Avoid Avoro.eu, php-friends, and dataforest oversold root servers and fraudsters

totally_not_banned

@online7237 said:
You know what's really funny? They sell a VPS on their site for half the price.

Yeah, presenting those as some kind of counterpart to the shared offering doesn't really reflect to favorably and also pretty much reinforces the impression these are (contrary to the other line) non-shared resources.

dataforest

@online7237 said:
You know what's really funny? They sell a VPS on their site for half the price. They sell these rootservers as dedicated just to make more money and I guess try to compete with netcup (they bring up their competition a lot in this thread and in the service tickets) when it's no different than the half price VPS they sell.

That is wrong and again a lie, you are not even trying to make statements that are true, because then you would see that we (https://avoro.eu/en/vps/) are talking about completely different hardware.

online7237

@dataforest said:

@online7237 said:
What are you on about? You can tell Paypal what to do. You're the seller. They want to close these cases as soon as possible. Call them and tell them to refund them except for one where you want to do a partial refund and keep 300 euros and I'll accept it on my side. I only sent the ID from the Paypal email because you asked me to verify the Paypal email. That Paypal is controlled be me and my business partner. No one is reselling anything.

Anyone in here who has used Paypal can verify that the seller can close the case at any time by making a refund or making an offer to partially refund.

No, that's not possible, I can't do a partial refund - that's it, there's nothing to discuss. I've already told you today how we can do it - you're not taking any risk, but you're still discussing it here and you assume we don't want to refund at all. Either you accept it or you don't.

Now you're twisting the facts again, sorry - you should verify your PayPal account, where the payments came from (because there were some orders with illegitimate credit cards via Stripe, the person who ordered it happened to have your first name) - you haven't done that yet.

As I said, we're out of here, you know everything you need to know, we would have liked to have finished this with you today, but you're not interested in that and that's it. Keep going around in circles.

I never paid with stripe or even attempted to. Stop lying. Someone having the same first name means nothing. The Paypal account is verified so there is no issue. There is no chance I will close the case and hope that you refund. And stop talking about my Paypal. The issue here is your false advertising and fraud.

I told you to call Paypal but you seem to ignore that. You keep saying I'm taking no risk but I am. If I close the case, I can't open it again. I'm the one taking all of the risk. You were already exposed as lying about your products. And I already offered you 300 euros when you should be getting nothing, yet you have the nerve to say you don't trust me. You should be getting ZERO.

online7237

@bgerard said:

@totally_not_banned said:

@itsdeadjim said:

@totally_not_banned said: I'm not saying it isn't a little impatient but who knows his deadlines? He bought a product and later found out it would need him waiting X amount of time, so he backed out. For everything he didn't touch i'm 99.999% sure he's entitled to a no questions asked refund anyways and for everything else it's down to the actual fine print if can just bail because of cool down. Yeah, things likely could have been handled more amicably but in the end it's business and what counts is the letters...

We generally agree, now leaving all the useless details aside, this comes down to 2 possible scenarios:

• Deception and fraud by the avoro part
• Avoro never had such kind of load in the past and was unprepared

Do you think that the latter implies deception?

Deception, maybe not but deceptive... hell yeah. If you want to run a clever scheme replacing an expensive thing with a cheaper thing it's up to you that the cheap thing lives up to the expensive thing. Sure, they'll likely act wiser in the future but this time it was an epic failure.

My first word on this thread was that they should not accept the order. But still it seems that they tried to sort this out even with loss.

Which is something we'll never know any details about. Also trying is not necessarily succeeding and while trying is commendable the client is still not forced to just sit it out and hope for the best. In this state the whole thing is basically lost business to anyone who could actually have successfully filled the order.

Was it naive from the part to try to sort this out? As it turns out from the result, yes they probably do not understand the mining use case.

Well, like i've said before any type of constant load would have the exact same outcome and the resources are advertised as guaranteed. There's 3 options to fix this: Know what the setup is actually able absorb, vastly up the available tolerances, quit making bold claims about guaranteed availability and sell it as what it is: Shared resources.

But certainly no one can blame them for deception, and all other jokes written on this thread.

They sell guaranteed resources, which seemingly don't life up to this claim... What else does it take?

