I really appreciate you coming over and offering additional information on the situation.

I would like to say first of all that I am well aware of customer privacy issues; I understand that you are and will be unable to divulge more personal information due to privacy concerns.

In relation to that, my own information on the matter was both taken from the client in question’s blog page along and also given to me in the form of private correspondence because I wanted to make sure that I wasn’t quoting anything improperly. As much distorted as it can seem (and I can understand where you are coming from in regards to that), it also can’t be that far off the mark in some ways. But since I don’t have the ‘insider’ information on MT, I certainly acknowledge that I could be missing something.

You offer me a chance to call in to talk to you about the whole thing regarding GPUs; I will do just that shortly – thank you for the offer – and I will make another update to my blog accordingly if I get additional information to supplement.

Now about the GPU system:

I actually very much read – and extensively at that – about the GPU system in question and THAT was actually the bulk of my disgruntlement which you can see for yourself when you read both of my posts regarding this event.

The first post I wrote, in fact, quoted multiple sections from the page you linked me to and I explained exactly how my (and any other potential new customer) interpretation and impression of the GPU page could lead to false impressions.

In an attempt to clarify myself:

1) I did not say the GPU system itself is faulty or that the numbers were misread or something went haywire with the GPU system itself.

I simply find it rather unbelievable that a system claiming to be so robust (read back to my first post and look for the quoted sections in regards to the GPU FAQs; I explain my thoughts and reactions there) which experiences only 0.3% of users having overage issues and only 0.03% of sites out of 10,000 random sites experiencing overage issues would have such a situation where a site like the client’s in question would be one of the 0.3% and one of the 0.03%.

1) The reason I was comparing DH to MT is because the client was formerly at DH and without issue.

I share the same web host in that regard and am very familiar with their TOS and with how they work for the most part. When the client said that their site was previously hosted just fine at DH which does not share a few of the same characteristics as MT (the grid system and GPU system for example) and then had such a wallop of a problem at MT who, in comparison, a lot of people would be led to thinking would have a more robust system… it simply leaves a WTF taste in the mouth.

Comparing apples to oranges, sure.

I can see how it’s not entirely fair. But at the same time, the way that MT advertises its services (in the GPU GAQs page for example) can lead to misleading thoughts – the misleading thoughts being that MT’s system – the grid, the GPUs – is superior to the systems implemented by other hosts.

MT would like to be in the position of being a leader in providing above-the-bar web hosting services.

When a site moves from one host (cheaper in pricing, different in its set-up, but it worked just fine) to another host (more expensive, different in its set-up) and then suddenly experiences such a problem like the event described…

How can MT NOT be compared back to the older host?

But apples to oranges, I can see and understand where you are coming from, and after I make the call, I will be more than happy to add in any and all relevant information that might help clarify.

Thanks again for writing Andrew; I really appreciate it.

~ EMG

We cannot speak about the DH products specifically but comparing their products to the (gs) system is comparing apples to oranges.

I am more than happy to speak to you or anyone regarding the usage of GPU’s if there is still any confusion.
Please call 877-578-4000 and ask for Andrew. I will be more than happy to speak with anyone regarding this matter.