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
Tunneled through aurologic? Does the prefix start with 45.157.X?
No, 45.138.175.x and 45.11.18.x.
That is not a tunnel - these are router IPs:
45.138 - aurologic
45.11 - active-servers(One of the ISPs where HT-Hosting rents their servers)
active-servers is just a downstream customer of aurologic, no Tunnel involved.
Yes, I can see you are right. It might be because the GEOIP of the IPv6 shows Vaduz, Liechtenstein I somehow thought it was tunneled, but it really doesn't matter.
Nothing works or has been stable for more than a couple of hours, and support doesn't seem to care at all.
Mine is down since almost one day
https://ip6.ee/uptime
They failed to provision of my server when I first got it. Their control panel listed it as "not existing" and I had to go back and forth with support in tickets to get them to actually provision it.
Checked in on it today for the first time in like a week and my server is also down. Control panel says it's "unavailable", so can't start it or do anything.
They never failed and has been perfect for my 16G/150G vps.
proof
don't have to.
Everyone has had a terrible experience with them but you.
Maybe he had his machine idling around
HT-Hosting even publicly admitted that they had a bunch of serious problems with all their Summer Nodes and apologized
A day after I opened a ticket about my server that was down and "unavailable" in their control panel:
They responded to the ticket with "Thank you for your inquiry. done".
And I received a "Your server was created" email with a new IP and new root password.
I don't even have words anymore for this provider.
Just a note they aren't any better in October 2024.
Connection drops, lost packets, and simple xfce4 install taking forever.
Ticket for cancellation and refund ignored, well, PayPal dispute it is then.
Yes, the network will be interrupted indirectly
Oh and IP6 claims on their website are a lie.
@dataforest Do they rent dedicated servers from avoro?
I've probably had a larger number of different issues with this single provider over a couple months than most other providers combined in all the years I've used them.
That said, I'd still rate HT-Hosting above FameSystems, since they actually bother to respond to tickets and make an effort to address their never ending issues (even if the resolution is short-lived before breaking again), instead of just ignoring customers after taking their money.
@ht-hosting @dataforest @FameSystems
Rate something that can't even keep a stable connection above FameSystems?
64 bytes from 77.90.X.X: icmp_seq=110 ttl=63 time=49.673 ms
64 bytes from 77.90.X.X: icmp_seq=111 ttl=63 time=49.865 ms
64 bytes from 77.90.X.X: icmp_seq=112 ttl=63 time=49.915 ms
64 bytes from 77.90.X.X: icmp_seq=113 ttl=63 time=49.472 ms
64 bytes from 77.90.X.X: icmp_seq=114 ttl=63 time=50.036 ms
64 bytes from 77.90.X.X: icmp_seq=115 ttl=63 time=95.652 ms
64 bytes from 77.90.X.X: icmp_seq=116 ttl=63 time=49.930 ms
64 bytes from 77.90.X.X: icmp_seq=117 ttl=63 time=50.014 ms
64 bytes from 77.90.X.X: icmp_seq=118 ttl=63 time=50.526 ms
64 bytes from 77.90.X.X: icmp_seq=119 ttl=63 time=334.694 ms
Request timeout for icmp_seq 120
64 bytes from 77.90.X.X: icmp_seq=120 ttl=63 time=1244.537 ms
64 bytes from 77.90.X.X: icmp_seq=121 ttl=63 time=239.399 ms
64 bytes from 77.90.X.X: icmp_seq=122 ttl=63 time=50.357 ms
64 bytes from 77.90.X.X: icmp_seq=123 ttl=63 time=50.263 ms
64 bytes from 77.90.X.X: icmp_seq=124 ttl=63 time=50.997 ms
64 bytes from 77.90.X.X: icmp_seq=125 ttl=63 time=49.694 ms
64 bytes from 77.90.X.X: icmp_seq=126 ttl=63 time=49.506 ms
64 bytes from 77.90.X.X: icmp_seq=127 ttl=63 time=50.064 ms
64 bytes from 77.90.X.X: icmp_seq=128 ttl=63 time=49.825 ms
64 bytes from 77.90.X.X: icmp_seq=129 ttl=63 time=49.811 ms