Now this maybe a cultural thing, because some people try to see what was the intention and some other point out the letter of law. Truth is that in a court, laws are usually interpreted in the context of intention.

Yeah, they are and in this case i can tell you the result would - with practically 100% safety - be that the impression made on the customer is that he's renting resources that are available 24/7 with no restrictions on the way they are used.

Guaranteed until you drain the pool of available compute by ordering hundreds of machines, once the pool is restored, the issues wouldn't exist.

OPs fault for expecting the world for such a low price and not contacting the provider before placing such a large order.

Avoros fault for taking an order so large that the compute guarantees could not be met.

Other providers offering the same product will likely be doing the same.

At the end of the day it's a virtualised environment on a shared and constantly changing hypervisor. If you want full isolated and truly dedicated resources, you buy a physical dedicated server.

That's it, done.

It's not my problem if compute is drained. If the resources are dedicated they should have the hardware to provide full dedicated cores. If they don't then it isn't dedicated. Also, they can easily end this by just providing a full refund. Instead they want me to close the cases and hope that they refund me.

dataforest

@online7237 said:
I never paid with stripe or even attempted to. Stop lying. Someone having the same first name means nothing. The Paypal account is verified so there is no issue. There is no chance I will close the case and hope that you refund. And stop talking about my Paypal. The issue here is your false advertising and fraud.

I told you to call Paypal but you seem to ignore that. You keep saying I'm taking no risk but I am. If I close the case, I can't open it again. I'm the one taking all of the risk. You were already exposed as lying about your products. And I already offered you 300 euros when you should be getting nothing, yet you have the nerve to say you don't trust me. You should be getting ZERO.

I never said that either? But we are still cautious or is that now forbidden in your eyes? You feel like everyone is attacking you straight away.

It's a shame, as I said, you wouldn't have had any risk. As I also said, we will refund the orders that were not delivered or only partially delivered. Everything has been said, but all the best for the future, in the hope that yours (whatever you do) will work with other providers.

online7237

@dataforest said:

@online7237 said:
You know what's really funny? They sell a VPS on their site for half the price. They sell these rootservers as dedicated just to make more money and I guess try to compete with netcup (they bring up their competition a lot in this thread and in the service tickets) when it's no different than the half price VPS they sell.

That is wrong and again a lie, you are not even trying to make statements that are true, because then you would see that we (https://avoro.eu/en/vps/) are talking about completely different hardware.

What lie? The hardware doesn't matter. It's all oversold. The rootservers aren't dedicated and use different hardware. So what? You're selling "dedicated" resources for double the price of your VPS, when they're both the same thing. Both are shared.

bgerard

@online7237 said:

@bgerard said:

@totally_not_banned said:

@itsdeadjim said:

@totally_not_banned said: I'm not saying it isn't a little impatient but who knows his deadlines? He bought a product and later found out it would need him waiting X amount of time, so he backed out. For everything he didn't touch i'm 99.999% sure he's entitled to a no questions asked refund anyways and for everything else it's down to the actual fine print if can just bail because of cool down. Yeah, things likely could have been handled more amicably but in the end it's business and what counts is the letters...

We generally agree, now leaving all the useless details aside, this comes down to 2 possible scenarios:

• Deception and fraud by the avoro part
• Avoro never had such kind of load in the past and was unprepared

Do you think that the latter implies deception?

Deception, maybe not but deceptive... hell yeah. If you want to run a clever scheme replacing an expensive thing with a cheaper thing it's up to you that the cheap thing lives up to the expensive thing. Sure, they'll likely act wiser in the future but this time it was an epic failure.

My first word on this thread was that they should not accept the order. But still it seems that they tried to sort this out even with loss.

Which is something we'll never know any details about. Also trying is not necessarily succeeding and while trying is commendable the client is still not forced to just sit it out and hope for the best. In this state the whole thing is basically lost business to anyone who could actually have successfully filled the order.

Was it naive from the part to try to sort this out? As it turns out from the result, yes they probably do not understand the mining use case.

Well, like i've said before any type of constant load would have the exact same outcome and the resources are advertised as guaranteed. There's 3 options to fix this: Know what the setup is actually able absorb, vastly up the available tolerances, quit making bold claims about guaranteed availability and sell it as what it is: Shared resources.

But certainly no one can blame them for deception, and all other jokes written on this thread.

