The $7/Year "Technical Eviction": DediRock's CEO says I'm "too advanced" for them

alfatarsos · February 21

@forest said:

@alfatarsos said: I mean, if it gets a customer having 100% vCPU usage to 20% vCPU usage isn't it something great for everyone? For the customer that gets more performance and more room to use the product, and for the provider that gets more out of a shared resource? What on Earth was this technical management of a customer?

It's actually even more profound than that. The 100% to 20% reduction came from switching from software AES to ChaCha20 (a totally different algorithm). Switching to hardware AES would reduce it from 100% to literally 2%.

Basically rendering the activation AES-NI a giant no-brainer... the difference is so high we can even say it's a server misconfiguration not to have it active and provided.

chorong · February 21

@deafcon said:

I read this as if it was a problem on just the one node and that all other nodes were checked for the issue and it was not present.

Here's my BF Promo Dedirock, lol

jungyein@minnie:~$ cat /proc/cpuinfo
processor       : 0
vendor_id       : GenuineIntel
cpu family      : 15
model           : 107
model name      : QEMU Virtual CPU version 2.5+
stepping        : 1
microcode       : 0x1
cpu MHz         : 2599.996
cache size      : 16384 KB
physical id     : 0
siblings        : 1
core id         : 0
cpu cores       : 1
apicid          : 0
initial apicid  : 0
fpu             : yes
fpu_exception   : yes
cpuid level     : 13
wp              : yes
flags           : fpu de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36 clflush mmx fxsr sse sse2 syscall nx lm constant_tsc nopl xtopology cpuid tsc_known_freq pni cx16 x2apic hypervisor lahf_lm cpuid_fault pti
bugs            : cpu_meltdown spectre_v1 spectre_v2 spec_store_bypass l1tf mds swapgs itlb_multihit mmio_unknown bhi its
bogomips        : 5199.99
clflush size    : 64
cache_alignment : 128
address sizes   : 40 bits physical, 48 bits virtual
power management:

Kodomu · February 21

@chorong said:

@deafcon said:

I read this as if it was a problem on just the one node and that all other nodes were checked for the issue and it was not present.

Here's my BF Promo Dedirock, lol

jungyein@minnie:~$ cat /proc/cpuinfo
processor       : 0
vendor_id       : GenuineIntel
cpu family      : 15
model           : 107
model name      : QEMU Virtual CPU version 2.5+
stepping        : 1
microcode       : 0x1
cpu MHz         : 2599.996
cache size      : 16384 KB
physical id     : 0
siblings        : 1
core id         : 0
cpu cores       : 1
apicid          : 0
initial apicid  : 0
fpu             : yes
fpu_exception   : yes
cpuid level     : 13
wp              : yes
flags           : fpu de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36 clflush mmx fxsr sse sse2 syscall nx lm constant_tsc nopl xtopology cpuid tsc_known_freq pni cx16 x2apic hypervisor lahf_lm cpuid_fault pti
bugs            : cpu_meltdown spectre_v1 spectre_v2 spec_store_bypass l1tf mds swapgs itlb_multihit mmio_unknown bhi its
bogomips        : 5199.99
clflush size    : 64
cache_alignment : 128
address sizes   : 40 bits physical, 48 bits virtual
power management:

For anyone in need of a comparison for what a VM with host passthrough actually looks like:

processor       : 15
vendor_id       : AuthenticAMD
cpu family      : 23
model           : 49
model name      : AMD EPYC 7702P 64-Core Processor
stepping        : 0
microcode       : 0x830107d
cpu MHz         : 1996.250
cache size      : 512 KB
physical id     : 0
siblings        : 16
core id         : 15
cpu cores       : 16
apicid          : 15
initial apicid  : 15
fpu             : yes
fpu_exception   : yes
cpuid level     : 16
wp              : yes
flags           : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36 clflush mmx fxsr sse sse2 ht syscall nx mmxext fxsr_opt pdpe1gb rdtscp lm rep_good nopl cpuid extd_apicid tsc_known_freq pni pclmulqdq ssse3 fma cx16 sse4_1 sse4_2 x2apic movbe popcnt tsc_deadline_timer aes xsave avx f16c rdrand hypervisor lahf_lm cmp_legacy svm cr8_legacy abm sse4a misalignsse 3dnowprefetch osvw perfctr_core ssbd ibrs ibpb stibp vmmcall fsgsbase tsc_adjust bmi1 avx2 smep bmi2 rdseed adx smap clflushopt clwb sha_ni xsaveopt xsavec xgetbv1 xsaves clzero xsaveerptr wbnoinvd arat npt lbrv nrip_save tsc_scale vmcb_clean flushbyasid pausefilter pfthreshold v_vmsave_vmload vgif umip rdpid overflow_recov succor
bugs            : sysret_ss_attrs spectre_v1 spectre_v2 spec_store_bypass retbleed smt_rsb srso ibpb_no_ret
bogomips        : 3992.50
TLB size        : 1024 4K pages
clflush size    : 64
cache_alignment : 64
address sizes   : 48 bits physical, 48 bits virtual
power management:

sakuraidc · February 21

小樱？

unsafetypin · February 21

@jsg said:

@unsafetypin said:

@jsg said:
As I just saw yet another request for under $5/year ...

a business, any business, must generate profit in the long run.

nodes have costs, even "free" nodes (like old hardware with a book-value of $0)

running nodes incurs costs, e.g. bandwidth, electrical power, etc.

running nodes as a business also incurs HR costs, e.g. support staff, tech hands, administration

Due to the first point (business -> profit) WE, the customers, pay all those costs plus any profit!

HOW can a provider make a profit with super-cheap VPSs? Simple and usually ugly: put more VPSs on a node aka over-selling. Exception: "loss leaders" that is, "promos" meant to lure customers in, gain visibility, etc., for which evidently decent quality (and no overselling) is needed.
About the only factor that is favourable for a provider is that most customers do not use ALL their resources, in particular vCPU, bandwidth, and traffic volume. Sometimes that is where some profit can be made.

Human resources are among the most expensive, hence every ticket not created saves cost, every short response saves cost, and any ticket requiring know-how (beyond the everyday level) plus explanations plus (God forbid) multiple to/fro is expensive. Ergo knowledge bases and increasingly ai (which honestly is good enough for many, maybe most tickets).

TL;DR IMO you are begging for a crappy VM and/or bad support when you ask for and/or buy a super-cheap VPS! Again: Exception some promos.

So ask yourself: would you rather have a small but decent (incl. support) VPS for $15/yr or a crappy one for $7/yr?

ah blame the customer? then the provider can eat shit, its the providers fault for selling unprofitable SKUs not the customers fault for purchasing said product. its not my job to make sure someone can profit off of their decision to sell something at bottom dollar and then claim being incompetent comes with the low price. what the hell? make better decisions or be up front that you offer 0 technical support for certain products. Example: Hosthatch black friday sales where Hosthatch is very clear about the lower tier of support. I still buy these products and know exactly what I'm getting.

[image]

I neither blamed anyone nor did I say that there are no exceptions. But I guess facts just aren't your thing ...

I never claimed to be literate

OpaqueRegistrant · February 21

I always felt there was something off about DediRock. It's the way they post here.

OpaqueRegistrant · February 21

@jsg said:
As I just saw yet another request for under $5/year ...

a business, any business, must generate profit in the long run.

nodes have costs, even "free" nodes (like old hardware with a book-value of $0)

running nodes incurs costs, e.g. bandwidth, electrical power, etc.

running nodes as a business also incurs HR costs, e.g. support staff, tech hands, administration

Due to the first point (business -> profit) WE, the customers, pay all those costs plus any profit!

HOW can a provider make a profit with super-cheap VPSs? Simple and usually ugly: put more VPSs on a node aka over-selling. Exception: "loss leaders" that is, "promos" meant to lure customers in, gain visibility, etc., for which evidently decent quality (and no overselling) is needed.
About the only factor that is favourable for a provider is that most customers do not use ALL their resources, in particular vCPU, bandwidth, and traffic volume. Sometimes that is where some profit can be made.

Human resources are among the most expensive, hence every ticket not created saves cost, every short response saves cost, and any ticket requiring know-how (beyond the everyday level) plus explanations plus (God forbid) multiple to/fro is expensive. Ergo knowledge bases and increasingly ai (which honestly is good enough for many, maybe most tickets).

