Well, that sounds highly do-able; I have mojo.crypticsites.net, mojoskins.crypticsites.net (where I test things), and blog.crypticsites.net -- I had been waiting to put anything at just-plain crypticsites.net until I had learned how to do a manual install of *some* ASP.NET CMS, and guess what, I've finally learned to do just that with mojo -- in fact I *just* did the manual install of 2.3.5.5 at crypticsites.net -- one of those which are down, alas -- so theoretically, I could run the subdomain sites off that one mojo installation -- since all those subdomains are active at my host.  I guess it's just the terminology which sometimes confounds me with this ASP.NET stuff.  But, my host uses dotnetpanel, which forces you to create a domain for any type of domain you want hosted there, whether top-level or sub, then it forces you to "create web site" to have anything at that domain's address -- a sort of "provisioning," I suppose -- so yeah, I guess all those subdomains qualify for "hosting company has entries in their published DNS for each of your subdomains".

If I can get that setup, it would sure simplify doing version upgrades -- do it once, instead of once for each site!  It would also greatly reduce my disk space needs, for future consideration in choosing a host.

Thx!

Andria

Hmm, yes, it's actually "WebSitePanel," but I got that link to the docs for it, so just identified it as "dotnetpanel".  There doesn't seem to be anyway of having a site there without having a domain for it, whether TLD or sub.  In the domain admin, the only type of "alias" offered is the instant alias for use when the DNS hasn't yet resolved.  However, in the Website admin, I do see a link for "create website pointer," but never had any understanding of what that was for, so have left it strictly alone.  At the moment, although I can access my websitepanel admin, since the sites are down at the server, the website admin page is useless -- the domains aren't resolving to anything until they get that server back up.  It doesn't appear too likely to be happening this evening, so I guess I have to find another book to read, to keep from having a serious connimption fit -- my family hates it when my sites are down, I'm unbearable to be around.

Yeah, I could go work on my Joomla sites, but after getting used to Mojo, Joomla feels like... hmmm, like trying to cook dinner with my teeth, while blindfolded... Seriously, that whole "backend admin" thing seems a lot like those robot arms they use to deal with deadly microbes, in the movies.    There needs to be something as transparent as Mojo for the Linux environment.

Andria

Well, Mocha is still down this morning, so it's going on 36 hours now.  I told them that if they can't get my sites online by 11am EST, which would be right around the 36-hr mark for the outage, then I'd like a refund of the 11 months left on my account.  Not really sanguine that they'll go along with that, but maybe the BBB can convince them that it's in their own best interest, marketing-wise.

I think I have to go with Arvixe; I scoped out their plans a little more, and I could get a year for $72, which ends up being about the same as what I paid Mocha; that's for the 6-domains plan, but I only own 7, and have 2 or 3 of them at my Linux host, so 6 would do me nicely; no plans to add any, anytime soon, but to develop the ones I have already.  I also ascertained that I could get a 6 month plan for $42, which is much to my liking whenever I try out a new host -- if it's not a good fit, I'm not committed for a longterm contract.  In fact I did exactly that, with Mocha; had a 6-month in which I determined that they seemed alright in terms of server speed and the "unlimiteds" (disk, BW, and since I upgraded, domains and dbs) -- I figure it's worth it to pay a bit more per month, to find out if a host is suitable for my needs, but during that initial 6-month with mocha, there were no outages, so I never had a chance to see how they responded to emergencies -- not well at all, I'm now finding.  My linux host, Hobersoft, suffered a DDOS thing at one point, and they had everything pretty much back to normal well inside a 24 hr time frame, and in the past with them, when I've noticed a problem with a slow server, they volunteered to move my site to another server for me, and get it done inside 12 hrs, so maybe I'm just spoiled with their above-and-beyond customer svc.  Anyway, Arvixe seems to offer the most for the low end, and it's certainly helpful that they're apparently very conversant and experienced with things Mojo.  I may end up just having to eat this year's investment with Mocha, but maybe, just maybe, I can manage the $42 for a 6 month with Arvixe.  Or who knows, maybe Mocha will pull their thumb out and get my sites back online before I'm forced to any such conclusion.  I guess stranger things have happened.

Bummed out and at loose ends with no sites to work on...

Andria

Ok, this question again pertains to this difference between 3.5 and 4.0 deployment files.

I have managed to download a backup of the database for my blog, which was, I'm almost certain, the last pre-2.3.5.5 site I installed; I'm pretty sure it's 2.3.5.4.  At mocha, this was not 4.0, I'm pretty sure it was 3.5.  So, to install the correct files to match the database, do I need to also use the 3.5 deployment files, or does it matter which files -- is there some matching necessary, to the database?  So, at Arvixe, do I want to use the 4.0 integrated pipeline, or 2.0, or 2.0 integrated pipeline.  All these designations mean absolutely nothing to me, so I really need advice here -- since I have the db backup for this site, if I can get the correct version of the files installed, I think I can get this site back just as it was.

Wallowing in and despairing of my ASP.NET ignorance...

Andria