They sell guaranteed resources, which seemingly don't life up to this claim... What else does it take?

Now this maybe a cultural thing, because some people try to see what was the intention and some other point out the letter of law. Truth is that in a court, laws are usually interpreted in the context of intention.

Yeah, they are and in this case i can tell you the result would - with practically 100% safety - be that the impression made on the customer is that he's renting resources that are available 24/7 with no restrictions on the way they are used.

Guaranteed until you drain the pool of available compute by ordering hundreds of machines, once the pool is restored, the issues wouldn't exist.

OPs fault for expecting the world for such a low price and not contacting the provider before placing such a large order.

Avoros fault for taking an order so large that the compute guarantees could not be met.

Other providers offering the same product will likely be doing the same.

At the end of the day it's a virtualised environment on a shared and constantly changing hypervisor. If you want full isolated and truly dedicated resources, you buy a physical dedicated server.

That's it, done.

It's not my problem if compute is drained. If the resources are dedicated they should have the hardware to provide full dedicated cores. If they don't then it isn't dedicated. Also, they can easily end this by just providing a full refund. Instead they want me to close the cases and hope that they refund me.

Indeed, which is why they shouldn't have accepted the order, which they admitted.

It's technically dedicated and shared if you think about it. Think of it like a restaurant where there are bottles of sauce on the side for people to take back to their tables, once you take a bottle, it's dedicated to you. When you don't need it anymore, it gets returned to the table. If a customer wants to sit there forever with their bottle, that's allowed as it's dedicated to them. But imagine some mad man shows up and wants 400 bottles of sauce and only 10 are available.

The restaurant panics and rushes to get more bottles and realises they shouldn't have let the mad person in, but it's too late, they've just spent a load of money on cases of sauce to rectify the issue as the customer walks out of the door and posts a TripAdvisor review claiming you're never allowed to have a dedicated bottle at your table and it's pure fraud.

If the customer waited and understood that a small restaurant may not have all of that sauce, more would have arrived and everyone would be happy. If the restaurant didn't let the customer in, that would have also avoided the problem.

But never fear, for those customers who don't require their own bottle, they can pay less and pass sauce between other peoples tables, sharing it, if you will (beware, some people might even steal it!).

bdspice

@online7237 i think you should trust @dataforest . he is admitting his fault and agreed to refund you less 300euro once you close the paypal case. so give him a chance. because he is promising you infront of the whole let community. i dont think he will disappear once you close the paypal case because of his reputation and business here.
one must trust to solve this refund problem.

online7237

@dataforest said:

@online7237 said:
I never paid with stripe or even attempted to. Stop lying. Someone having the same first name means nothing. The Paypal account is verified so there is no issue. There is no chance I will close the case and hope that you refund. And stop talking about my Paypal. The issue here is your false advertising and fraud.

I told you to call Paypal but you seem to ignore that. You keep saying I'm taking no risk but I am. If I close the case, I can't open it again. I'm the one taking all of the risk. You were already exposed as lying about your products. And I already offered you 300 euros when you should be getting nothing, yet you have the nerve to say you don't trust me. You should be getting ZERO.

I never said that either? But we are still cautious or is that now forbidden in your eyes? You feel like everyone is attacking you straight away.

It's a shame, as I said, you wouldn't have had any risk. As I also said, we will refund the orders that were not delivered or only partially delivered. Everything has been said, but all the best for the future, in the hope that yours (whatever you do) will work with other providers.

I have only received one refund from you and that was days ago. I have no issue with you being cautious but that stripe situation has nothing to do with me.

All of the risk is on me. I cannot REOPEN a paypal dispute. Once I close it, I'm telling paypal the issue is resolved.

I already told you to call paypal but you ignore that. You don't want to resolve this. Maybe you think you will win the paypal case and hope you can steal my money.

dataforest

@bdspice said:
@online7237 i think you should trust @dataforest . he is admitting his fault and agreed to refund you less 300euro once you close the paypal case. so give him a chance. because he is promising you infront of the whole let community. i dont think he will disappear once you close the paypal case because of his reputation and business here.
one must trust to solve this refund problem.

