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
I think there should be a balance. Our posted scores in the recent promotion could be better and we made changes to improve things and worked with quite a few customers to make sure they were happy. Some will report a problem but not say it was fixed or their happy now. So how would such a rule/requirement be managed fairly?
It's always been the position here that the Admins/Mods don't act as market regulators. It's a slippery slope, lots of extra work and this community does a good job of regulating itself.
Sure, one person has to be caught out and complain on the forums for it to be a known issue but that will burn the provider almost indefinitely. Shape up or shut down.
I don’t agree that there should be a minimum YABS result as the requirements for users will vary drastically.
What I would expect is that if a provider chooses to advertise a YABS result, that the result posted should be reflective of the service being offered and within a reason what the user buying the service will get. If a provider is misleading with their performance, then there should be reprocussions for that.
For example, a certain provider with their “AI based resource assignment” where on some scenarios the results are quite impressive, but as soon as a client reboots the VM their multi core performance goes down the drain and performance shows the same result as if a single core would be used. In this case the provider should be showing results of this worse case.
Of course allow for deviations between hosts etc, but magnitudes of 2/3x performance shifts from what is advertised should be up for scrutiny.
Same requirement for non-misleading advertising should apply to other things, such as network performance, again with a bit of discretion between service issues and being dishonest.
Where a provider doesn’t show YABS, which I think is fine, the offer just needs to reflect the performance and customers just need to do their own due diligence. It’s ok to have lower performance, just don’t sell it as something it isn’t. The buyer should just choose to not buy services where benchmarks are not available, if that’s important.
I think the provider should post a Geekbench 5 or 6 result, so you know what type of processing power you're getting.
Kinda broad spectrum to see 'Intel Xeon Based CPU' with 2-4 cores, but end up with a GB score of 250-350.
The arbitrary limits imposed are hard to see until you buy usually. Especially with providers who nest their virtualization. (Think Hyper-V with KVM VMs that are 'hypervisors')