INIZ.COM - Jump the gun on termination - Terrible Custom Service

AnthonySmith

@fma965 said:
also for people who can't view iniz's image cuz its a webhostingtalk attachement here is a mirror

Ramnode

The times match.

I think the point at this stage is though.... that is not what you get terminated for, it was the paypal dispute that did that.

fma965

@Jar said:
The answer is clear. The OP is incapable of determining what graphs use what measurements and just randomly states that the graphs are calculated by whatever he thinks fits his story. It didn't happen the way he said it did, that's the only thing we actually do know.

Um did you read any of this thread? i downloaded a file at around 90MB/s i even saw that graph it's not actually possible for that to be in megabits as i know for a fact i was downloading at 80-100MB/s (atleast 80 megabytes a second)

Amitz

So I read both graphs the right way. Mbps for both... 700 vs 90 Mbps. Draw your own conclusions.

fma965

@AnthonySmith said:
I think the point at this stage is though.... that is not what you get terminated for, it was the paypal dispute that did that.

i never made a dispute till after they stopped responding i also never threatened i just said if you wont sort it out i will take it up with paypal... thats what i said.

fma965

@Amitz said:
So I read both graphs the right way. Mbps for both... Draw your own conclusions.

Yeah but i can't be megabits i'm telling you, i wouldn't lie. I help people all the time on XDA and my website i am just trying to get some help myself, i know for a fact i was downloading a file from ramnode VPS at 80-100MB/s (80 megabytes/second being about the lowest) this graph can't be in megabits. it's physically impossible for it to be in megabytes, believe me or not your choice but i know i was WGET'ing files, i even posted on XDA in the dr87 mahdi rom thread that my mirror would be going down while i transfer files.

Why would i lie? http://forum.xda-developers.com/showpost.php?p=55689002&postcount=15372

jar

@fma965 said:
Um did you read any of this thread? i downloaded a file at around 90MB/s i even saw that graph it's not actually possible for that to be in megabits as i know for a fact i was downloading at 80-100MB/s (atleast 80 megabytes a second)

So to make your story work now ramnode's graph needs to be lying to you about the math it uses, am I correct?

fma965

@Jar said:
So to make your story work now ramnode's graph needs to be lying to you about the math it uses, am I correct?

Yes, Because If ramnode's graph was in megabytes instead of megabits the values would be pretty identical. I don't mean to say that Ramnode is lying but it's weird how if RamNode's was in megabytes it would be almost exactly equal to INIZ

alexh

Jar said: So to make your story work now ramnode's graph needs to be lying to you about the math it uses, am I correct?

I don't think RamNode would allow a single client to utilize 72% of the entire node's connection for that period of time anyways, but that's speculation, as I simply don't know. It just seems unlikely that they're in megabytes as he says, seeing as it'd be basically be using all available throughput for one VPS, and RN is pretty strict about abuse.

fma965

@alexh said:
I don't think RamNode would allow a single client to utilize 72% of the entire node's connection for that period of time anyways, but that's speculation, as I simply don't know. It just seems unlikely that they're in megabytes as he says, seeing as it'd be basically be using all available throughput for one VPS, and RN is pretty strict about abuse.

but i was downloading at 80-100MB/s from ramnode servers right up to the time i got disabled. I am not lying i don't know what else to say to prove it.

fma965

Here is a ramnode output for a speedtest on the ramnode VPS it reaches 98MB/s

Clearly showing that my WGET at 80-100MB/s is clearly viable.

Patrick

This will be my last post here, but I think it's pretty clear at this point now:

• We never denied the fact client may have been downloading his files. Every offer we have tons of clients using our BW that peaks what was graphed without issues, downloading several GB files will not generate the amount of PPS here. Which hasn't been mentioned was over 150k+.
  Any client can download his data of several GB (full speed) or hundred GB (capped sensibily), we don't have a problem with that. If you're a client and in doubt, feel free to try.

• He received a DDoS attack, whether testing or at no fault of his own

• A ticket was opened, we responded stating he was attacked and due to the short time you were attacked in we told it was best if we parted ways and asked if you needed a backup before your account was cancelled.
• In our sole judgement we felt the terms were breached citing s1 and and s14 of our terms which was grounds for denial.
• You told us we were lying and fabricating the fact you were attacked and demanded a refund or else you will chargeback which was denied. Your account was then closed.
• Graphs above clearly show despite your ego that you downloading was not the cause of the network activity leading to suspension
• You then went on your lovely posting around the WWW, you submitted several tickets into our desk periodically telling us to reply to your threads purely to get a reaction.

sirmbhe

@fma965 said:
but i was downloading at 80-100MB/s from ramnode servers right up to the time i got disabled. I am not lying i don't know what else to say to prove it.

Nvm I need to read the thread more carefully

jar

I understand that you may be explaining what you think happened but we are fairly protective here of people we respect and a lot of us here respect Patrick. Given the accusation on both sides and that the data doesn't match up, I don't know what to tell you but I will be defensive in INIZ favor and I think you can understand my reasoning for it.

fma965

sirmbhe said: Reading your thread I am thinking that you are telling the truth. Otherwise, what's the point you are defending your statement for many pages. Not to mention if you are the same person from xda then, your reputation maybe at stakes in here.