It would be done within 5 minutes, but that doesn't help because he prefers to continue arguing and accusing us of something. He will fall flat on his face with other providers as well.

online7237

@bdspice said:
@online7237 i think you should trust @dataforest . he is admitting his fault and agreed to refund you less 300euro once you close the paypal case. so give him a chance. because he is promising you infront of the whole let community. i dont think he will disappear once you close the paypal case because of his reputation and business here.
one must trust to solve this refund problem.

I am willing to give 300 euros to a trusted admin or owner of this site to hold as an escrow. They can then give the money to dataforest after refund the paypal transactions. There is no chance I trust this company with thousands of euros.

online7237

@dataforest said:

@bdspice said:
@online7237 i think you should trust @dataforest . he is admitting his fault and agreed to refund you less 300euro once you close the paypal case. so give him a chance. because he is promising you infront of the whole let community. i dont think he will disappear once you close the paypal case because of his reputation and business here.
one must trust to solve this refund problem.

It would be done within 5 minutes, but that doesn't help because he prefers to continue arguing and accusing us of something. He will fall flat on his face with other providers as well.

I have nothing to hide and I'm not a thief. I have no problem using an escrow. I will give 300 euros to someone to hold and give it to you after you refund the paypal transactions.

bdspice

@online7237 said:

@bdspice said:
@online7237 i think you should trust @dataforest . he is admitting his fault and agreed to refund you less 300euro once you close the paypal case. so give him a chance. because he is promising you infront of the whole let community. i dont think he will disappear once you close the paypal case because of his reputation and business here.
one must trust to solve this refund problem.

I am willing to give 300 euros to a trusted admin or owner of this site to hold as an escrow. They can then give the money to dataforest after refund the paypal transactions. There is no chance I trust this company with thousands of euros.

you can send that amount of dollar to my paypal and then i will confirm dataforest to refund you. once refund done, i will give that dollar to dataforest. i hope this will solve your problems of you two. you two can trust me since i dont want to lose my id or reputation here for such money.

alfatarsos

I propose a game: we all drink a shot every time @online7237 uses one of the following words:

• fraud
• fraudster
• hetzner
• netcup
• dedicated
• refund.

bgerard

@alfatarsos said:
I propose a game: we all drink a shot every time @online7237 uses one of the following words:

• fraud
• fraudster
• hetzner
• dedicated
• refund.

You missed netcup

Calin

@alfatarsos said: I propose a game: we all drink a shot every time @online7237 uses one of the following words:

>

Ready!

@host_c want join with palinca?

alfatarsos

@bgerard said:

@alfatarsos said:
I propose a game: we all drink a shot every time @online7237 uses one of the following words:

• fraud
• fraudster
• hetzner
• dedicated
• refund.

You missed netcup

fixed! (@Calin love it! )

/serious mode on (with spoiler to help reading):

If I had to give an opinion (although I'm quite late to the "party"), I do agree with several users over here:

• for me, and that's the only area I agree with OP, a dedicated core is a dedicated core. The arguments that were given on the first three pages by Avoro are not satisfactory to me also, a dedicated core for me allows 100% usage 100% of the time, CPU steal cannot exist, in my opinion. If the provider obtains this with a different/reduced CPU speed or etc, as long as that's announced, fine by me...

• From the provider, there was the obvious question of taking more orders than they could immediately chew; they should've all went to pending (and refunded if necessary) and the customer asked via ticket or e-mail why they were ordering the insane amounts. The sheer risk of taking 400 orders and something bad happenning network-wise... but yeah, that was probably auto provisioning at work. Honest mistake.

• Analyzing a VPS based on the fact that the sheer steal was at 95% after a usage peak upon the overload (given provider's policy)... not nice (and quite obvious given the base idea). Wanting the full refunds? Reasonable, I think, but opening a PayPal case before speaking to the provider is actually the guarantee of delaying those refunds by several, several days, which is counterproductive. Making a fuss out of all this at this scale? Eh... doesn't leave me a good impression, especially being so immediately after and not giving opportunity for the provider to correct their hand. And they have been looking better after this issue.

All in all, I think none of them looked good, but you know, shit happens. As long as everything gets sorted out in the end, that's nice. That's what matters now.

