Do little/unused domains get knocked down a notch?

[NWLB]

If I gather correctly, with the shared servers, they balance the amount of load the servers are taking on. Spreading things out so overall things are not bad for any one site.

I ask this, because, as I experienced with one set of sites on one server, I ramp-up another set on a different server, and run into massive issues with people being able to access the site once more than the old trickle of traffic is present.

Does a domain that hasn't seen any action for years, ever run into issues if it suddenly has people trying to visit it? Does it effectively get put on a lower priority based on historic traffic levels?

[Vin DSL]

I've never read about ANY balancing going on here...

Load balancing would imply more than one server is involved, to my way of thinking, and I don't think they do that here.

I assume that individual servers here are populated in such a way that the sites co-exist in the most efficient manner. And, if that's the case, I would think that introducing a "set of sites" to a stable and efficient server, humming merrily along, might put it over the edge -- but that's just an educated guess.

LoL!

That's if I understand what you're asking, in the first place...

[jason]

I don't think JPC conciously assigns sites to servers based on load, but they do, of course, want to get as much milage as they can from each server. So it is quite possible that a server will have a handful of "heavy" sites on it and a bunch more low-use sites which generally keep the server running in a consistent state. If one of those low use sites was to suddenly become a heavy-use site it *could* spike the load and upset the equilibrium of the server. At the same time, though, JPC puts less load on their servers than most hosts, so they should be able to handled a couple of sites suddenly growing, providing the growth is moderate.

--Jason

[Vin DSL]

Yeah, that's what I meant to say...