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
https://www.lowendtalk.com/discussion/comment/3164317/#Comment_3164317
I see.
Still, for anyone interested, my entire account can be transferred without intervention from support as they allow personal details and email to be changed from the panel and I only have this server.
And of course I am not seeking a profit from this.
I was in the same situation. What fixed it for me (2 different locations, 2 different OSes) was a complete reboot (stop & start from panel) which I assume is what "Reconfigure Networking" will also do. Have you tried doing it after configuring it in the interfaces file before using the "Reconfigure Networking" option as that will not work in encrypted/non-standard systems?
Makes sense, but I did not try to force a reboot since none of this is documented in the instructions, which are simple and to the point but apparently insufficient.
At this stage I will let the server idle or transfer it, I just expect some support to be available when something is broken, even if it is not an emergency ticket.
I will take it will off you for $12 + transfer fee if Hosthatch is willing to allow the transfer
You are the second in queue, I will let you know if available.
Yay!
By the way, looks like the ipv6 netmask is /48 but somehow my config works with /64, not sure why, so try both /48 and /64 if you still have issues after installing from an ISO.
I could take up the account if you want. $12 for the server you paid off..
Sorry, first person in the queue got it.
The transfer was allowed and has already been done?
Entire account was transferred.
Oh that was quick.
I'm surprised Support acted on that one promptly
No, all account details can be edited by the customer.
I updated the personal details to those of the new owner, changed email address and sent him the password.
If you do this, make sure your interface is called
eth0, otherwise you'll totally lose connectivity, because the "Reconfigure Networking" feature assumes the legacy naming scheme.Some newer distros call it
ens3orenp0s3instead. The old ethX names were based on the order the network card drivers are initialized in (eth0 is the "first" one, eth1 is the "second" one, etc), but that can have issues as it's not always predictable. The ensX names are based on the actual physical slot the network adapter (or virtual network adapter in this case) is in.In that case, you need to enable the old naming scheme. On Debian, edit
/etc/default/gruband addnet.ifnames=0 biosdevname=0to the command line:Then run
sudo update-grub -o /boot/grub/grub.cfg. Then "Reconfigure Networking" should work fine.This is my experience so far too. Tier 1 support is fantastic - Quick to respond and they get things done, but anything more complex takes a while to reply. For example tickets about getting an IPv6 range or a working IPv4 address (an IP address assigned to one of my VPSes was not actually a valid IP address) were solved within a few hours, but I have more complex tickets (eg. a ticket about jumbo frames not working on the Los Angeles private network, a ticket about whether they'd allow me to transfer some of my unneeded VPSes to someone else, and a ticket about stacking/combining VPSes in the same location) that have yet to receive a reply. I just realised the specs on one of my VPSes is wrong too - The 10TB storage in LA is supposed to have 15TB monthly transfer, but it's only got 10TB.
On the positive side, the servers are fast and seem to work pretty well.
Oh good I'm not alone here. I bought the 10TB LAX but with 45TB of bandwidth (it's still the current offering here: https://manage.hosthatch.com/billing/order/lax-10tb) that replaced the one you got. It too was only assigned 10TB of transfer. I'm not talking about the options to add bandwidth at the bottom that default to +30 TB, 45TB is what was offered as the standard transfer amount. Ticket opened right after ordering and still not replied too.
I had the jumbo frame issue in Chicago at the beginning of December and they resolved that one in a couple days with great communication throughout the ticket. I just checked my LA servers and jumbo frames are working correctly there.
The funny thing is that after they modified it to include 45TB bandwidth, mine started saying "45TB" in the description:
I guess it's the same product in their backend. My guess is it was originally 10TB then they changed it to 15TB then 45TB, but the orders were still created with the original 10TB limit?
Hmm... For me, when I set MTU to 9000 on both sides and then try ping with
ping -M do -s 8972, it just times out, which I think usually implies a router somewhere is not using 9000 MTU. The same thing works fine in Chicago for me.FYI for next time, that's against LET rules.
I have an old 1c 512M 250g in Amsterdam which suddenly started showing up as a 2TB Storage Special in LAX. Confused me when I logged in and the Amsterdam flag was missing.
I just checked my Chicago server and it now shows 50TB, the current offer, in the hover over information but I purchased this during Black Friday and it was 15TB of transfer, which is what's assigned.
Ill be curious to see how this settles. There was a $40/year price difference between 15TB and 45TB LAX server listings. The additional 30TB transfer justified the additional price difference to me.
This is over wireguard over the internal LAX network:
ping 192.168.12.4 -s 8892 -Mdo -c 2PING 192.168.12.4 (192.168.12.4) 8892(8920) bytes of data.8900 bytes from 192.168.12.4: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.652 ms8900 bytes from 192.168.12.4: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=0.892 ms--- 192.168.12.4 ping statistics ---2 packets transmitted, 2 received, 0% packet loss, time 1000msrtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.652/0.772/0.892/0.120 msI think that rule only applies to license sales.
Thank you! I wonder if they fixed it (eg if another customer reported it too) and just never replied to my ticket. I'll try it again when I get a chance.
It's also against some providers ToS as the recipient hasn't gone through their verification processes (eg a customer in good standing could order something and then transfer the account to a customer that's banned for fraud). Some providers that allow transfers require the recipient to be in good standing and have some history with the company (eg VirMach used to require the recipient to have been a customer for over one year, with a valid payment method or store credit)
Now that's a very good point.
Nope.
Basically what Daniel15 has said above, transferring accounts contain risks to both parties so it is discouraged in LET. It is a grey area in LET but Nyr is a respected member here so is fine for this time.
I did take a look at their ToS before doing this, and there was nothing related to this. I did not want to bother with support after my initial experience.
The service was transferred to an active member of this community openly, in good faith and for no financial gain, I just wanted someone to enjoy the deal better than let the server idle for the whole year.
Anyway, I understand your points. This is my first transfer ever and probably the last.
This also happened to two of my older servers. Apparently, they must have re-used some old promotion/server IDs by mistake, so the "new" description appears in place of an older one. I raised the issue to them, but so far it doesn't appear that anything has changed.
It's only superficial, but it could cause confusion down the road for those customers who didn't document the specs of the server they purchased at the time of purchase.
Just thought of asking this here.
For those with servers in HH's NL location, did your server go down or restarted by itself yesterday?
Yep.
Nope. Got 2 boxes in NL, different nodes, 44+ days of uptime on both of them.
I just did another benchmark, and Chicago is still 4x faster than Los Angeles
LA:
Chicago:
I can understand some difference between deployments, but 210 MB/s vs 830 MB/s (reads with 1m block size) is a significant difference given both locations are priced the same.