/serious mode off

tl;dr - both parties were wrong in different dimensions, I agree that a dedicated core is a dedicated core, but the attitude of OP didn't help all of this sheer mess, and provider is making an effort, that's clear.

jh_aurologic

@dataforest said:
It would be done within 5 minutes, but that doesn't help because he prefers to continue arguing and accusing us of something. He will fall flat on his face with other providers as well.

Can only recommend to ignore that customer and spend time better, he seems to be the absolute nightmare of every provider

online7237

@alfatarsos said:

@bgerard said:

@alfatarsos said:
I propose a game: we all drink a shot every time @online7237 uses one of the following words:

• fraud
• fraudster
• hetzner
• dedicated
• refund.

You missed netcup

fixed! (@Calin love it! )

/serious mode on (with spoiler to help reading):

If I had to give an opinion (although I'm quite late to the "party"), I do agree with several users over here:

• for me, and that's the only area I agree with OP, a dedicated core is a dedicated core. The arguments that were given on the first three pages by Avoro are not satisfactory to me also, a dedicated core for me allows 100% usage 100% of the time, CPU steal cannot exist. If the provider obtains this with a different/reduced CPU speed or etc, as long as that's announced, fine by me...

• From the provider, there was the obvious question of taking more orders than they could immediately chew; they should've all went to pending (and refunded if necessary) and the customer asked via ticket or e-mail why they were ordering the insane amounts. The sheer risk of taking 400 orders and something bad happenning network-wise... but yeah, that was probably auto provisioning at work. Honest mistake.

• Analyzing a VPS based on the fact that the sheer steal was at 95% after a usage peak upon the overload (given provider's policy)... not nice (and quite obvious given the base idea). Wanting the full refunds? Reasonable, I think, but opening a PayPal case _before _ speaking to the provider is actually the guarantee of delaying those refunds by several, several days, which is counterproductive. Making a fuss out of all this at this scale? Eh... doesn't leave me a good impression, especially being so immediately after and not giving opportunity for the provider to correct their hand. And they have been looking better after this issue.

All in all, I think none of them looked good, but you know, shit happens. As long as everything gets sorted out in the end, that's nice. That's what matters now.

/serious mode off

tl;dr - both parties were wrong in different dimensions, I agree that a dedicated core is a dedicated core, but the attitude of OP didn't help all of this sheer mess, and provider is making an effort, that's clear.

All I'm looking for is a refund at this point. You would also be upset if you got conned for thousands of euros. What really annoyed me was the guy in the support ticket saying they're non refundable even after admitting they lied about dedicated resources. At that point I'm thinking these guys are just scamming customers and I need to open a case as soon as possible.

bgerard

@online7237 said:

@alfatarsos said:

@bgerard said:

@alfatarsos said:
I propose a game: we all drink a shot every time @online7237 uses one of the following words:

• fraud
• fraudster
• hetzner
• dedicated
• refund.

You missed netcup

fixed! (@Calin love it! )

/serious mode on (with spoiler to help reading):

If I had to give an opinion (although I'm quite late to the "party"), I do agree with several users over here:

• for me, and that's the only area I agree with OP, a dedicated core is a dedicated core. The arguments that were given on the first three pages by Avoro are not satisfactory to me also, a dedicated core for me allows 100% usage 100% of the time, CPU steal cannot exist. If the provider obtains this with a different/reduced CPU speed or etc, as long as that's announced, fine by me...

• From the provider, there was the obvious question of taking more orders than they could immediately chew; they should've all went to pending (and refunded if necessary) and the customer asked via ticket or e-mail why they were ordering the insane amounts. The sheer risk of taking 400 orders and something bad happenning network-wise... but yeah, that was probably auto provisioning at work. Honest mistake.

• Analyzing a VPS based on the fact that the sheer steal was at 95% after a usage peak upon the overload (given provider's policy)... not nice (and quite obvious given the base idea). Wanting the full refunds? Reasonable, I think, but opening a PayPal case _before _ speaking to the provider is actually the guarantee of delaying those refunds by several, several days, which is counterproductive. Making a fuss out of all this at this scale? Eh... doesn't leave me a good impression, especially being so immediately after and not giving opportunity for the provider to correct their hand. And they have been looking better after this issue.

All in all, I think none of them looked good, but you know, shit happens. As long as everything gets sorted out in the end, that's nice. That's what matters now.

