Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!


Normal to charge for bandwidth between two boxes? (not public egress)
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.

Normal to charge for bandwidth between two boxes? (not public egress)

Hello, we just ordered some dedicated servers from Clouvider - only to find out that they charge for bandwidth between servers in the same rack!. Not public egress data, but literally data from one machine to another.

This is making us look for a new provider. They told us this is 'industry standard' with bandwidth being measure at the switch. I have never heard of this. Is this common??

«13

Comments

  • HostSlickHostSlick Member, Patron Provider

    Yes its industry Standard

    Thanked by 2Clouvider WebProject
  • DataWagonDataWagon Member, Patron Provider

    Most providers monitor at the switch level, so by default, even internal traffic will be accounted for. When we have clients doing a large amount of internal traffic hitting bandwidth limits, we'll normally just manually remove overage fees or pad their bandwidth allowance for free. If the traffic isn't going over the internet, the provider typically isn't paying anything for it.

  • Thanks, this is interesting as i had never heard of this before

  • SGrafSGraf Member, Patron Provider
    edited June 14

    I agree with @DataWagon I think most smaller providers monitor at a switch level.

    Speaking for my own services: I just offer clients with multiple servers at the same location a second network drop+vlan beteen their servers. Its a very nice and clean solution that adds value for the clients.

  • LeviLevi Member

    No, it is not normal. Internal bw is basically free. So to charge for it is scummy at best. Avoid such providers like plague.

    Thanked by 1lzy666
  • I'll tag @Clouvider

    Thanked by 1Clouvider
  • ClouviderClouvider Member, Patron Provider

    Dedicated server - in standard network configuration would have bandwidth measured at ingress and egress to the switch port.

    This is perfectly normal and an industry standard.
    There’s no differentiating between local and non-local traffic in this kind of configuration.

    To be clear, this is completely different to a situation where the Customer has a private network setup between their services - be it a VLAN or a dedicated cable. This is not what the Customer ordered in this case. We advised the Customer what options might be possible, but they apparently chose not to take up any of them.

    Thanked by 1lnx
  • ClouviderClouvider Member, Patron Provider

    @SGraf said:
    I agree with @DataWagon I think most smaller providers monitor at a switch level.

    Speaking for my own services: I just offer clients with multiple servers at the same location a second network drop+vlan beteen their servers. Its a very nice and clean solution that adds value for the clients.

    Most providers, regardless of the size, measure bare metal at a switch level.

    We also offer private network options, Customer did not choose to explore any of them.

  • yoursunnyyoursunny Member, IPv6 Advocate

    Internal bw is basically free. So to charge for it is scummy at best.

    I have two servers with @heartbeat_IT formerly ServerFactory at the same location.
    Internal traffic is counted against the quota i.e. charged.
    The quota is large enough so I don't worry much.

    Thanked by 1Clouvider
  • casey7398casey7398 Member
    edited June 14

    For anyone interested, Clouvider just restricted our account. I assume because of this post. Wow. We spend 30k / mo on AWS. Any other providers in Ashburn interested?

  • LeviLevi Member
    edited June 14

    @casey7398 said:
    For anyone interested, Clouvider just restricted our account. I assume because of this post. Wow. We spend 30k / mo on AWS. Any other providers in Ashburn interested?

    Yet one more sign to run away. Don’t keep grudge, just move along. You vote with your wallet and this is the best you can do. Here clouvider is liked, so you will not find any simpathy.

    Thanked by 2BlaZe yoyek
  • ClouviderClouvider Member, Patron Provider
    edited June 14

    The above statement is absolutely not true; we did NOT close the Customer account. We have however informed the Customer that we won't be in position to offer them any future services. This is in keeping with the Customer intentions anyway, stated, among others in this thread.

    // OP edited his post above after we posted this reply to clarify we restricted, not closed their account.

  • @Clouvider said:
    The above statement is absolutely not true; we did NOT close the Customer account. We have however informed the Customer that we won't be in position to offer them any future services. This is in keeping with the Customer intentions anyway, stated, among others in this thread.

    Restricting the account is akin to closing it when your sales person was more than happy to take our purchase saying they could 'support all of our future growth'.

    Thanked by 4BlaZe yoyek Abd emgh
  • BlaZeBlaZe Member, Host Rep

    @casey7398 said:
    Restricting the account is akin to closing it when your sales person was more than happy to take our purchase saying they could 'support all of our future growth'.

