100TB GVH? You mean 1.66TB

sleddog

jarland said: I'm not exactly calling the shots anymore on these things but under me it would be. You know you didn't pay for a dedicated port and you're told it's there for you any time you need it, so use it anytime you need it. You can't justify "I wanted to see how long you would let me use it" as a good reason for being greedy. Probably wouldn't be something I'd catch in that case but if I did I'd be pissed.

Intent means everything, some things have a clear intent.

What if instead I said, "I'm collecting data as part of a study", would that justify it?

Don't misunderstand, I'm not supporting shovenose's action. But it does raise some interesting questions.... about what constitutes valid use, and how a provider determines that validity.

jar

@sleddog said:
What if instead I said, "I'm collecting data as part of a study", would that justify it?

>

Don't misunderstand, I'm not supporting shovenose's action. But it does raise some interesting questions.... about what constitutes valid use, and how a provider determines that validity.

True true it does that. If someone said that to me as justification I'd celebrate it. Pretty much anything that's done for a reason other than to punish the provider for offering things that the user didn't think they could follow through on really. Because that's kind of how I see it. Just like making a block to fill up all your storage just to say "I don't like you selling this so I'm going to try to hurt you to prove you can't." Pretty much anything else, that's legal, I've always celebrated and done my best to provide for.

howardsl2

From what I understand, a DDoS attack involves hundreds or thousands of IPs, definitely not only one IP. I fully agree that the OP did a very bad thing downloading the test file every minute with unknown intent and wasting bandwidth for nothing. However, it should NOT be considered a DDoS.

The owner of the server hosting the speed test file can just block that single IP by dropping all traffic from it, and then all problems are solved and NO more traffic. If the owner sees that the traffic comes from ONE IP only, why in the world would he/she report that as a DDoS attack?

sleddog

hwdsl2 said: DDoS

That would be a Dastardly Deed of Shovenose.

This was simply a DoS -- merely a Dumbness of Shovenose

black

@sleddog said:
But it does raise some interesting questions.... about what constitutes valid use, and how a provider determines that validity.

If you look at OP's post, he's clearly bought the VPS to show people GVH cannot deliver on 100TB of bandwidth. See statements like "All I did was wget cron a speed test file every minute. No resource usage except for bandwidth." "I'll be contacting PayPal shortly for a dispute. Even if I don't get my $5 back (I don't care) the more complaints against PayPal they have the better."

If you wanted to do research like wgetting a 2 GB file every minute, I would open a ticket with them and make sure they're ok with it.

sleddog

black said: If you look at OP's post, he's clearly bought the VPS to show people GVH cannot deliver on 100TB of bandwidth.

But that statement is posted here only after the fact. It wasn't there for GVH to read and take into consideration when they decided to suspend the VPS.

jcaleb

Paypal should ban OP

DealFinder

This is exactly why there is extreme packet loss on GVH's VPS.

SkylarM

@DealFinder said:
This is exactly why there is extreme packet loss on GVH's VPS.

Nah it's been like that for the last week or so.

black

sleddog said: But that statement is posted here only after the fact. It wasn't there for GVH to read and take into consideration when they decided to suspend the VPS.

GVH's response was CC's response, forwarded to OP. CC told GVH it was a DoS attack, GVH suspended the account. I imagine that's what any VPS host would've done.


If someone wants to do research like this, open a support ticket so someone can confirm this is ok, before you do it.

DealFinder

Glad to see that I'm not alone... I opened a ticket and they kept passing me around so I opened a ticket to quality assurance and got this response:

As with the majority of our other hosting providers, our uptime guarantee is made without DDoS attacks kept in mind. We have a lot of new technical staff and they were unsure of whether or not to inform clients that there were DDoS issues on the node

gkz

What is the relation between HVH, GVH anc CC?

GVH coloed at HVH, and HVH having a server inside CC DC?

sleddog

black said: GVH's response was CC's response, forwarded to OP. CC told GVH it was a DoS attack, GVH suspended the account. I imagine that's what any VPS host would've done.

Yes, I read the whole thread

All I'm saying is that OP's intent was only made clear after the fact. It isn't right to use that now as justification for the actions taken by CC and GVH.

But I don't want to belabor the point.

jnguyen

@gkz said:
What is the relation between HVH, GVH anc CC?

GVH coloed at HVH, and HVH having a server inside CC DC?

This has been discussed too much in depth and should be dropped from conversation in this thread immediately.

upfreak

GreenValueHost said: All of this has been planned and coordinated for months. We knew what we were going to get out of it. The jackpot is the publicity and the skyrocketing of orders that result from all of this.

Now this is a good joke. Make more like em....

texteditor

@GreenValueHost said:
We don't have it.

Biggest surprise of the thread (well not really...)

darkshire

@texteditor said:
Biggest surprise of the thread (well not really...)

i just want some proof.

fapvps

Can't.....Can't we all just....Get along?

Mun

@GreenValueHost server went Pooof Any ETA?

jnguyen

@Mun said:
GreenValueHost server went Pooof Any ETA?

Ticket in please

EricLimaB

Facepalm.png

darkshire

i wonder if we will get proof of the complaint ?

jar

@darkshire said:
i wonder if we will get proof of the complaint ?

No.

Mun

@greenvaluehost

Already ticket in the system #707505

darkshire

@jarland said:
No.

basically GVH could have terminated OP's vps because they felt it was 'abusive'...
a feeling not shared by an upstream provider ...

im trying to decide who really pulled the plug here... if it originated with GVH, there are going to be some problems for them.

if it did infact occur upstream, (which is why id like to see proof of a complaint ive heard rumours of) then OP should be punished somehow.

until then, OP is innocent in my mind, as this was not a DoS, and its being thrown around too much.

jbibloh; jump in here bro.

shovenose

Oh, minor detail - I did actually ask them if this was alright when I first got the server. I don't remember word for word what I asked, and I can't log in to see it now, but here's proof they said it was OK:

http://i.imgur.com/dD3ZGzj.png

And yes, I'd love to see some proof that this wasn't all just an act to get me off their servers for using the resources I paid for.

0xdragon

@shovenose said:
Oh, minor detail - I did actually ask them if this was alright when I first got the server. I don't remember word for word what I asked, and I can't log in to see it now, but here's proof they said it was OK:

http://i.imgur.com/dD3ZGzj.png

And yes, I'd love to see some proof that this wasn't all just an act to get me off their servers for using the resources I paid for.

DUN DUN DUUUUNNNNN!!!!

AND THE TIDE TURNS!

matthewvz

@0xdragon said:
AND THE TIDE TURNS!

skybucks100

@shovenose said:

Did you say you were going to be running the cron job every minute? That's an important factor as some hosts only allow a cron job every 15min, hour, daily, etc.

shovenose

I think I said "every two minutes" or something like that... because I assumed the 2GB file would take more than a minute to download.
Since it ended up taking less than a minute to download I changed it to every minute. Still, they confirmed that it was OK, and the difference between every minute and every other minute is minute in this situation (no pun intended)...