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
Seems like it.
Sunrise is SE FL, bout 15 minutes from FLL if anyone has ever been on a cruise from Port Everglades. Sadly there is no FIOS service available at all in SE Florida as that is Comcast/AT&T territory and Verizion has not built anything that far on the East Coast on FL.
I know. I don't bluff. I'm asking you not to beg me to drag your name through the mud. Can't we leave it there?
Not gonna cause drama today. You "win." You don't have to face the drama but you know as well as I do there's plenty to make some. That is all.
Drama is just knowing everyone's lies and having a hard time helping everyone keep them, but I'm sick of it today.
I forgot all about that. lol.
@CVPS_Mark Please don't start whining now. Just don't.
i don't like what @Francisco did, but you will hear this so many times more.
It does not matter if/how a problem with my VPS gets handled. If i experience a bad week of service through, i suppose you won't be able to provide me a stable service in future.
And this is exactly my experience with my VPS i have with you.
The graphs of my 128MB @ CVPS on SolusVM look like a swiss cheese. There is more whitespace where no data are available than anything else.
When I asked your support to get it fixed they offered me to move my container. But I would lose all data and my IP. So no fix for me.
I had another 128MB box @ BuyVM and rarely had issues.
And nowadays I see providers, putting much effort into providing an outstanding service.
RamNode, @Uncle 's iWstack & Prometeus for example.
You CVPS guys always complain about not being thanked enough or what? What is it? You are average guys, at best.
Value your customers more than the money you could make off of it and the people will start liking you more and appreciating your work.
It is not about having "25000" clients. Remember this.
@Francicso, still waiting for your reply sir. I will bump this until there is a reply.
http://communities.verizon.com/fiosavail/
Batavia doesn't get any results. They still could have paid VZ to install it, or perhaps they're using FiOS as a catch all phrase for fiber services.
I think we can be certain there is no reason to pay Verizon to build FIOS into Batavia for a single "office building" when there are viable options for DC operations in Buffalo (which is 30 - 45 minutes away from downtown). You'd have to be nuts to pay what must be an egregious fee for that privilege.
I knew someone would catch us some day.
Can I bump it until you answer my 2 questions?
Are you channeling Chris? He's still alive you know.
You stated you're closing ChicagoVPS - when? Why do you still sell 3-year plans?
I never said ChicagoVPS is closing, just shut up. They are blacked out for a reason that you are not privileged to. If the date was not of importance I would have not blacked it out.
Now since that is cleared up, back on topic. @Francisco, waiting.
Haha, touche
Honestly it's just exhausting to help people keep deceptions up, which is the way I perceive not outing their lies. Just wasn't raised that way. I don't mean to be any more or less than me.
TBH, I like that answer for when you don't want to answer a question. Not that it means anything, just a comment.
If we are not privileged to full details of the screen shot that you claim is proof. I think that screen shot is off the table as any kind of legitimate evidence. Thanks for trying to prove your case, you fail to "close the deal" by hiding relevant information. So again I feel @raindog308 has a legitimate question. Care to clear that up? Oh wait you don't because it makes your case mute.
I, and probably everyone else have actually forgotten what your questions ever were. Probably a moot point anyways as he seems to have wisen up and isn't responding to baited attempts.
Right now, with the lost context your every half dozen posts of #waiting just makes you look like a troll. Not really the image you probably have in your own little mind.
edit: grammar nazi
In regards to the "basement colocation/rack" I think most of you don't fully understand what is/was going on. Many people are claiming that they weren't getting the full data center performance, or were getting basic home internet, with basic basement performance, as @CVPS_Chris wants you to think.
First let me explain why trusting/liking your colocation provider is so important. You don't really know how your servers are being treated, and it isn't like they are just a walk down a hall way to make sure they are being run to your standards. Colocated servers are far away, hard to gain access, and you are fully entrusting there care in the hands of colocation company. In certain cases, less stellar colocation hosting companies have made full racks of servers disappear overnight and in many cases you are out of luck on getting them back. You could also be locked out of your rack for certain reasons because your reseller didn't pay his bills. There is always the possibility someone could break into your rack and damage/steal your hardware if you colocation provider isn't secure. Not to mention, you may not know there is an issue until it is too late due to unforeseen circumstances, i.e. property sale.