64 bytes from 77.90.X.X: icmp_seq=130 ttl=63 time=50.298 ms
64 bytes from 77.90.X.X: icmp_seq=131 ttl=63 time=49.900 ms
64 bytes from 77.90.X.X: icmp_seq=132 ttl=63 time=49.815 ms
64 bytes from 77.90.X.X: icmp_seq=133 ttl=63 time=49.497 ms
64 bytes from 77.90.X.X: icmp_seq=134 ttl=63 time=50.170 ms
64 bytes from 77.90.X.X: icmp_seq=135 ttl=63 time=49.778 ms
64 bytes from 77.90.X.X: icmp_seq=136 ttl=63 time=49.362 ms
64 bytes from 77.90.X.X: icmp_seq=137 ttl=63 time=50.185 ms
64 bytes from 77.90.X.X: icmp_seq=138 ttl=63 time=49.206 ms
64 bytes from 77.90.X.X: icmp_seq=139 ttl=63 time=49.462 ms
64 bytes from 77.90.X.X: icmp_seq=140 ttl=63 time=706.382 ms
64 bytes from 77.90.X.X: icmp_seq=141 ttl=63 time=49.520 ms
64 bytes from 77.90.X.X: icmp_seq=142 ttl=63 time=50.362 ms
64 bytes from 77.90.X.X: icmp_seq=143 ttl=63 time=49.805 ms
64 bytes from 77.90.X.X: icmp_seq=144 ttl=63 time=50.197 ms
64 bytes from 77.90.X.X: icmp_seq=145 ttl=63 time=50.047 ms
64 bytes from 77.90.X.X: icmp_seq=146 ttl=63 time=49.833 ms
64 bytes from 77.90.X.X: icmp_seq=147 ttl=63 time=49.335 ms
64 bytes from 77.90.X.X: icmp_seq=148 ttl=63 time=50.173 ms
64 bytes from 77.90.X.X: icmp_seq=149 ttl=63 time=49.444 ms
64 bytes from 77.90.X.X: icmp_seq=150 ttl=63 time=50.241 ms
64 bytes from 77.90.X.X: icmp_seq=151 ttl=63 time=49.416 ms
64 bytes from 77.90.X.X: icmp_seq=152 ttl=63 time=49.445 ms
64 bytes from 77.90.X.X: icmp_seq=153 ttl=63 time=49.770 ms
64 bytes from 77.90.X.X: icmp_seq=154 ttl=63 time=49.955 ms
64 bytes from 77.90.X.X: icmp_seq=155 ttl=63 time=50.139 ms
64 bytes from 77.90.X.X: icmp_seq=156 ttl=63 time=49.646 ms
Request timeout for icmp_seq 158
Request timeout for icmp_seq 159
Request timeout for icmp_seq 160
Request timeout for icmp_seq 161
Request timeout for icmp_seq 162
Request timeout for icmp_seq 163
Request timeout for icmp_seq 164
Request timeout for icmp_seq 165
Request timeout for icmp_seq 166
Request timeout for icmp_seq 167
Request timeout for icmp_seq 168
Request timeout for icmp_seq 169
Request timeout for icmp_seq 170
Request timeout for icmp_seq 171
Request timeout for icmp_seq 172
64 bytes from 77.90.X.X: icmp_seq=157 ttl=63 time=16434.097 ms
64 bytes from 77.90.X.X: icmp_seq=158 ttl=63 time=15428.934 ms
64 bytes from 77.90.X.X: icmp_seq=159 ttl=63 time=14426.186 ms
64 bytes from 77.90.X.X: icmp_seq=160 ttl=63 time=13424.650 ms
64 bytes from 77.90.X.X: icmp_seq=161 ttl=63 time=12419.442 ms
64 bytes from 77.90.X.X: icmp_seq=162 ttl=63 time=11417.477 ms
64 bytes from 77.90.X.X: icmp_seq=163 ttl=63 time=10414.489 ms
64 bytes from 77.90.X.X: icmp_seq=164 ttl=63 time=9411.856 ms
64 bytes from 77.90.X.X: icmp_seq=165 ttl=63 time=8406.784 ms
64 bytes from 77.90.X.X: icmp_seq=166 ttl=63 time=7404.813 ms
64 bytes from 77.90.X.X: icmp_seq=167 ttl=63 time=6402.050 ms
64 bytes from 77.90.X.X: icmp_seq=168 ttl=63 time=5396.947 ms
64 bytes from 77.90.X.X: icmp_seq=169 ttl=63 time=4391.713 ms
64 bytes from 77.90.X.X: icmp_seq=170 ttl=63 time=3386.549 ms
64 bytes from 77.90.X.X: icmp_seq=171 ttl=63 time=2382.909 ms
64 bytes from 77.90.X.X: icmp_seq=172 ttl=63 time=1380.126 ms
64 bytes from 77.90.X.X: icmp_seq=173 ttl=63 time=378.849 ms
64 bytes from 77.90.X.X: icmp_seq=174 ttl=63 time=50.300 ms
64 bytes from 77.90.X.X: icmp_seq=175 ttl=63 time=49.389 ms
64 bytes from 77.90.X.X: icmp_seq=176 ttl=63 time=50.371 ms
64 bytes from 77.90.X.X: icmp_seq=177 ttl=63 time=324.559 ms
64 bytes from 77.90.X.X: icmp_seq=178 ttl=63 time=466.431 ms
64 bytes from 77.90.X.X: icmp_seq=179 ttl=63 time=54.158 ms
64 bytes from 77.90.X.X: icmp_seq=180 ttl=63 time=199.982 ms
64 bytes from 77.90.X.X: icmp_seq=181 ttl=63 time=49.850 ms
64 bytes from 77.90.X.X: icmp_seq=182 ttl=63 time=362.909 ms
64 bytes from 77.90.X.X: icmp_seq=183 ttl=63 time=49.557 ms
64 bytes from 77.90.X.X: icmp_seq=184 ttl=63 time=435.360 ms
