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.
Comments
You're completely right. At the moment you can't start a thread nor post in one/read one as in quite a few threads there is a flame war going on on the same topic. Quite disturbing.
Correct in that they are swiftly dealt with, wrong on the method. If you care to actually see what happens, take a look back at threads where people complain about something on our service... our first question is typically "Did you open a ticket? Please do so that we can get this fixed for you".
Sadly yes, I see this way more often than I'd like. Too often someone will experience a problem, and if very few people notice or if the someone is the only one affected, they simply assume it to be normal and don't speak up or let us know about it. I'm sure you remember the bandwidth thread... my first response after hearing about the issues we had was "Why didn't you let us know about this?", and the reply I got was basically "lol I dunno".
Respect is earned, not given or provided as a service. We've earned ours through hard work, dedication, and giving everything we have to provide the best service we have. Trying to claim that a respected company is free of any problems that might arise is pure nonsense.
Fighting a myth is easy; all I need to is respond with logic to your false claims, and people see the truth clearly enough. And yes, attitude does help. It especially helps us when your attitude gives the impression of someone simply jaded and saying anything they can to tarnish someone else's reputation. People do notice when you only attack a specific provider over and over, regardless of anyone else's shortcomings, and the method you go about this ruins any credibility you might have. The fact that you never answer my statements directly doesn't help you, either.
On the topic of answering my statements directly, how about a reply for this?
Can you honestly say that your issue with us does not stem from the fact that I personally (and outspokenly) disagree with TOR? (Before you say yes, keep in mind that you've already admitted such several times).
Agreed. A provider on the defense doesn't have much of a choice but to respond, either, which just perpetuates the cycle. Look at how blown out of proportion the Dan Fry/VPS6 issue was, simply because VPS6 kept silent rather than defending themselves.
For your typical user, it's easy to ignore someone trying to throw trollbait. As a provider though, it's your reputation at stake, and if you do not step up to defend yourself from lies then there's nothing to stop others from assuming that they're true.
To be fair i don't think anyone here would blame you for ignoring @taipres or @Maounique
TBH what you do is more "scientific" (and annoying as well) because you try to demolish the opponent... I like the more calm Francisco attitude (or his reactions when he loose patience or reply by impulse) than your (at time inflated) hammer...
You're quite right sir. But to be fair, look at the history, as well. If this nonsense had only started yesterday, I would still be taking the 'How can we fix this for you?' approach. We went as far as to change our TOS/AUP for this guy, and he still wasn't satisfied.. there comes a point when it is obvious that someone does not want help, they don't want "change" or a fix... they're only out to troll.
Fran and I simply have a different approach. He's the 'nice guy' of the company, and goes out of his way to give people the benefit of the doubt. I prefer a more terminable approach: once I've determined that someone falls into the above category and will only strive to cause further unfounded harm to the company's reputation, I see no reason not to return with the same vigor, and make it plainly clear to bystanders exactly what's transpiring.
Aye.. we've worked pretty hard at making a reputation, and most folks here appreciate that, even if they dislike us personally. After all of the mess those two caused, I have no qualms in trusting users here to see the truth of it on their own. But these threads do get archived, and will appear in a Google search just as quickly as threads from WHT :P
This is/was the wrong thing to do: pièce de théâtre diraient les Français
You (and I think Frantech) had your opinions fierce standing on it (and this is/was fine), changing your tos/mind (without changing opinion) was a joke :-)
One's personal opinion should not interfere with logic though. Maounique was very helpful in pointing out the public lists of exit nodes (Sectoor, etc); based on the information we received from him we determined that we could viably allow TOR services with restrictions.
You also have to keep in mind that his claim of my 'insults towards an entire project' are completely unfounded. Our view (as well as several other providers that chimed in) was that TOR is very susceptible to abuse, and can lead to a massive headache for a provider's abuse department. Our solution to that was requiring users hosting TOR services to have the IPs SWIP'd to their name. Specifying that ALL TOR services would require this (even though we inform folks that put in a ticket wanting to run a middle node that they may proceed without the SWIP) eliminated any confusion on "I didn't know if I needed it or not", and gave us a viable method of keeping up with who was running the service.
As far as my own personal opinions; I do not agree with the idea of anonymity. Humans are simply not ready for that level of responsibility, and it will always be abused. One of the counter-arguements I get frequently from that statement is along the lines of "siding with Big Brother", etc. I firmly believe in a person's right to security and privacy (one just needs to have a look at our own stance on client confidentiality to see the proof of that), but I also believe that you do not need anonymity in order to obtain security or privacy.
