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.
BuyVM - Allegation of Trouble, Lies, Slabs, Hosts Servers in Basement
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Have you ever been to a DC? I mean, I can just look into any rack I want (as long as it's in the same suite by access card is valid for). Nothing wrong with that. Sharing that information may not be the best idea. Snapping pictures is whole different thing...
I remember I read something a while back about memory deduplication or something? I'm not a virtualization expert by any means, but I remember it works like this: all identical processes use the same memory locations as they're identical and they're pulled apart once they change. This way you can overcommit a lot more than you can do on bare hardware. I'm probably explaining it all wrong.
Anyway, read this: http://blog.allanglesit.com/2011/03/linux-kvm-taking-advantage-of-memory-deduplication/
I think some of his pre-crash stuff was lost.
That's basically a good explanation of what memory deduplication does, yes.
This is something i can get behind something i have noticed is the performance of a 3.0 kernel is a lot better on bare metal then 2.6 kernels. this really shows with dual socket servers and other interesting hardware. if the base os is 3.0 and then uses 2.6 kernels to power the openvz then ur going to get WAY MORE performance then if everyone is on the 2.6 kernel its just not as good as all the work that has come since 3.0 when its touching bare metal.
I have seen the kernal do things like this before when there are a lot of processes making a lot of system calls its better when few process send a bulk amount of system calls and then the kernel has to do less interupts to get that infomration back to the sub kernel or the hypervisor in ur case
That place was a mall? Looked pretty dead to me.
Actually, I think it has more to do with it being a relatively recent version of Xen. Xen previous to 4.1 is SHIT. I just can't wait to be able to play with PVh that just came out with 4.4 on my personal systems. That shit should be masturbationary.
I think providers here should also consider to begin selling popcorn as a side business :P.
Defamation lawyers would probably find this place a good market, too.
Lol I like the new thread title. Could have had something serious but instead opted for off the wall crazy sounding. Good opportunity wasted. Should've stuck with something that sounded intellectual instead of looking like the front page of one of those insane tabloids at the walmart checkout line.
@Francisco Okay, so, for the sake of transparency, two questions just to get a clear idea on the current situation...
EDIT: FWIW, if I recall correctly, the claim from Frantech people has always been "we oversell, but we don't overload". I don't recall them ever claiming not to oversell at all.
Also, it's annoying how there's no "unthank" button - accidentally thanked a post earlier in the thread...
For gosh sake, when accusing someone show some proof. I see that there is proof about a few points that are lawful but Fran should be ashamed.
But there were allegations of illegal activity without any proof, and since everyone here is asking for transparency, I really would like to see what proof that egregious guardian of morality has about those illegal activities.
http://lowendtalk.com/discussion/comment/409532/#Comment_409532
@Francisco: guess I was right after all, eh?
PVH would be the only way I would ever do slabbing if I ran an OpenVZ host. Xen PV's syscall latencies on x86-64 are at least double what they would be on baremetal simply because the hypervisor gets to act as a pseudo-router with all syscalls.
Admittedly it's not as interesting as it is with others that have taken us around this kind of loop repeatedly or have done it without having a history of good deeds and quality service behind it. That much is absolutely true and should definitely be noted. It is still very interesting though.
That's a myth. Yes, there's double the context-switches, but the system call code itself is much larger impact than the effect said added context-switches have.
Too much god damn emotion in this thread. BuyVM, CVPS, CC...who gives a shit. I switched from CVPS because of performance. But they have tons of customers who buy their admittedly great deals and never use them. It's brilliant (I mean that with the utmost sincerity).
Wow. Some people have too much free time to spend hours debating unimportant problems on LE*.
Francisco did what he did. Shit happens, move along.
tl;dr
I thought LET was all about bashing CC? What is this?
I find it amazing how there are certain people that - regardless of what provider a thread is about - consistently walk into "drama" or controversial threads, just to tell everybody else that "this thread is pointless", "it's no big deal" and "who cares", when they could've easily just ignored these type of threads.
I can't help but wonder if there is some form of mitigation of cognitive dissonance going on here.
Where is the part where CC gets bashed?????
It's not a myth. The increased latency is the primary motivation for PVH. Ask Mukesh himself.
So where were the servers in Batavia? The town is like a mile long.
Now, I am sad
Yeah, baby!!!
This.
What is hilarious about this thread is that two hosts (ChicagoVPS and 123systems) who consistently generate negative reviews and have zero respect in the LEB community are so desperate to bag on a host that gets great reviews and has a lot of respect here and elsewhere.
123systems (who I have personally used and was awful even changed its WHT signature to bash BuyVM.
ChicagoVPS would also bash BuyVM on WHT but...they're banned there.
Last time CVPS posted an offer on LEB, the criticism from users was fast and furious. Whenever there's a BuyVM thread, the drama always comes from Chris (either officially or through one of his sock puppet accounts like ja351), desperate to attack BuyVM over ridiculous stuff. Now he's even trying to get @Francisco sued - ridiculous. The amount of desperate envy CVPS/123 has is truly sad.
I've been a BuyVM customer since 2011 (maybe earlier, I'd have to look) and the service has been awesome. In that time, they've rolled new features, been prompt with tickets, and the boxes have performed very nicely. The service has been awesome - on a $15/year box, Francisco gave me detailed advice and did some live troubleshooting with me and that is only a recent example.
People used to wait in line (virtually - at 2am) to get BuyVM VPSes. Chris/Andrew's service never ever attracted that level of love.
At the end of the day, the majority of people like/respect BuyVM and don't like/respect CVPS/123 and that really, really bugs Chris/Andrew. Unfortunately, rather than improve their service, they haunt the forums.
Do you feel uncomfortable that people are telling you in no uncertain terms that what you're posting is going off the deep end? Does a random and sudden redirection of the discussion to an 'observation of behavior' on your opponents alleviate that pain and suffering?
I can't help but wonder if there is some form of mitigation of cognitive dissonance going on here.
hehe
What's the TL'dR? I gave up on page 2.
@AlexanderM buyvm has dirty things on them, and the usual CC -> BuyVM bashing.
Sorry, what?
Holy shit, 6 pages. Anyone have a summary?