So when @Francisco stated that he was already having issues with CC in the begging he had rightful concerns putting all of his eggs in one basket.
So how to get around this? Simple, GRE! What Francisco did was find a place to store the rest of his servers by going over to a family members business address with A/C, generator, etc. He then configured (PFSense by my guess) a freebsd firewall in his second NY location to gre all the internal traffic to his CC NY location's freebsd firewall. Thus bridging the two locations together. So if you had a server in NY 2, your packets to the internet would go from your VPS, and picked up by the freebsd firewall and sent over to the CC NY freebsd router, where it would be routed out to the internet. So to say you were getting "home" internet is a lie. You were still getting full CC data center level traffic. At worst you may see a little bit larger ping to get to the internet, and could be easily tested by pinging your gateway and seeing a value greater then 1.
Having his servers in the second NY location wasn't bad, and really the worst that could have happened is possibility of an outage or AC break down, which is just as likely to happen at a DC.
Really, what @francisco did was quite ingenuous, and should be applauded because he was actually keeping your data safe from a company that he didn't fully trust.
Just as a side note, 125 Mbps bonded connection can handle a TON of traffic, and as long as he didn't saturate it, there was nothing to worry about it.
Using a GRE traffic to tunnel your traffic is actually a common practice, and in many cases that is how most companies get DDOS protection in a non-DDOS protected datacenter.
If anyone has further legitimate questions, feel free to PM me and I'll try to explain.
Excuse my English,
Mun
If we are not privileged to know the full context of your copyright claim image, then you shouldn't post it.
Are you sure you went to college? You seem to be using a lot of logical fallacies in your arguments. At least explain why we are not "privileged" to the information, your highness.
Mun
I'm still waiting for the authors of the TV show Lost to answer my questions about the last few seasons. I'm going to bump this thread until they're answered.
this is interesting.
You sound like a nagging old wife. "Why were you out all night, huh? I'm Waiting!" Do you carry a rolling pin, have your hair up in a bun and wear a night gown as well?
So much time spent waiting for answers to something that doesn't matter and will never affect you. Your time would be better spent preparing for the next data breach or spinning some positive PR instead of making yourself look like an ass all the time. But, sadly, it's something we all expect coming from CVPS.
>
CC Buffalo is SAS70 Type II certified. There's no certification provided for the 'In-laws' on-premise data closet. Redundancy wise, Buffalo is also N+1 active, at least on paper (I haven't verified in person). Data closets tend not to be.
IF none of these mean anything to you, it probably wouldn't have mattered either way to you. Getting your knickers into a bunch would be a waste of energy. But for some, this IS problematic and notification of such necessities in relocation is warranted. File it under future reference at least.
Yes, you are right, n+1 is something that is very nice, but it doesn't guarantee you uptime, as I have had n+1 at He.net, yet had multiple large power outages due to circuits popping.
In many cases, regular power will do just fine in most cases, and will still give you a very large uptime, unless you are in an area of a large number of power outages, which usually isn't the case in the country. Usually, you have N+1 because you are in an area of large number of power outages.
Just because something is certified, doesn't mean it is better then something else that hasn't been certified. A certification just means someone else has confirmed it up to this level of standard. For all you know, @Francisco's basement may be better equipped, and managed then CC Buffalo, and can be certified for a higher standard. Not to mention, SAS70 is really only important if you are a customer of a data center, as it is a verification of the facility being up to par.
Mun
Isn't the SAS70 standard already replaced by the SSAE16 standard by mid June 2011?
AFAIK, AICPA disagrees with the commonly used terms "SAS70 Certified" or "SSAE16 Certified" as the auditee do not receive a certification under those standards, therefore the "SSAE16 Compliant" term is more accurate.
