The Standard has moved the server to an off-shore site. There are many reasons for this.
I can get equivalent or better service offshore for about a tenth of the local price. To be precise, I paid for a year of hosting on a better system, it cost slightly more than I was paying for a month here. This was important as I was starting to hit CPU/memory constraints again, and the next upgrade step gets beyond giving up smoking.
The transfer network latency went up. But because the server is better, the overall performance improved. The performance and cost difference was simply too great. Server farms are largely automated mainly with purchased software purchased from offshore and a low labour content. This points to some serious price gouging and profit taking by the owners or local hosts. There is no reason why I should be paying 10x the price for equivalent virtual hosting in NZ. Local hosting and virtual server providers should take note.
It also increases the complexity of litigating against this site. I’m sure that we’re going to irritate someone enough to want to consider suing me or trying to get an injunction or playing copyright games this term.
Now I’m sure that any action like that is going to be vexatious rather than having any substance. Our numerous writers are quite good at restraining themselves to fair and in the public interest commentary. But the obvious immediate benefit to the litigant is to force the site down via complaints to the hosting or domain name. This makes it harder, and with a lower cost I can run more backup systems.
The dispute about S92A started me thinking this way. But it made sense even after that was out of the way.
Besides this will give the wingnuts something to whine about. They have been looking a bit lackluster recently. I can imagine the teeth-gnashing now and take a great deal of pleasure in it now.
The first attempt got aborted because I didn’t check the DNS expiry which was set to 24 hours. Had to set that to lower timeout to ensure a better transition.