New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
Stay away from QuadHost.net and i-83.net !
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
You can't really say that criticism coming from others is 'unfair' simply because your experience was different.
I've personally had no issues with my services at i83 aside from certain locations being withdrawn at short notice, but I still recognise the validity of complaints where tickets are left unresponded to for an extended period.
What also leaves a bad taste on the mouth for many customers is that i83 were active on this forum in the good times but have completely disappeared now there are problems. That's very disappointing for everyone.
@devas All I did was get the NAT storage VPS and try to use it. It did not come with the full advertised disk space. I haevn't been able to use it since I got it back in April. I did nothing wrong. I had a few tickets, one having to do with the excruciating slow speed which they replied to and explained it was a RAID rebuild. Another having to do with this disk space issue, which they replied with a vague answer of they didn't want to disrupt anyone else's service but they were looking into how they could add more disk space to the server, that was 39 days ago. I haven't been able to upload my content to my server because I need all the storage as advertised, since I got it in April, that's 4 months ago,
I'd really like these guys @quadhost @i83 to be more responsive to fixing problems like this, because I'd like to get more vps from them. The lack of storage problem seems like a straightforward problem to fix. Add hard drive(s) to the software raid array? Right? If it's too hard for them to do, can't they ask here for someone to lend their experience and guidance?
I can definitely say it's unfair if my own experience is different. Also, from the providers pointy of view, and if they have been giving a professional and honest service, I would imagine a thread with this title, that is around for almost 4 months and that keeps on resurfacing, is not a good experience; and, as you so eloquently put it, does leave a bad taste in the mouth.
Even worst, the OP that started this thread has been banned, as have 4 others (admittedly some may be the same) so why not close it? Why chris_c had to resurfaced a thread such as this yesterday instead of opening a new one if he wanted to settle his issues in the forum? And for what i can see both Quadhost and i-83 have replied in the last 24h-36h so not sure what you mean about them not being active?
So yes, I do think this thread is deeply unfair to a provider i have in high regards and I think any thread started by banned members should be automatically closed @jarland
That doesn't make it unfair.
How can critisicm be unfair if it's based on fact?
How can you know what is fact if you are not a direct participant of the events?
I do not hold you is such low regard to think you are naive enough to believe everything you read on an anonymous forum in the internet.
Do you really want to take that route? Fine. I'll question the truthfulness of your comments then. Happy now?
Too much smoke without fire. This is not the only thread of this nature, and I've seen plenty of comments by people who I've no reason to believe are making things up.
Add into that i83's constant silence, since the issues started and it all adds up.
If it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, quacks....etc
.
.
You should rightly do so. It's a sign of intelligence.
Fair enough. Admittedly I haven't been visiting LET often lately so I am not aware of this other threads you mention. I can only vouch for my own experience and the fact that I deposit a high degree of trust in this provider. And I find it frustrating to read a thread such as this, that is 4 pages long, was started in mid April and is filled with banned accounts. That's why I decided to share my own very positive experience of QuadHost and to balance all this criticism. I think that's the point of LET, right?
@devas
The point of LET is to give us all a place to buy cheap servers that we can idle. Pretty sure that's the mission statement.
But seriously, of course you should post your experience as a counter balance, I don't think anyone's said otherwise. I only responded to you because I was interested in the logic you were using to denounce the criticism as unfair.
Let me just add that I wish nothing but the best of success for @quadhost and @i83. I'd really like for my @i83 nat storage vps account to be working with as much reliability as @devas accounts are working. I'm just not seeing the expected responsive speed to my ticket, and seeing less than half the advertised 250GB disk resources on my account, although I'd really like to.
I get the feeling @devas was very lucky and/or favored because his large number of services.
I may be wrong, but I also get the feeling that quadhost i83 are relatively young guys enjoying night life and weekend life, and if that's the case that's fine, just please hire tech support people to fill in for you on nights and weekends when you're off work! Decent experienced people can cost very cheap! Tell me if this is not correct, by all means.
Time to fix issues raised by tickets must be reduced for me and all i83/quadhost customers experiencing unreasonably long delays for relatively simple issues which are fully within the control of quadhost/i83 to fix.
So, is QuadHost actually going to change their name to QuasHost? Surely nobody is so stupid as to not proof their title, or at least eventually notice.