Yes exactly i have nothing to gain from spreading this discussion, i don't care about the refund i never did but i don't like people scamming and abusing stuff. I dont expect to get the money back i also don't care. I want people to know about my experience with them.

In other hand, what do you really demand now from Iniz? Their public apologize, refund, or something else?

Nothing i just want people to be aware of there so called "DDOS rules"

fma965

@Jar said:
I understand that you may be explaining what you think happened but we are fairly protective here of people we respect and a lot of us here respect Patrick. Given the accusation on both sides and that the data doesn't match up, I don't know what to tell you but I will be defensive in INIZ favor and I think you can understand my reasoning for it.

Explain to me why i would lie? I have nothing to win and only reputation at my website and XDA to lose.

jar

@fma965 said:
Explain to me why i would lie? I have nothing to win and only reputation at my website and XDA to lose.

I don't know. Maybe you're not lying, maybe you just went on a rampage to try to tarnish the reputation of a solid guy because you refuse to consider that maybe you were attacked at the same time you were downloading, then became unnecessarily defensive and rude in response to the provider doing their job.

fma965

@Jar said:
I don't know. Maybe you're not lying, maybe you just went on a rampage to try to tarnish the reputation of a solid guy because you refuse to consider that maybe you were attacked at the same time you were downloading, then became unnecessarily defensive and rude in response to the provider doing their job.

But i know for a fact i was downloading at 80-100MB/s from ramnode to INIZ i was 50% through when the server was turned off. I KNOW THIS FOR A FACT!!!!! i was the one doing it.

jar

@fma965 said:
But i know for a fact i was downloading at 80-100MB/s from ramnode to INIZ i was 50% through when the server was turned off. I KNOW THIS FOR A FACT!!!!! i was the one doing it.

And you were watching iptraf or iftop during the transfer?

fma965

@Jar said:
And you were watching iptraf or iftop during the transfer?

No wget said it was downloading at that speed, And based on the filesize and the time it took i agree with wget and what speed it said.

alexh

fma965 said: No wget said it was downloading at that speed, And based on the filesize and the time it took i agree with wget and what speed it said.

As I advised before, walk away. INIZ has made it clear that you will not get your money back, and that they feel/have evidence of you abusing their service. It sucks, but we've all taken losses with hosting; If you were attacked, it's not your fault. Find a provider that won't dump you for a single attack.

fma965

@alexh said:
As I advised before, walk away. INIZ has made it clear that you will not get your money back, and that they feel/have evidence of you abusing their service. It sucks, but we've all taken losses with hosting; If you were attacked, it's not your fault. Find a provider that won't dump you for a single attack.

i can't do that. sorry.

Mun

150,000 (number of packets) * 1500 (size of MTU in bytes) / 1024 (make into KBs) = 219726.5625 KB/s

219726.5625 / 1024 = ~215 MB/s

215 * 8 = 1720 Mb/s

So you were using nearly double of a full gig connect downloading backups?

Wget / scp should use the full the packet size assuming they are large files.

jar

And you transferred how much data in that time?

alexh

fma965 said: i can't do that. sorry.

Fine, then contact your local police department and discuss it with them. I'm telling you now that PayPal will side with INIZ in this case. We've all seen situations like this involving PayPal disputes and they never turn out favorably for the buyer because PP chooses not to protect buyers of virtual goods. The outcome of your actions right now will not be productive

fma965

@Mun said:
150,000 (number of packets) * 1500 (size of MTU in bytes) / 1024 (make into KBs) = 219726.5625 KB/s

219726.5625 / 1024 = ~215 MB/s

215 * 8 = 1720 Mb/s

So you were using nearly double of a full gig connect downloading backups?

Wget / scp should use the full the packet size assuming they are large files.

not sure what your showing there but it might be a important key factor to know as ramnode said its average over a 5minute timeframe

fma965

@alexh said:
Fine, then contact your local police department and discuss it with them. I'm telling you now that PayPal will side with INIZ in this case. We've all seen situations like this involving PayPal disputes and they never turn out favorably for the buyer because PP chooses not to protect buyers of virtual goods.

Well it's $7 (£4) hardly worth the effort but doens't mean it's right, and i want others to know that. I still insist i am telling 100% the truth and having nothing to win but people can believe what they want.

fma965

@Jar said:
And you transferred how much data in that time?

various different files, the last 1 being around 8GB.

Mun

@fma965 said:
not sure what your showing there but it might be a important key factor to know as ramnode said its average over a 5minute timeframe

If you do not understand what I am saying, then you do not understand basic networking terms.

Iniz has stated that you were using 150,000 Packets Per Second (PPS).

The average size of a packet Maximum Transfer Unit (MTU) is ~ 1500 bytes.

There is 8 bits in a byte.

As such you were using around a total capacity of ~1720 Megabits of data per second. Which is HUGE.

jar

@fma965 said:
various different files, the last 1 being around 8GB.

The graph wasn't at 700mbit the whole time. Let's say, conservatively, that you were downloading at 600 megabit per second for 30 minutes. That's 75 megabytes per second. There are 60 seconds in a minute. There are 1800 seconds in 30 minutes. At 75 megabytes per second for 30 minutes you have 135,000 megabytes of data transferred. Does this sound anywhere reasonably close to the amount of data you ended up with?

fma965

Mun said: If you do not understand what I am saying, then you do not understand basic networking terms.

Um nope it's just too much maths,