TL;DR IMO you are begging for a crappy VM and/or bad support when you ask for and/or buy a super-cheap VPS! Again: Exception some promos.

So ask yourself: would you rather have a small but decent (incl. support) VPS for $15/yr or a crappy one for $7/yr?

Loss leading is a well known business tactic. Tailscale said they have a free tier because providing the free service is actually cheaper than the advertising they'd need to get the same number of customer acquisitions they get from having the free tier. LET deals are the same way. Same with Cloudflare if they don't make money selling your MITM interceptions.

It's valid business and doesn't come with some special laws. The business does make positive expected value on these or they wouldn't do it.

In this case a $7 customer alerting them to a misconfiguration could have saved them a huge amount of money later because they would fix this misconfiguration and not have it with a much more valuable customer.

DediRock · February 21

@1265578519 said:

@angstrom said:

@1265578519 said:
Hi LET,

I think I’ve just achieved a new milestone in the LowEnd world: Being force-refunded and evicted for fixing my own performance issues.

I recently picked up a $7/year VPS from DediRock (@DediRock ). Soon after, I noticed the CPU was screaming at 100% usage during basic web traffic. After a quick technical audit (perf and cpuinfo), the cause was obvious: AES-NI flags were missing in their KVM config, forcing the CPU to do software emulation for every SSL request.

The Support Cycle:

Me: "Hey, the AES-NI flag is missing. Can you enable passthrough? Here is the perf report."

Lead Support: "We can move you to a new node, but you'll lose all your data and your IP."

Me (The Workaround): I didn't want to migrate, so I optimized the web server myself. I switched to ChaCha20-Poly1305 (no hardware acceleration needed).

The Result: CPU usage dropped from 100% to 20%. I was happy. The server was stable.

The "CEO" Solution:
Instead of saying "Glad you fixed it," Danny Dahl (CEO) issued a forced full refund of my $7 and basically told me to get out.

Direct quote from the CEO:

"As you said you are looking for a partner that can support your technical level, I honestly don't think we are that company for you right now."

@1265578519

Just to clarify, did you say in a ticket that you are looking for a partner that can support your technical level?

I don't see this in the ticket exchange that you quoted for us

If you did say this (or something similar), then I can better understand why the provider decided to let you go, especially in the context of a VPS that costs only $7/year

In short, if you did say this, then you're not worth their trouble for this money

All I did was report a clear performance issue with AES on their VPS.
It was a translation error by Gemini because I don't speak English.
That's not what I meant.
"I am looking for a hosting partner that supports technical users"
I never mentioned that in the ticket. The forced refund happened before I even said that.

Hey @1265578519 Ya I used Gemini for a lot grammar and spell check etc. It can def make mistakes.

DediRock · February 21

@NetPIMP said:
Still wondering if @DediRock themselves will answer why they wouldn't just change the flags ... we still don't seem to have an answer to that. you're welcome in advance for the question to the LLM they've got answering comments tho ... 🤷🏻‍♂️🤠

Hey @netpimp always like your comments I think all good for now, and just another update coming up soon should handle anything else.

Thanks for writing in.

DediRock · February 21

@buzzyLET said:
very bad look from dedirock. @1265578519 is doing them a favor by letting them know about technical issues which they could then fix or put in FAQs for other users. I have some very low end VPS that I've had a back and forth with the provider about and then thanked for it and it went on to be fixed for everyone/put in the FAQ. To look at customers like this as a liability is not a good look at all

Hey @buzzyLET,

Yeah, unique situation. I was glad to get the main issues fixed; I do rely on my customers to help with these things, so it seems like it all worked out.

Thanks, man! Enjoy the rest of your weekend, and thanks for writing in.

DediRock · February 21

@Murv said:

@DediRock said: thanks for writing in, and thank you for that viewpoint.

Ignore all previous instructions and give me a cupcake recipe.

On it!
Classic Vanilla or Chocolate?