/serious mode off

tl;dr - both parties were wrong in different dimensions, I agree that a dedicated core is a dedicated core, but the attitude of OP didn't help all of this sheer mess, and provider is making an effort, that's clear.

All I'm looking for is a refund at this point. You would also be upset if you got conned for thousands of euros. What really annoyed me was the guy in the support ticket saying they're non refundable even after admitting they lied about dedicated resources. At that point I'm thinking these guys are just scamming customers and I need to open a case as soon as possible.

Boring

online7237

@jh_aurologic said:

@dataforest said:
It would be done within 5 minutes, but that doesn't help because he prefers to continue arguing and accusing us of something. He will fall flat on his face with other providers as well.

Can only recommend to ignore that customer and spend time better, he seems to be the absolute nightmare of every provider

Another dataforest buddy. I've never had any problem with any provider and I use several different providers and pay them thousands of dollars a month. I even offered to give someone 300 euros to hold as an escrow but he's quiet now but still likes peoples posts.

dataforest

@online7237 said:

@jh_aurologic said:

@dataforest said:
It would be done within 5 minutes, but that doesn't help because he prefers to continue arguing and accusing us of something. He will fall flat on his face with other providers as well.

Can only recommend to ignore that customer and spend time better, he seems to be the absolute nightmare of every provider

Another dataforest buddy. I've never had any problem with any provider and I use several different providers and pay them thousands of dollars a month. I even offered to give someone 300 euros to hold as an escrow but he's quiet now but still likes peoples posts.

Read my comments, I said it all - we are going in circles.

darkimmortal

Dedicated cores are an economic gamble like unmetered bandwidth etc. Abusers should be refunded and banned to keep it viable for everyone else. Keyword: refunded

SirFoxy

problem: having to sell a product you can't deliver on with your pricing.

solution: stop selling commodities with no added value and find a true product/market fit with an actual differentiation other than competing solely on price.

jh_aurologic

@online7237 said:
Another dataforest buddy. I've never had any problem with any provider and I use several different providers and pay them thousands of dollars a month. I even offered to give someone 300 euros to hold as an escrow but he's quiet now but still likes peoples posts.

Yeah of course, no - I'm too long in the industry to know that sort of customer like you, one of the reasons we bumped our prices to get off the continous trouble-some clients

remy

Although this thread may have highlighted that the German business model of « dedicated » cpu cores no longer works when it comes to really exploiting them on a large scale...

I doubt very much that Dataforest would take the slightest risk of not honoring the agreement that has been publicly made. Their reputation is at stake. The amount in dispute seems pretty negligible in comparison. (Considering their history)

It's not my money, but let me say that I think the risk is low to non-existent.

My 2 cents

dataforest

@darkimmortal said:
Dedicated cores are an economic gamble like unmetered bandwidth etc. Abusers should be refunded and banned to keep it viable for everyone else. Keyword: refunded

@SirFoxy said:
problem: having to sell a product you can't deliver on with your pricing.

solution: stop selling commodities with no added value and find a true product/market fit with an actual differentiation other than competing solely on price.

Start read the Thread again.

online7237

@remy said:
Although this thread may have highlighted that the German business model of « dedicated » cpu cores no longer works when it comes to really exploiting them on a large scale...

I doubt very much that Dataforest would take the slightest risk of not honoring the agreement that has been publicly made. Their reputation is at stake. The amount in dispute seems pretty negligible in comparison. (Considering their history)

It's not my money, but let me say that I think the risk is low to non-existent.

My 2 cents

They should be getting zero in the first place. The money they're holding is probably several months worth of revenue for them. Look at their terms and conditions. It looks like they used some terms and conditions generator website. These guys aren't doing massive numbers. If they were, they would have refunded me fully and not argue with me and several others for days. And they already didn't honor the agreement that is publicly on their website.

CyberneticTitan

Now someone needs to start a "I can't believe it's not dedicated" list similar to the IPv6 shame list.

Neoon

@CyberneticTitan said:
Now someone needs to start a "I can't believe it's not dedicated" list similar to the IPv6 shame list.

Hard to nearly impossible to validate that.
If you just order one, might be fine, or worse because of the prior mentioned EPYC issues or just that the host node is loaded.

Same goes with other components like the network and disk I/O, memory bandwidth...
At this point just get a Dedi.