18 per GB - first 10 TB / month data transfer out
$0.16 per GB - next 40 TB / month data transfer out
$0.13 per GB - data transfer out / month over 50 TB

Data transfer "in" and "out" refers to transfer into and out of Amazon S3.
Data transferred between Amazon S3 and Amazon EC2 is free of charge