64 bytes from 77.90.X.X: icmp_seq=185 ttl=63 time=49.781 ms
64 bytes from 77.90.X.X: icmp_seq=186 ttl=63 time=144.497 ms
64 bytes from 77.90.X.X: icmp_seq=187 ttl=63 time=49.897 ms
64 bytes from 77.90.X.X: icmp_seq=188 ttl=63 time=50.344 ms
64 bytes from 77.90.X.X: icmp_seq=189 ttl=63 time=49.708 ms
64 bytes from 77.90.X.X: icmp_seq=190 ttl=63 time=49.712 ms
64 bytes from 77.90.X.X: icmp_seq=191 ttl=63 time=49.621 ms
64 bytes from 77.90.X.X: icmp_seq=192 ttl=63 time=49.551 ms
64 bytes from 77.90.X.X: icmp_seq=193 ttl=63 time=49.373 ms
64 bytes from 77.90.X.X: icmp_seq=194 ttl=63 time=49.927 ms
Trust me when I say I've had endless technical issues with HT right from day 1 when my server failed to even be provisioned. Nothing has been stable, their billing, their hardware, or their connection. They at least respond to tickets and make an effort to resolve issues, which I commend them for.
My expectations of a low end provider is not exactly high... The only thing I expect is that they are relatively honest, respond to tickets (even if they take weeks), and make an effort to resolve issues (even if that ends up taking months). FameSystems utterly failed on all 3 of those points, making them worse than almost every other provider, worse than HT and even Evos.
The IP is probably permanently mitigated and has strict ICMP shaping active. There are many professionals here, you can talk about why exactly this is the case. Rest assured, it makes no difference whether you ping an IP (e.g. lg.harmony-solutions.de) or the IP mentioned here.
But it is embarrassing to badmouth us just because someone is allegedly scamming in the eyes of group X. Do you also write to Voxility just because a certain Romanian operator co-locates its servers there?
In the end: we won't give any customer related information to anyone, even if that was allowed, it's not our style. There are a few providers here who are scamming providers one by one, yet you order like a horde of lions, because there is a lack of foresight here and you are always looking for victims to beat up on someone. You suggest to other providers exactly what we have been accused of on the other side in a big thread. After all, this is one of the reasons why we have canceled our paid membership in the LET, because we no longer want to publish our offers here.
I'm sure this post won't change your mind about us, but just because someone thinks something doesn't mean we're scamming our customers. At the end of the day, we are happy that thousands of private and business customers trust us, from hosters to real estate companies (with hundreds of millions of euros in sales, no TikTok guys ;-)) and subsidiaries of large corporations in Europe.
Oh please, it is not ICMP shaping.
There's probably also "ipv6 shaping" (ipv6 promised but not present), "ssh shaping" (ssh connection drops once in a while, had to restart systemd-networkd manually every time from terminal.js) and "support shaping" (no response for several days). And my favorite, "ram shaping", one server was displaying different amounts of ram every reboot.
I don't care, all HT-Hosting services were cancelled.
You are not getting the point, we are not speaking for any of our customers here, but for us, as we are being accused of being “scammers”. We can't speak for customers, if you have a problem with a customer, contact the customer in question.
I didn't "accuse" you of anything and didn't even mention/tag you.
I would disagree with that (of course you mention us by quoting us), but you still don't get the point.
Where exactly did I mention or quote you before you've appeared in thread.
I would agree with @egoror though. You took an aggressive stance when he didn't even tag you.
The service attitude is worthy of the price, but the quality of the VPS is not worthy of this praise