Mun,
I won't bother comparing our datacenter to Fran's at home computer rack. However, your understanding of internet infrastructure is flawed. A customer's experience is most impacted by the pipe closest to them. Meaning that a user at Fran's family members house is not getting the same experience as someone hosted at the ColoCrossing datacenter.
Fran suggested they had 15 physical nodes at the house, that means there are a few thousand customers all getting pushed through between 50 and 100 mbit of internet connectivity. Instead of having 20 times that available to them through Fran's cross connect to the ColoCrossing network.
Well, once you provide me pictures of Fran's at home computer rack we will begin debating on that comparing part, but really it is a mute point, as there is no real evidence either way in regards to it at this point.
Now to your network statement.
Yes you are right, assuming @fran has ~75 ish clients on each node, and all 15 nodes were being used for VPS deployments. However, as most VPS companies know, bandwidth is one of the lowest used resources, unless you are doing a 100TB challenge. With ~125mbit connection you could get around ~40TBs of bandwidth a month through it. Which I know from some other companies that they rarely see even 10TBs across 200 ish VPS's a month. As @Francisco put it, they put some of there lighter bandwidth plans there, so I really doubt network throughput was an issue.
In regards to latency, which is what you are noting, you are right, they are getting a service that is lesser then someone whom is directly in the CC racks. However, for most things 15MS ping added is fine, as I have run a similar setup. The only time it wouldn't be nice is when you need a smaller ping like gaming servers. Otherwise, really 15MS is very minimal.
Though, your argument against the 20times larger bandwidth really is a bad argument, as in most cases those customers would be limited to 100Mbps anyways (I'm assuming). Not to mention, no one needs a full gig at there price level, referring to the VPS users.
What is really ironic coming from you is the fact that you consider ping as an important factor, yet under your management, CC has used multiple lvl3 switches in place of a large industrial router. Thus causing massive network hopping as packets head to your facility. As well as causing additional delays, in comparison to a route that just used one longer single network path. Or the fact that you use an old Cisco switch in your SJ location that is something I see in my local school district, but by all regards that switch is very outdated for a modern colocation company. I guess I should also note the fact that I used to have a CVPS in Chicago, and a constant issue was massive packet loss/delay due to the switches being overwhelmed traffic wise and easily adding +50 ms to a route.
Mun
@Mun true, N+1 doesn't give better uptime and I personally snicker when I see the 100% uptime SLA at CC. There's actually the Uptime Inst Certs that cover such things, but CC doesn't apply for it (I don't think anyone bothers when they know they're Type II and below). Still, it's a probabilistic game. Reasonably planned N+1 will probably buy you about three nines. No redundancy is a Tier 1 which at its very best is rated for 99.67% And just to be clear, N+1 tends to refer to switches, A+B power, ups, network, CRAC, refrigerants. Everything in the line.
Its worth noting though that BuyVM doesn't list the datacenter so they're legally well within their purview to move stuff around.
As for SAS70, it's really just for affirmation that self-proclaimed procedures are followed. Said procedures might be 'we wear shorts every Friday' but at least they're followed god-dammit. @Francisco can proclaim that's he's wearing shorts at the pseudo-DC, but when in actual fact, its just a towel*.
At the non-jesting point, he could also be an ex-military and runs his place like it is fort knox. Until you have proof it is really a mute point because it can be debated both ways. However, do to the simple fact that none of us knew it existed until this week shows that it probably was more secure then CC. That isn't even considering the fact that CVPS was able to snoop in/around frantecs rack even with CC's security.
Mun
Your experience alone proves my point. The issues you saw at CVPS would have most likely been caused by saturation on the server's port. Assuming your experience was from 2 years ago, CVPS was using 100 Mbit network ports (now everything is gigabit). So that's a single VPS node connected to 100 Mbit and you saw problems... and yet Fran had 15 nodes on 50 to 100 mbit total (or maybe even less, seeing as FIOS does not guarantee true capacity availability).
The thing was MTR pointed to the lag not being at the node level, but at the provider level. In this case that was a company called ColoCrossing where the routes showed a large spike in ping, which then continued down to my nodes.
Not to mention, you completely ignored my statement about your switching setup in place of a router.
Mun