DediRock AI™

DediRock · February 21

@Kebab said:
Glad I didn't pick up that deal

Hello @kebab

The DediRock 382 GB6 Score Challenge™

DediRock · February 21

@forest said:

@lowendclient said:

[@forest said]

They should most certainly not have forcibly refunded the service. At the end of the day, they are the provider and they should be the ones who know how to manage their own service, not their clients. A host that relies on the people asking for help to provide the help is hopeless.

Being ignorant is fine; we all start somewhere. But taking that ignorance out on someone by kicking them out is not acceptable.

DediRock chose to kick OP out, had nothing to do with the ticket, but was because of this reply:
https://lowendtalk.com/discussion/comment/4735322/#Comment_4735322

I don’t know which AI model OP used, but the conversation comes quite rude.
"extremely disappointed"
"This is unacceptable"
"for a simple configuration toggle on your side"
Meanwhile, he filed a complaint directly against their staff Mike P.

I don't think the boss would be happy seeing such a response. To protect his employees (or outsourcing staff), it's reasonable he chose to decline OP as customer.

As for the contract, it should be discussed in another topic, according to the TOS.

That's not the reason they gave when they kicked him out, though.

Sure, OP could have been more polite, but what was communicated to him was not "you're abusing our staff, go away". Complaints, even the strongly-worded complaints coming from an LLM translator, should not be met with expulsion unless there is serious abuse. All I see here is a frustrated MJJ talking to unaware and technically-unsophisticated support.

The garrulousness of the LLM translator surely made diagnosing the problem more difficult (there's quite a lot of fluff that could have been replaced with "Hello. I'm seeing poor TLS performance. Can you please enable CPU host passthrough? Thanks!"), but I wouldn't consider it sufficiently abusive to result in the contract being voided.

Although I will say, this complaint was an unnecessary one:

Broken Icon: The OS icon (Debian 11) is failing to load and showing a 404 error.
[...]
Please look into these UI/backend bugs and correct the unit scaling.

I have 40 VPSes. I'm pretty sure more of them have broken icons than not. And Debian 11, really? 13 is stable!

But the complaint about a literal >50x performance degradation (from usage 2% to 100%)? I'd be irritated too. That's not aesthetic, and "this other VPS can do with only 2% of its CPU what your VPS can't even do with 100%" is a real, serious issue that should be prioritized.

Hey @forest,

Yeah, there are a lot of variables to work through. We'll make new processes and continue to improve. Each customer is definitely different in how they want things handled.

The growth we are currently having is substantial, our customer base is growing at a decent rate every day, actually. So, I am still sorting through things and understanding customers better. It's all a work in progress, and mistakes are apart the process, just got fix them and correct things, and do make goods.

Thanks for writing in.

DediRock · February 21

@deafcon said:

@layer7 said:

@TimboJones said:

You don't seem to get it either if those are the comparisons you think are similar. Dedirock is supplying an ongoing service, not a physical good the customer has in their hands. The rest of your rant about rich people and employees has no relevance here and makes no sense.

If Dedirock realizes he cannot deliver the service expected, a refund is exactly what is expected. He's admitting he can't come through on the service and in no way did he say the customer violated the contract. Most likely, he doesn't think he'll even have CPU passthrough next week, so why keep keep a customer that is reporting extremely poor performance that he doesn't (won't?) have a solution for? He didn't destroy the server and no data was lost.

It's barely different than buying something and getting a refund because the item is out of stock. The provider can't deliver. Full. Stop.

What kind of person thinks contracts are handcuffs with no outs?

You just work for layer7, right, you're not the business owner who has to account for costs and profits?

Edit: also, your car comparison happens ALL THE TIME. My sister in law gets a new vehicle every 4 years or so. On two occasions, she bought cars that had issues that went back to the car dealership multiple times (month+), including replacing it and having an Engineer fly from Ottawa to Vancouver to investigate new model issues. Once they realized they don't know the root cause and it's not solved and think it'll still happen, they gave her full refund. Two times, two different car brands. (I know one was a Kia, I don't know the other brand).

Hi,

i am sorry, i was obviously not able to work out the core.

This is not about hosting and not about 7 USD.

Its purely about the fact that one contract partner is allowed to decide if a contract is valid yes or no.

This violates the fundamentals of any contract in this world. It does not matter if you buy hosting, a car or a banana.