    There are many more providers for Ashburn. You should back up your data and find a new one at this point - as I feel the host does not want you to order any new services from them.

    End it while it's all merry. Turning this into a shitty mess is not advisable.

    Tagging @qps as they have Ashburn dedicated servers: https://quickpacket.com/billing/store/dedicated-servers-ashburn

  • ouch, didn't realize clouvider was so unprofessional. will be sure to tell people to stay away.

  • @Clouvider said: // OP edited his post above after we posted this reply to clarify we restricted, not closed their account.

    ok but why for the restriction? I mean is it because they were talking trash, maybe if unfounded? Sounds a little extreme.

  • SGrafSGraf Member, Patron Provider

    @fluffernutter said:
    ouch, didn't realize clouvider was so unprofessional. will be sure to tell people to stay away.

    Personally i think we are not seeing the full story yet.

  • Guys we can drop it. I am not sure what happened to be honest, but something spooked them about our needs I guess. We are a SaaS provider for trading software; with big inter facility bandwidth needs (moving exchange data between our services) and need 10gbps ports with low latency between all of our microservices.

    It's all good - there are other providers out there. I am glad this happened now though and not 10 months from now when 100,000 traders were on the machines! ha

    Thanked by 1yoyek
  • ClouviderClouvider Member, Patron Provider
    edited June 14

    Clouvider is a broad church. We take Customers from an average Joe the hobbyist to large international corporations traded on a stock exchange. We are very happy to assist our Customers growth - our Customer growing = we are growing.

    With that said, when the Customers’ requests are unreasonable from the beginning, our suggestions or efforts to explain in detail are ignored and a negative but polite response to an unreasonable request lands us bad publicity (with naming and shaming from the get go!) - I think most would agree that it’s most likely not a good time investment for either party - especially that the OP has stated on multiple occasions that they are not interested in doing business with us. This fits a certain profile of a Customer that Clouvider is not looking to attract.

    Neither party is forced to do the business with the other. The OP made it crystal clear they don’t want to do business with us. Equally, we made a business decision not to do further business with the OP.

    No existing services were affected. OP demanded a refund for the order of a custom build server they placed today, and we generously refunded it despite it was in advanced stages of provisioning.

    We hope the OP will be able to find a vendor that will be in position to meet their demands.

  • @Clouvider said:
    Clouvider is a broad church. We take Customers from an average Joe the hobbyist to large international corporations traded on a stock exchange. We are very happy to assist our Customers growth - our Customer growing = we are growing.

    With that said, when the Customers’ requests are unreasonable from the beginning, our suggestions or explainstion ignored and a negative but polite response to an unreasonable request lands us bad publicity - I think most would agree that it’s most likely not a good time investment for either party - especially that the OP has stated on multiple occasions that they are not interested in doing business with us. This fits a certain profile of a Customer that Clouvider is not looking to attract.

    Neither party is forced to do the business with the other. The OP made it crystal clear they don’t want to do business with us. Equally, we made a business decisssion not to do business with the OP.

    No existing services were affected. OP demanded a refund for the order of a custom build server they placed today, and we generously refunded it despite it was in advanced stages of provisioning.

    We hope the OP will be able to find a vendor that will be in position to meet their demands.

    Honestly I am not sure how anything in my post was out of line and I think you took much to offense to my posting. I simply asked a question to see if this was standard practice in the industry? The more you go down the rabbit hole, the worse this is making you look...

  • AdvinAdvin Member, Patron Provider
    edited June 14

    We generally take the same approach as @DataWagon, internal traffic is counted by default but if the client lets us know in advance then we can make adjustments to their limits (or remove internal traffic) to make sure that they won't ever get limited. We do this on our virtual servers as well.

    For dedicated servers, there's a number of solutions that we can offer such as private switches or (again) just removing the limit and monitoring to ensure that most of the traffic is internal. It's pretty standard for most low-end providers to not account for internal traffic by default.

    It's mostly just the bigger providers or cloud providers who have setups that can account for internal traffic. Even Vultr would manually waive invoices for me every month every time I went over my allowance due to Cloudflare traffic.

