All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
Honest Review about MassiveGRID
Hi all LET users.
I would like to write down my honest review of MassiveGRID.
I'm customer with them since August 2024.
Untill November 2024 everything seem very smooth and like a real deal. In November 2024 problems started arising, with continuous packet loss.
Reading online this seemed very common, and staff replies were not very helpful.
They also use very old hardware but hey cannot complain, they are probably one of the cheapest hosting out there.
I still have some services with them (of course not critical), but I would like to show my disappointment of what I'm saying:
This is from my monitoring software, last night it went offline and online (losing many packets) an infinite amount of times.
Today in the afternoon the issue seemed solved, however their servers were not reachable from many networks and ISPs. For reference, I have asked some of my friends with different ISPs than mine, and they could not reach the server. Ping.pe for reference to show many servers cannot route to their network
I do not want to offend or critic anyone, however I'm pretty sure and I exhort MassiveGRID staff to do some internal audits and checks to improve their services.
Don't wanna be too rude, but they are definitely not 100% uptime H/A services.
PS: don't get me wrong, these issues I showed you of the past 24h, it's months they are going on, and honestly I gave up chasing them with tickets
Comments
Its cheap ipv4 with free vps as bonus.
haha nice one
massiveOVERSOLD
The No1 Low Availability Cloud Provider
it's 0.46$~ a month right? I would consider 65% uptime acceptable at that price to be honest
Must be owned by Virmach
M A S S I V E
M A S S I V E G R E E D
their network aint massive enough
Off grid soon.
Maybe they've recently added ipv6 to the network, my server in the UK also has some packet loss from some European isps. For this price, I don't mind the occasional downtime without losing data.
M A S S I V E G R E E D
For a start, WTF do you expect for about 50 cents per month? With most providers you pay more for an IP alone ...
Don't get me wrong, I also consider @MassiveGRID crappy, no doubts - but again there's only so much one can expect for about 50 cents per month.
FWIW I have benchmarked my MG VPSs a lot and haven't seen any improvement. Their UK, LON locations seems to offer reasonable quality (for the very, very low price), their DE, FRA as well as probably most of their other locations are pure crap though. I've seen way better and more reliable VPS from shady south european "providers". Hell, even @c1hosting did better.
What pisses me off though is the hypocritical style of your "review", which isn't a review at all but simply complaining and indirectly bashing MG.
If you feel the need to complain, feel free to do so openly and honestly, but don't call it a review!
And btw, complaining about a 50 cent service not having 100% uptime and not being H/A, simply boils down to being stupid and making it known publicly.
Btw I have a few high availability 100% uptime original Eiffel towers on offer and I guess you might be interested in buying a few ...
I've only had a few hiccups with my NY Massive Grid VPS. Uptime of 99.9% the past 30 days according to my uptime kuma. I definitely haven't had the issues others have seen and I've been pretty happy with it for the price
If someone sold you something very cheap, there's likely a catch
I didn’t have high expectations for it, but so far, it has met my needs. At this price point, I can’t find another option that compares. The experience it provides is satisfying—I just hope it remains stable。
There are some problems, but I am very happy with the deal.
If you could read my entire post you would see it's a review and not a kid complaint only. I've posted proof and reports, and I'm being honest when I talk about it.
For last, I know they are very cheap, and no, it's not the 50 cent service i'm using. Also, we should all agree about the fact they are NOT H/A as they advertise themselves.
I don't care about the price, but at least they should in first sight be honest and say that their network is crap. Probably is not even their fault but it's their upstream provider
I think that's a very weird take. When a provider advertises high availability and enterprise grade performance then the provider itself sets the expectations of the level of service provided.
This is their own statement: "Unmatched High Availability: Downtime? What's that? Our H/A is enabled automatically to keep your services running smoothly 24/7."
Is it really acceptable for you to totally dismiss this just because the service is cheap?
In my opinion no, if your offer can't deliver what's promised then either increase the price so it is sustainable or change the advertisement to match what can be expected.
Everything else is false advertisement and shouldn't be exempt from complaints just because of the price.
I myself experienced what op clearly shared. I'll just use whatever it's capable of, and won't renew come it's end date.
Still, you get what you pay for and shouldn't just plead ignorant consumer when you pay bottom dollar and get bottom quality...I get the idea but be realistic
Of course, a consumer should always use their common sense. My point is merely I don't think we should accept blatantly false advertisement solely because something is cheap.
Related but not to this discussion, is 0.40$ a month for four years sustainable for an ipv4 deal? whatever it might be, owned hardware, IPs, nuclear power plants etc?
post processing fees they would get what, 0.35$/m?
I agree with you, it should not be an accepted reality. Yet somehow, there are plenty of consumers willing to pay for services regardless of low quality services or bad behavior seemily purely based on the low pricing leading to no change on their end which I think is complacent of the consumer
$0.4/mo is the price when paid for 3 years I believe. Processing fees would only happen once.
And they apply as fixed fee + % of the total so while it's true it doesn't change the calculation that much.
Their offer is great on its own merit, as long as they don't deadpool. At the price I believe most clients would find it fully acceptable with hiccups in the service.
The only issue is over-promising of the level of quality provided.
I am not sure if I misunderstand but the result is quite different.
PayPal has a quite high fixed fee, $0.39 I think + some percentage.
If charged monthly the fixed fee would eat almost any revenue while yearly the fixed fee would be insignificant and only the couple of percentage would eat the revenue.
Okay my numbers were wrong, it was 0.49$/m for 4 years (48 months, the last year being "free")
Is that sustainable on a 4 year ipv4 deal?
It wasnt a flash sale either, the doubling spam in their thread confirms it.
Have you ever seen a provider gain customers by promising that their services are straight ass?
So in this case if I like a provider -- what is the best method of paying them in most cases to ensure they lose the least amount of money to their payment processor? For instance I pay contractors for work using checks vs credit cards because they let me know credit card processing kills their profit margins on some jobs that don't have high margins.