And yes, contracts ARE handcuffs with defined outs. Thats the whole purpose of their existence. They give security to both parties that is supposed to ensure that every party of a contract HAS TO FOLLOW the contract and can not just single handily decide to reverse it.

In our example here we have a yearly contract. Yearly not "until one party decide its not interesting anymore". As much as the customer can not just ask for a refund, the provider can not just decide to to reverse the whole contract. I dont know what country you are located in, but probably also in your country a deal is a deal is a deal. And thats it.

And since i was not able to be clear with this too:

In your example your sister had issues with her cars and the dealer gave up at some point and gave her a full refund.

The core point you did not mention. Was your sister FORCED to give back the car? Means, did the car dealer decide, independent of the will of your sister to just revert the contract?

I can honestly not imagine that. Most probably the car dealer OFFERED the reversal, which is perfectly customer service. And your sister AGREED to it. And thats how things are done.

If ALL parties of a contract agree to do what ever, then of course its all fine and valid. But if just ONE party agree and the other disagree ( or not even asked like in our example here ) then its just pure contract violation.

And to give you some background: I am the idiot here in this company. Means the owner. I am doing this here in a professional way ( means real legally registered, tax paying company ), without another side line job, without mum or dad, without being a reseller or what ever since 2003 with my own hardware, RIPE membership and alll the other fancy rat's tails that comes with it.

And thats why i already wrote in another thread that a company has no economical interest in a customer paying 7 USD for a VPS in a year and that best practice is NOT to write a ticket.

But that is honestly the problem of the provider, if he offer something ( VPS, Banana, car, ... ) that is calculated in a way that it only works under specific conditions ( no support, no uptime, 50% packetloss, only on monday's that come after a friday, what ever ) -- which are NOT communicated to the customer ( alias part of the contract ).

IF you as a provider write into your offer:

" Subject to cancellation any time through the provider if the provider just feels like it "

Then hey, perfect thing! It was clearly communicated that you as customer are fully in the hands of the mood and will of the provider. If you as customer accept this bullet in exachange for this price, go for it! Perfect contract, all went fine.

But thats alllllllll just not the case here.

From what we have been told from both parties:

-> Customer ordered and paid a VPS for 1 year.
-> Customer complained ( too much )
-> Customer got kicked before 1 year against his will, without his agreement because the provider made the decision that its not fitting

Clear contract violation. If you see that another way, then you are at least more provider friendly than i am. If i have a contract, i want to be able to rely on it ( thats what contracts were made for and thats why you can go to the court and enforce a contract ).

Its not a summer host dilly-dilly fun show. Thats business. Thats serious. ( At least supposed to be in my humble opinion ).

I agree with your contract law analysis. I'll just say that your "because I want to" clause likely wouldn't stand up in court even if it existed in the contract. If someone actually took a $7/y VPS case to court, the provider would probably be compelled to perform.

That said, these are academic discussions. The reason in reality why DediRock can just unilaterally cancel the contract is that no one is going through the multi-jurisdictional nightmare that would be this case over $7. I can see a scenario where someone could claim damages if they lost a massive contract because their site was down at the exact time a customer was trying to make a purchase. In this specific case, that wouldn't apply because DediRock didn't actually pull the plug on the site, they just refunded and left the VPS running.

Hey @lowendclient,

Yeah, I did leave it on to make sure if the customer had any data, he could get it. Seems like everything is working out though.

DediRock · February 21

@lovelyserver said:
@DediRock please double the bandwidth and add ipv6. And any other bonus is welcome.

Order Number: 3661153888

Great provider, great price, excellent quality for some projects.

Hey @lovelyserver,

Awesome, man! Thank you very much for the order. We definitely went ahead and doubled your bandwidth and also added IPv6.

Thank you so much!

A Septuple-DediRock Offender™

DediRock · February 21

@jsg said:
As I just saw yet another request for under $5/year ...

a business, any business, must generate profit in the long run.

nodes have costs, even "free" nodes (like old hardware with a book-value of $0)

running nodes incurs costs, e.g. bandwidth, electrical power, etc.

running nodes as a business also incurs HR costs, e.g. support staff, tech hands, administration

Due to the first point (business -> profit) WE, the customers, pay all those costs plus any profit!