The things that bother me about this post in general:
(I read a good bit of it but TL;DR at some point)
EDIT: (I apologize, they did reply, I just didn't see it among all the spam in this thread... but still... )
If you sell more than 90% of your available disk space, especially on slower SATA drives, you kill the node with IO wait as the read heads run all over you non-contiguous disk writes, causing the node to slow even with the best raid cards. Not a great practice. (This may not be an issue in areas where you are using SSD or SSD in some type of caching method, but still..)
I believe companies like ionVM (as an example) were overselling like this (don't spam me about ol' mr fry..whatever on that topic) and literally overselling by more than 50% so every other day you would check your space and have less and less available to you until you had none and the node started grinding to a halt. Thus the mass exodus from such companies. No one likes to type df -h and see less than their allocated space available, you feel like you've been cheated.. especially if your one of those people who do not use a lot of your resources, but when you do go to use them they are not available then you are required to submit a ticket to the help desk and wait several hours for it to be addressed. Just makes me want to find somewhere where I will actually get what I pay for.
Just from my experience the guys at BlueVM arn't the most technical savvy people anyhow, they couldn't even get ipv6 support working on their nodes (As in ipv6 modules so you can run ipv6 tunnel, not actually ipv6 native ips, etc). They make most of their money from not having to pay SolusVM licensing and using HyperVM (Not really bashing this....but... pretty much cookie cutter cheap setup) that is how they are keeping prices so cheap as far as I can tell. They make claims that the kernel they have to use for HyperVM makes it so they are unable to setup ipv6, the kernels that is uses "doesn't support it"...supposedly....right...
It doesn't surprise me that Corey stood up for BlueVM as YDGH seems to me like they probably have the same practices...or at least that is what they make it seem like (I haven't personally used their services... ever since their advertising on WHT and never having stock available except in their cheapest data center (maybe) when they advertise. Frustrating.)
Anyhow... my 2 cents...
Cheers!
@Corey
Yes and No, nobody usually uses all of their space, but still, you can't oversell to the point where it's at capacity, I always kept 10% headroom available.
I'm on California. OVZ 256mb/512mb
root@sc:~# df -H Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on /dev/simfs 43G 791M 42G 2% / tmpfs 269M 0 269M 0% /lib/init/rw tmpfs 269M 0 269M 0% /dev/shmI/O speed : 33.0MB/sroot@sc:~/vzfree-0.1# vzfree Total Used Free Kernel: 2048.00M 3.40M 2044.60M Allocate: 512.00M 110.24M 401.76M (256M Guaranteed) Commit: 256.00M 72.67M 183.33M (62.8% of Allocated) Swap: 0.00M (0.0% of Committed)root@sc:~/ioping-0.6# ioping -c 10 / 4096 bytes from / ( ): request=1 time=0.2 ms 4096 bytes from / ( ): request=2 time=6.2 ms 4096 bytes from / ( ): request=3 time=8.3 ms 4096 bytes from / ( ): request=4 time=10.5 ms 4096 bytes from / ( ): request=5 time=12.6 ms 4096 bytes from / ( ): request=6 time=8.6 ms 4096 bytes from / ( ): request=7 time=8.0 ms 4096 bytes from / ( ): request=8 time=37.2 ms 4096 bytes from / ( ): request=9 time=18.6 ms 4096 bytes from / ( ): request=10 time=8.8 ms --- / ( ) ioping statistics --- 10 requests completed in 9128.7 ms, 84 iops, 0.3 mb/s min/avg/max/mdev = 0.2/11.9/37.2/9.5 msSeems acceptable...
If I show you how is my crappy KVM...
yes it is. i think when it was empty you get 60mb/s io. i used this box for studying.
@Yomero I never said torrenting is abuse. Your taking what I said out of context as well.
@eastonch that is correct but none of us know just how many fraud/abuse clients signed up on bluevm's node without them checking it.
@TheLinuxBug noone has ran out of resources on our services... I was just giving examples as to why they may have ran out of resources and then we have buyvm coming saying they don't oversell anything when it's obvious they do. They bash us around a little and then their lackeys come and ALSO take what I said out of context. I would have had an exit(); a long time ago if it weren't for Aldyric.