  • @casey7398 said:

    Honestly I am not sure how anything in my post was out of line and I think you took much to offense to my posting. I simply asked a question to see if this was standard practice in the industry? The more you go down the rabbit hole, the worse this is making you look...

    they used to be really touchy back when they posted here more, behaving like this is pretty on brand for them. I just thought they improved in the past years, but I guess not. like you said, good thing you found this out before moving everything over.

    another +1 for @qps

  • MannDudeMannDude Host Rep, Veteran
    edited June 14

    @casey7398 said:
    Any other providers in Ashburn interested?

    @qps for sure.

  • BopieBopie Member

    I think few things have been specifically missed from this post so let me summarize in a simple way:

    Customer ordered servers with no dedicated VLAN for traffic within there services
    Cloudvider as all DC's I have ever used also do counts at the switch for ingress/egress
    Customer was shocked by this thinking there would be no charge for internal (Side note here while bandwidth the the internet is at a cost no one has factored in the cost of the network between servers in a rack etc)
    Cloudvider replied offering the extra services they would need for internal/private vlan

    As always unhappy customer who then of course had to explain they spend 30K at AWS (if you think private vlan traffic is expensive how are you coping with AWS) but I digress here, basically looks like you were told about the private vlan which for most DC's is offered at an extra cost as the network is NOT free regardless of how much cheaper internal traffic is however ignored this

    TLDR find a host you are happy with and make sure to ask if internal traffic will be counted and/or how much for a private vlan

    Thanked by 1Clouvider
  • ClouviderClouvider Member, Patron Provider

    @Advin said:
    We generally take the same approach as @DataWagon, internal traffic is counted by default but if the client lets us know in advance then we can make adjustments to their limits (or remove internal traffic) to make sure that they won't ever get limited. We do this on our virtual servers as well.

    For dedicated servers, there's a number of solutions that we can offer such as private switches or (again) just removing the limit and monitoring to ensure that most of the traffic is internal. It's pretty standard for most low-end providers to not account for internal traffic by default.

    It's mostly just the bigger providers or cloud providers who have setups that can account for internal traffic. Even Vultr would manually waive invoices for me every month every time I went over my allowance due to Cloudflare traffic.

    You must agree however that the counting is done on the interface level by default. This is a standard situation where no other agreement is in place. You do not measure dedicated server traffic by flows to assess how much traffic actually went to the Internet and what traffic has stayed local.

    Solutions can of course be offered. The OP however is not interested in them. We offered an option of a private VLAN to the OP. The OP stated he disagrees and posted this thread instead.

    What Clouvider normally does for a Customer that requires internal bandwidth, when agreed in advance, is to setup a public and a private VLAN and count only the traffic passing the public VLAN. That is not what was requested by the OP in this case though.

  • casey7398casey7398 Member
    edited June 14

    I literally asked if there was an interconnect available for the two machines and you said "No, not available." Do you want me to post the entire support thread here? You are being dishonest.

  • ClouviderClouvider Member, Patron Provider
    edited June 14

    @casey7398 said:
    I literally asked if there was an interconnect available for the two machines and you said "No, not available." Do you want me to post the entire support thread here? You are being dishonest.

    And we responded:

    You will find that vast majority of providers counts the traffic at the switch port level - normally through the use of SNMP counters - therefore all traffic, whether going towards the gateway or not is going to be counted.

    It is possible to build an internal network for yourself between your servers, that would not be counted in but that's a question to sales and subject to compatibility of the hardware.

    Thanked by 1easy
  • JabJabJabJab Member

    Post the ticket, let us judge!
    We neeeeeeeeeed drama, it's Friday, EURO starts in 1.5h!

  • jobayerjobayer Member

    @JabJab said:
    Post the ticket, let us judge!
    We neeeeeeeeeed drama, it's Friday, EURO starts in 1.5h!

  • Industry standard is charging for a private VLAN between a customers servers for internal traffic on request. I’ve only ever seen free internal traffic by default on Hetzner, they are an exception to the norm in many ways.

    It’s also industry standard to part ways with a customer on request for a refund (if granted) especially new customers that don’t have an established commercial relationship as its taken as an indication the customer’s needs are incompatible with the providers offerings or policy.

    That said, it’s Friday, so bring on the drama! We need content for the weekend since theres no F1.

    Thanked by 1Clouvider
Sign In or Register to comment.