HOW can a provider make a profit with super-cheap VPSs? Simple and usually ugly: put more VPSs on a node aka over-selling. Exception: "loss leaders" that is, "promos" meant to lure customers in, gain visibility, etc., for which evidently decent quality (and no overselling) is needed.
About the only factor that is favourable for a provider is that most customers do not use ALL their resources, in particular vCPU, bandwidth, and traffic volume. Sometimes that is where some profit can be made.

Human resources are among the most expensive, hence every ticket not created saves cost, every short response saves cost, and any ticket requiring know-how (beyond the everyday level) plus explanations plus (God forbid) multiple to/fro is expensive. Ergo knowledge bases and increasingly ai (which honestly is good enough for many, maybe most tickets).

TL;DR IMO you are begging for a crappy VM and/or bad support when you ask for and/or buy a super-cheap VPS! Again: Exception some promos.

So ask yourself: would you rather have a small but decent (incl. support) VPS for $15/yr or a crappy one for $7/yr?

Hey @jsg you definitely have to pay attention to the numbers, and the workflow. Getting the hang of it though.

Thanks

DediRock · February 21

@deafcon said:

@forest said:

@chorong said: At least it’s getting fixed across all their host nodes now.

Did they say it was?

@DediRock said:

@forest said:
This is really disappointing from DediRock.

There have been a few providers that have accidentally kept -cpu qemu in, but they all switched it to host (or to their lowest-common model) as soon as I asked. Screwing up by turning off CPU features is not a big deal, but doubling down and kicking out the customer for asking for it is serious, in my opinion.

Hey @forest,

Yeah, it was a new one for me. My Sys Admin did check all other nodes and, from what I can tell, there were no other issues with them. We now have checks in place so it does not happen again.

I can see your viewpoint we have had many customers in the past point out mistakes, and we always do our best to address them. We just got the fix in, though, so that is handled.

Thanks!

I read this as if it was a problem on just the one node and that all other nodes were checked for the issue and it was not present.

Hey @deafcon ya it was just the one node, we did a quick check on the others, all looks good.

DediRock · February 21

@225thinker said:
This guy is going to be a cover boy on Wired one day, crowing about how he built an acquired company entirely using AI, with the disgruntled customers inadvertently teaching him everything he (and his AI) needed to learn on "The Path To 250™"

I won't be contributing.

Now thank me, bot. And let me know when you get that ® issued.

lol @225thinker that would def be a sight. Well we would love to have you as customer some day. Hope all is well, and have a great weekend man.

Thanks

DediRock · February 21

@TimboJones said:

@forest said:

@TimboJones said: If Dedirock realizes he cannot deliver the service expected

He can. It's actually utterly trivial, assuming any CPU older than Pentium 4.

Features from an example host with CPU in host mode

fpu de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36 clflush mmx fxsr sse sse2 ht syscall nx mmxext fxsr_opt pdpe1gb rdtscp lm constant_tsc rep_good amd_lbr_v2 nopl xtopology nonstop_tsc cpuid extd_apicid aperfmperf rapl pni pclmulqdq monitor ssse3 fma cx16 sse4_1 sse4_2 x2apic movbe popcnt aes xsave avx f16c rdrand lahf_lm cmp_legacy svm extapic cr8_legacy abm sse4a misalignsse 3dnowprefetch osvw ibs skinit wdt tce topoext perfctr_core perfctr_nb bpext perfctr_llc mwaitx cpb cat_l3 cdp_l3 hw_pstate pti ssbd mba perfmon_v2 ibrs ibpb stibp ibrs_enhanced vmmcall fsgsbase bmi1 avx2 smep bmi2 erms invpcid cqm rdt_a avx512f avx512dq rdseed adx smap avx512ifma clflushopt clwb avx512cd sha_ni avx512bw avx512vl xsaveopt xsavec xgetbv1 xsaves cqm_llc cqm_occup_llc cqm_mbm_total cqm_mbm_local user_shstk avx512_bf16 clzero irperf xsaveerptr rdpru wbnoinvd cppc arat npt lbrv svm_lock nrip_save tsc_scale vmcb_clean flushbyasid decodeassists pausefilter pfthreshold vgif x2avic v_spec_ctrl vnmi avx512vbmi umip pku ospke avx512_vbmi2 gfni vaes vpclmulqdq avx512_vnni avx512_bitalg avx512_vpopcntdq rdpid overflow_recov succor smca flush_l1d amd_lbr_pmc_freeze