Not so many comments lately, pretty much because everybody thought they already were deadpooled. No reason to run after a host that was dead already. This currently is pretty much a zombie revival walking.
I have a i83 nat bundle, that I silenced in UptimeRobot quite a while ago because of the many many many many emails i got about the services going down. That and the fact that locations were withdrawn without notice and without even mentioning this after the fact for customers.
@MagicalTrain I think @clouvider is providing upstream nodes for @quadhost @i83 in london UK so things ought to be looking up in terms of speed to fix issues and quality of service. Mainly I see the root of their problems as a DDOS protection issue, the data centers without DDOS protection are not sustainable over the long term, eventually you get a DDOS and Hetzner shuts down the server node. A hosting provider pretty much either needs to own its own data center, or be hosted in one with standard ddos protection, so that the nodes can stay up indefinitely, which lets the customer vps stay up indefinitely as well.
@Chris_c I was talking generally about i83 servers. I dont think the london servers are affected as much, but I originally didnt buy the bundle for their UK servers, so I never used them. ( I was interested in the few more exotic locations in India, SG etc)
We have already replied with the course of action above, we are working through the I-83.net brand product ticket backlog whilst working on getting everyone online, we don't have 5 pairs of hands and priority based on the SLA sold with the product is taking place as we have always said.
We have no plans to expand/further the NAT lineup given the changes in 2017.
Why do we need protection if we do not advertise it (we state the locations protection is offered by our upstreams)?
DDoS protection is provided in certain locations where possible. All DDoS protection is provided as a complimentary extra not as a rated/sold service on our shared range.
If the Shared IPv4 is nulled you can still access your service over dedicated IPv6.
If a customer wanted DDoS protection on a service in India for example or you expected to be attacked then you shouldn't sign up with a location we offer without protection.
We understand certain customers are far from happy with their service, but we are not going anywhere and hope to resolve the issues and qualms users may have.
EDIT:
We wish this was still possible, we were apprehensive with venturing back to India again after the last issue, the outcome once again pretty much sets it in stone.
NAT plans will remain but we have no plans for any expansion to the more exotic locations again, its not profitable to have the overhead of protection and a small group of users have made it clear that locations without protection will not be stable enough for us to be happy.
time to show us some proof? screenshot?
This is my last post on this thread. I will not contribute any further to bring this thread to the top of the page. Once again, I have always received an excellent and professional service from quadhost and i-83, didn't have a single minute downtime since almost a year ago and have always been answered in the most promptly, professional and helpful way. In fact, they have always gone the extra step to assist me and proved very patient in the beginning while I was on my learning curve. I can not only vouch for this provider but in fact I strongly recommend it.
I'm glad i83/QH is returning from the dead. They really seemed to have fallen off the map earlier this year, and took a lot of imho justified criticism. Support was great when I first signed up (Nov 2016), then fell off completely (e.g. the long FLK outage with no updates), now seems to be reviving. Still at best, I'd call the current prognosis iffy. It will take a while before I can consider them returned to good health. That said, both of my VPS with them are working fine at the moment.
I signed up for an i83 nat resource bundle, and found that maybe two locations were available at a time. I also had a NAT service which didn't always want to be accessible. I cancelled them, but they haven't turned them off, and appear that they won't until my paid-for service window has closed.
So, I guess there's that.
Even then, they may not. I just logged into my account to see what plans I have with them, and in addition to a paid-up NAT storage, I have two regular NAT plans, one which expired nearly 4 months ago, another just over a month ago, both still active.
^ for the above I guess you can thank Virtualizor ;-).
Quick, to solus!
@Nekki @WSS
Best report this Virtualizor bug so they can fix it!
http://www.softaculous.com/board/index.php?fid=19&fname=Bugs
@chris_c Virtualizor has been made aware of this bug by numerous people here over the course of 3 years I'm browsing this forum. Not that they cared to fix it properly, as can be seen above.
Do you know why this happens? I'm curious if it is the WHMCS module that doesn't handle the return value correct or if the master server fails to suspend/terminate the vps.
If it's still active in WHMCS it could be a WHMCS error?
Not using Virtualizor fortunately. I'm unable to find the particular posts. Tagging @QuadHost, I presume they are aware of the issue and probably brought it to the attention of Virtualizor team.
I've heard the same stories about Solus leaving running servers, would be "funny" if it actually was a WHMCS error.