Here are some real stats from YDGH to cure everyone's oversell bug -
s10 - 139.83 GB of 260.21 GB Used / 106.95 GB Free ~ 1380GB sold on this server.
s11 - 90.05 GB of 263.02 GB Used / 159.62 GB Free ~ 1860GB sold on this server.
s12 - 107.03 GB of 263.99 GB Used / 143.55 GB Free ~ 1320GB sold on this server.
s5 - 150.48 GB of 260.67 GB Used / 96.74 GB Free ~ 1770GB sold on this server.
(This is copy paste from solus - for some reason if you add up FREE + Used it doesn't equal the total - LOL)
We are running 300GB raptors in raid1.
procs -----------memory---------- ---swap-- -----io---- -system-- ----cpu----
r b swpd free buff cache si so bi bo in cs us sy id wa
1 0 0 411808 0 0 0 0 1 5 0 50 3 0 97 0
0 0 0 411808 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4452 2 0 98 0
0 0 0 411808 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4300 3 0 97 0
0 0 0 411808 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4368 2 0 98 0
0 0 0 411808 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4390 2 0 98 0
0 0 0 411808 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4450 3 0 97 0
0 0 0 411808 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4431 2 0 98 0
0 0 0 411808 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4412 3 0 97 0
0 0 0 411808 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4430 2 0 98 0
0 0 0 411808 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4255 3 0 97 0
0 0 0 411808 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4217 2 0 98 0
1 0 0 411808 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4543 2 0 98 0
0 0 0 411808 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4388 3 0 97 0
0 0 0 411808 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4416 2 0 98 0
0 0 0 411808 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4522 3 0 97 0
0 0 0 411808 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4376 2 0 98 0
1 0 0 411808 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7870 3 0 97 0
0 0 0 411808 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4418 2 0 98 0
0 0 0 411808 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4378 2 0 98 0
0 0 0 411808 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4336 3 0 97 0
None of you know, but I do. Why exactly are you dragging us back into this, and for a completely unrelated topic?
@Aldryic I meant bluevm sorry.
Aaah, no worries
Pony (as they cousins donkeys) are stubborn and who ever had to do with them know that push and pull isn't the right way to treat them :-)
That is a simple lie and you know it. When I asked about it you simply said SWIP is needed for non-exit nodes as well. Want picture with the reply ? You also said the same thing to someone else which forwarded to me so you do NOT have this policy only against me because you disregard me as a low life human that is hopeless, but against others that never bothered you, even sided with you against me.
You also admitted you said that to piss me off so you have the war started again after i was satisfied with the ToS change.
You are a proven liar sir. Stop putting the ToS change up again, only the TL;DR ppl still buy it. Even tho they are the majority, one day they will read something some place, remember it is not only me that you are attacking and the numbers keep growing.
Regarding overselling, I have to agree with the WHT thread, only ppl that do not know how to do it right dont oversell, it would be a waste of resources, hardware and power, more pollution, etc, that is why we have virtualization in the first place, to cut costs and that means resources of all kinds.
If the ppl get greedy, tho, you can tell, no matter how many shining layers of righteousness are polishing over it.
It gets gross when they keep denying in spite of the evidence and try to silence ppl talking about it with various unsavory means.
M
s11 - 90.05 GB of 263.02 GB Used / 159.62 GB Free ~ 1860GB sold on this server.
s12 - 107.03 GB of 263.99 GB Used / 143.55 GB Free ~ 1320GB sold on this server.
s5 - 150.48 GB of 260.67 GB Used / 96.74 GB Free ~ 1770GB sold on this server.
Holy smokes.
So just a pair of raptor 300's in software/onboard RAID I guess?
Francisco
This =|
As there is no solid way to determine what type of TOR service without breaching client privacy, middle-nodes do fall under the TOR policy. The TOS/AUP will always take precedent over anything Francisco or myself will say in the case of any confusion.
That you said to someone else, not me. Cant quote from inbox, but I can put a picture if there is someone who doubts it.
This proves you dont allow non-exit nodes without surcharge, not only to me, but in general. Your claim you said that to me (not true) just to piss me off is also a proof you try to provoke as you did before I even signed up to this board in the Tor thread.
M
I think this is what they have been saying all the time.
@Aldryic You do sometimes worry me.
Fixed that for ya.
Why's that? :P
As of today that changed, now they claim they allow ppl that ask. I can prove that is a lie unless they reword it like "we allow SOME ppl". I can't prove they reject everyone, however checking their IP space can bring light into the matter.
It is not only me that got a negative, someone else too, surprisingly one of his allies.
M
As far as I know Aldryic hasn't enforced the TOR policy on any of the users that run TOR on our network because they keep it clean or, more likely, heavily firewalled.
Francisco