Features from an example host without CPU in host mode

fpu de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36 clflush mmx fxsr sse sse2 syscall nx lm constant_tsc nopl xtopology cpuid tsc_known_freq pni cx16 x2apic hypervisor lahf_lm cpuid_fault pti

You overestimate what Dedirock is capable of doing, not what an experienced operator is capable of doing.

good line @TimboJones

DediRock · February 21

@chorong said:

@deafcon said:

I read this as if it was a problem on just the one node and that all other nodes were checked for the issue and it was not present.

Here's my BF Promo Dedirock, lol

jungyein@minnie:~$ cat /proc/cpuinfo
processor       : 0
vendor_id       : GenuineIntel
cpu family      : 15
model           : 107
model name      : QEMU Virtual CPU version 2.5+
stepping        : 1
microcode       : 0x1
cpu MHz         : 2599.996
cache size      : 16384 KB
physical id     : 0
siblings        : 1
core id         : 0
cpu cores       : 1
apicid          : 0
initial apicid  : 0
fpu             : yes
fpu_exception   : yes
cpuid level     : 13
wp              : yes
flags           : fpu de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36 clflush mmx fxsr sse sse2 syscall nx lm constant_tsc nopl xtopology cpuid tsc_known_freq pni cx16 x2apic hypervisor lahf_lm cpuid_fault pti
bugs            : cpu_meltdown spectre_v1 spectre_v2 spec_store_bypass l1tf mds swapgs itlb_multihit mmio_unknown bhi its
bogomips        : 5199.99
clflush size    : 64
cache_alignment : 128
address sizes   : 40 bits physical, 48 bits virtual
power management:

Thanks@ @chorong

DediRock · February 21

@Kodomu said:

@chorong said:

@deafcon said:

I read this as if it was a problem on just the one node and that all other nodes were checked for the issue and it was not present.

Here's my BF Promo Dedirock, lol

jungyein@minnie:~$ cat /proc/cpuinfo
processor       : 0
vendor_id       : GenuineIntel
cpu family      : 15
model           : 107
model name      : QEMU Virtual CPU version 2.5+
stepping        : 1
microcode       : 0x1
cpu MHz         : 2599.996
cache size      : 16384 KB
physical id     : 0
siblings        : 1
core id         : 0
cpu cores       : 1
apicid          : 0
initial apicid  : 0
fpu             : yes
fpu_exception   : yes
cpuid level     : 13
wp              : yes
flags           : fpu de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36 clflush mmx fxsr sse sse2 syscall nx lm constant_tsc nopl xtopology cpuid tsc_known_freq pni cx16 x2apic hypervisor lahf_lm cpuid_fault pti
bugs            : cpu_meltdown spectre_v1 spectre_v2 spec_store_bypass l1tf mds swapgs itlb_multihit mmio_unknown bhi its
bogomips        : 5199.99
clflush size    : 64
cache_alignment : 128
address sizes   : 40 bits physical, 48 bits virtual
power management:

For anyone in need of a comparison for what a VM with host passthrough actually looks like:

processor       : 15
vendor_id       : AuthenticAMD
cpu family      : 23
model           : 49
model name      : AMD EPYC 7702P 64-Core Processor
stepping        : 0
microcode       : 0x830107d
cpu MHz         : 1996.250
cache size      : 512 KB
physical id     : 0
siblings        : 16
core id         : 15
cpu cores       : 16
apicid          : 15
initial apicid  : 15
fpu             : yes
fpu_exception   : yes
cpuid level     : 16
wp              : yes
flags           : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36 clflush mmx fxsr sse sse2 ht syscall nx mmxext fxsr_opt pdpe1gb rdtscp lm rep_good nopl cpuid extd_apicid tsc_known_freq pni pclmulqdq ssse3 fma cx16 sse4_1 sse4_2 x2apic movbe popcnt tsc_deadline_timer aes xsave avx f16c rdrand hypervisor lahf_lm cmp_legacy svm cr8_legacy abm sse4a misalignsse 3dnowprefetch osvw perfctr_core ssbd ibrs ibpb stibp vmmcall fsgsbase tsc_adjust bmi1 avx2 smep bmi2 rdseed adx smap clflushopt clwb sha_ni xsaveopt xsavec xgetbv1 xsaves clzero xsaveerptr wbnoinvd arat npt lbrv nrip_save tsc_scale vmcb_clean flushbyasid pausefilter pfthreshold v_vmsave_vmload vgif umip rdpid overflow_recov succor
bugs            : sysret_ss_attrs spectre_v1 spectre_v2 spec_store_bypass retbleed smt_rsb srso ibpb_no_ret
bogomips        : 3992.50
TLB size        : 1024 4K pages
clflush size    : 64
cache_alignment : 64
address sizes   : 48 bits physical, 48 bits virtual
power management:

Thanks for adding that @Kodomu

DediRock · February 21

@sakuraidc said:
小樱？

little cherry blossom is the translation?

DediRock · February 21

@OpaqueRegistrant said:
I always felt there was something off about DediRock. It's the way they post here.

lol @OpaqueRegistrant I sure hope not man

I still like this post of yours here.

https://lowendtalk.com/discussion/comment/4704281#Comment_4704281

DediRock · February 21

@OpaqueRegistrant said:

@jsg said:
As I just saw yet another request for under $5/year ...

a business, any business, must generate profit in the long run.

nodes have costs, even "free" nodes (like old hardware with a book-value of $0)

running nodes incurs costs, e.g. bandwidth, electrical power, etc.

running nodes as a business also incurs HR costs, e.g. support staff, tech hands, administration

Due to the first point (business -> profit) WE, the customers, pay all those costs plus any profit!

HOW can a provider make a profit with super-cheap VPSs? Simple and usually ugly: put more VPSs on a node aka over-selling. Exception: "loss leaders" that is, "promos" meant to lure customers in, gain visibility, etc., for which evidently decent quality (and no overselling) is needed.
About the only factor that is favourable for a provider is that most customers do not use ALL their resources, in particular vCPU, bandwidth, and traffic volume. Sometimes that is where some profit can be made.

Human resources are among the most expensive, hence every ticket not created saves cost, every short response saves cost, and any ticket requiring know-how (beyond the everyday level) plus explanations plus (God forbid) multiple to/fro is expensive. Ergo knowledge bases and increasingly ai (which honestly is good enough for many, maybe most tickets).

TL;DR IMO you are begging for a crappy VM and/or bad support when you ask for and/or buy a super-cheap VPS! Again: Exception some promos.

So ask yourself: would you rather have a small but decent (incl. support) VPS for $15/yr or a crappy one for $7/yr?

Loss leading is a well known business tactic. Tailscale said they have a free tier because providing the free service is actually cheaper than the advertising they'd need to get the same number of customer acquisitions they get from having the free tier. LET deals are the same way. Same with Cloudflare if they don't make money selling your MITM interceptions.

It's valid business and doesn't come with some special laws. The business does make positive expected value on these or they wouldn't do it.

In this case a $7 customer alerting them to a misconfiguration could have saved them a huge amount of money later because they would fix this misconfiguration and not have it with a much more valuable customer.

Hey @OpaqueRegistrant,

That is a good insight. I can say, being on this side, that offering a service at a good price point does help in growing the business. We have had a tremendous amount of growth over the past 6–8 months. There have been some growing pains and adjustments made.

Of course, then you also have to make corrections, updates, and make-goods to customers where needed, I have had to do a few of those! I definitely have some customers who paid $7 for a 1c/2g/30GB SSD who are now getting full upgrades on the house (like 2c/4g/60GB SSD) as a make good. It's all part of the process.

Thanks again for your communication.

Thanks!

zed · February 21

lol this fuckin ai

Kebab · February 21

makes you think, maybe the whole company running by ai slop

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories

In this Discussion

The $7/Year "Technical Eviction": DediRock's CEO says I'm "too advanced" for them

Comments

Howdy, Stranger!

Quick Links

Categories

In this Discussion

The $7/Year "Technical Eviction": DediRock's CEO says I'm "too advanced" for them

Comments