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.
Comments
QuadHost support seems to suggest that they are (or, at least their i-83 branch) are floundering. http://i.imgur.com/eqbpbpx.png I've also had a ticket "In Progess" for something like 4 months now. They are supposedly testing it on their "development servers". http://i.imgur.com/H9buFlA.png
@Ole_Juul I don't know much about the SG situation - I was hoping Hetzner was the only episode and that it was now resolved. Most I know about it was from their Status Page about DDoS. Sorry to hear you're heaving issues with them.
@GenjiSwitchPls fair point, as I said, I'm in no way defending them. This is not something I consider acceptable. I'm merely straightening the facts, or at least that was my aim. naturally the interpretation can be subjective - I'm not following every post here.
I'll observe the situation for now.
In my case it's SG, but I don't think there are "issues" with it. They simply eliminated this particular package regardless of location.
I have 2 nat servers with them in North Carolina, USA. Both had been unreachable through parts of March, and all of May. I just logged on and things seem to be running smoothlywith both servers. Fingers crossed they sorted the issues there!
I know I have a nat vps with them but I gave up with the downtime. Really hope they can get back to being online more regularly.
Yeah, being online is one of the things I value most about a provider. lol
Saw your comment and checked my quadhost virtualizor panel and found my SG vps(powered off)
I issued a 'Start' command and I get :
1) The operation could not be completedI'll ticket if it persists until end of day.
.
I don't get your point.
But obviously that comes after price, right?
Actually, no. That's just a cheap shot.
I pay a lot more for the VPS that I care most about. I don't expect great service from i-86 level hosts, but I do expect them to not just disappear. Actually, at that price, I don't expect any service other than keeping the server running. Other providers seem to keep their services going at the price they feel can work for them. A great example is Inceptionhosting. They've been around for a long time and have very acceptable uptime. That's a service that I'd actually pay more for than what they charge. Frankly, I don't distinguish between $4 or $8 per year to any appreciable extent. That's just a cup of coffee. Even on my old age pension, I don't need to save two or four bucks, and frankly, it's a stupid provider that tries to cut a dollar off just to compete if it means their sustainability is compromised. As a client, I think it is up to the provider to price things in such a way that it's a sustainable service. You obviously think differently.
Their WHMCS is awfully slow. I was going to submit a ticket, but the ice age blew over in the time it took for the page to load.
If they have a node down and have not marked it as maintenance mode it creates silly delays while it waits for connections to timeout with so many people probably checking it makes it worse.
Anyone got a (ticket) response or can i consider them as dead?
Mine twitched earlier today:
My SG vps came back up around 1320 UTC. (running ever since)
Wow, mine back up again too, nice...
Singapore is back!
Wow, that was a long time. I thought it was a gonner.
DDoS incoming shortly my bets say. I hope they remove those IPs from a publically accessible location.
LES > Evo/Inception/GDBI have all had their fair issues with DDoS and all took measures to protect their infra. Ant only sends the IPs to customers he does/did post the IPs of all locations. GDBI and Evo only sent you the IP that applied to you.
I hope SGP is a turn of events and they sort their accounts out.
Hoping that was rhetorical as opposed to sarcasm but either way I understand your point and agree with it if you meant providers should look at what's sustainable as opposed to using price as a bate and then not being able to provide the service to customers. The market is tough.
Just a strange experience I had, when I was doing the uptime service for free, someone thought it was their job to DDOS the service. It's clear most of us don't see eye to eye on everything. I can associate this back to the NAT service (with some assumptions of course about the intent of the provider)
I'm defending no one, but a concept of security through obscurity is well proven to be non-efficient. Especially in the case of a VPS that can be bought for <£x.xx a year just to know the range.
What's weird is that things which cost money to the provider are not being fixed. NAT services getting a public IP was ticketed ~1.5 months ago. I cancelled my resource pool about 1 month ago but can still SSH into it, ticketed but no action for 2 weeks.
I mean I get your point but the "payment wall" can filter out a few people from attacking it. I get it may not be effective but it's a simple technique to reduce some abuse
Edit: I mean Ant Smith (LES founder) thanked my post regarding this at the beginning who knows his crap. Along with leapswitch his Indian Infra provider so I think from the Master veteran and his own infra providers it would be sensible
Is anyone else at their London location (server ldn16-uk) experiencing downtime still? My NAT VPS there keeps going up for short periods of time & back down again, whilst the server itself is still running (http://imgur.com/a/vsTtj). Not sure whether it is an issue on my end or theirs - it's not the datacentre as I have another service running perfectly fine there with InceptionHosting.
In terms of the DDoS attacks towards other locations, would hiding the IPs totally solve the issue? People already have the IPs, and in addition, some of the attacks may be coming from users of clients using the NAT services to host things?
@Clouvider anything on your end for this location?
It won't be - the host node IP resolves, yet my container remains unreachable except for the recovery console (which has been an issue QuadHost were able to resolve before). It's been going on for quite a few days now too, and from my experience as an indirect client of Clouvider's services, and from what I've heard, they'd have fixed an issue like this quickly, so I'm assuming it's either a fault with my VPS (which last time this happened when I attempted to reset the server didn't help), or quadhost themselves.
Interesting again more disorganised bullshit then at QuadHost. Let's wait till they get struck off the house and then we know they aren't bothered
Just taken a look & it's reachable over my IPv6 address, so I assume it's an issue with the shared IPv4 on their end. I'll attempt to switch everything over to using IPv6 to connect to the server - I don't really know why I was only monitoring uptime on the shared IPv4 & not IPv6 aswell.
@matthewkilpatrick
Yup, ldn16-uk network is down. Container is powered ON, but it has no connection to Internet. They are not answering nor updating /serverstatus.php. They suck, to be honest.