Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Subscribe to our newsletter

Advertise on LowEndTalk.com

Latest LowEndBox Offers

    HiFormance scum is back with... - Page 4
    New on LowEndTalk? Please read our 'Community Rules' by clicking on it in the right menu!

    HiFormance scum is back with...

    124

    Comments

    • deankdeank Member

      Damn, must I register lowendtalk.ca ?

      If you can't make your point within 5 lines of words, you have an optimization issue.
      Amitz day is October 17th.

    • RazzaRazza Member

      If you combine @teamacc WP version and theme data with where each site is hosted 8 at Linode all the same theme 7 of them same theme and wp version.

    • @dahartigan said:

      Edit11: so it looks like opendns runs phish tank which have actually got leb marked as a phishing site.. Lol.

      LEB has been hacked.

      If you check the Phishtank report at https://www.phishtank.com/phish_detail.php?phish_id=5880251 you will understand why I say that

    • Daniel15Daniel15 Member
      edited January 8

      @Razza said:
      If you combine @teamacc WP version and theme data with where each site is hosted 8 at Linode all the same theme 7 of them same theme and wp version.

      ... I don't think I'd trust a host that doesn't even use their own services to host their site. If they can't even trust themselves, why should anyone else trust them?

      This smells a lot like a host getting a powerful server on a fast network for their own site (so people think that their services are fast), and then their actual products are on a poor oversold overloaded network.

      Why do so many of them use Linode?

    • @Daniel15 said:

      Why do so many of them use Linode?

      Plot-twist.

      ColoCrossing is in reality owned by Linode.

      Thanked by 1t0m
    • MasonRMasonR Member
      edited January 8

      @Daniel15 said:
      ... I don't think I'd trust a host that doesn't even use their own services to host their site. If they can't even trust themselves, why should anyone else trust them?

      I think it's common practice to not put all your eggs in one basket should shit hit the fan. If your infra network is down, you'll want access to your site and status pages so you can alert your clients. Not all hosts do this, but it is a decent way to avoid a SPOF taking down everything.

      Edit: additionally, not all hosts have DDoS protected setups. Hosting providers naturally attract a lot of DoS attacks. From what I've seen, ColoCrossing doesn't have the largest capacity for handling DDoS attacks (I think Chicago has decent protection, but Buffalo and elsewhere is minimal)

      Thanked by 1MrPsycho

      LowEndStorage | FreeMach - Free KVM Servers (LET Thread)
      Yet Another Bench Script (YABS) - Linux Server Benchmarking Script (dd/ioping, iperf, & Geekbench)

    • Daniel15Daniel15 Member
      edited January 8

      MasonR said: I think it's common practice to not put all your eggs in one basket should shit hit the fan. If your infra network is down, you'll want access to your site and status pages so you can alert your clients.

      Sure... Status page and DNS on a separate network is understandable. Maybe a fallback site in case their main one goes down, maybe using Cloudflare for DDoS protection + quicker failover (as you'd avoid needing to wait for DNS propagation if you just change the IP at Cloudflare's end). A backup site in a second data center (for hosts that have multiple DCs) makes sense.

      But their entire website on another provider's network? I don't see that a lot. buyvm.net is in a BuyVM IP range, linode.com is in a Linode IP range.

    • solairesolaire Member
      edited January 8

      They probably just want clean IP's to host their homepages. ColoCrossing has very few of those left.

      -edit-

      Can't wait!

      Thanked by 2eol bugrakoc
    • codedivinecodedivine Member
      edited January 10

      @Rhys said:

      @dahartigan said:

      I know Virmach are reputable around here although I haven't used them myself, and they have a CC location but who is a trusted host using QN?

      CrownCloud & anyNode (Formally Hostigation).

      I think @UltraVPS also uses Quadranet for LA. @launchvps used to have some LA stock also I think based on Quadranet.

      Thanked by 3UltraVPS Rhys uptime
    • RhysRhys Member, Provider

      @codedivine said:

      @Rhys said:

      @dahartigan said:

      I know Virmach are reputable around here although I haven't used them myself, and they have a CC location but who is a trusted host using QN?

      CrownCloud & anyNode (Formally Hostigation).

      I think @UltraVPS also uses Quadranet for LA. @launchvps used to have some LA stock also I think based on Quadranet.

      I believe @UltraVPS does and they're pretty good.

      Thanked by 1UltraVPS
    • UltraVPSUltraVPS Member, Provider

      Thanks for the mention. Yes, we use Quadranet in LA.

      Thanked by 1Rhys

      UltraVPS.eu - KVM Virtual Servers starting from 2 EUR/m

    • eoleol Member

      Quadranet is CC afaik.

      ˙ɹǝuzʇǝɥ

    • @eol said:
      Quadranet is CC afaik.

      I equate them to about the same even if they aren't directly owned by CC.

      Thanked by 2eol 3606202

      The Bun | Primary DNS | Small Web <--- Do not ask questions, just go for it.

    • dahartigandahartigan Member, Host Rep

      @AuroraZ said:

      @eol said:
      Quadranet is CC afaik.

      I equate them to about the same even if they aren't directly owned by CC.

      For all intents and purposes it's safe to put QN and CC in the same basket, even if there is never an admission that they are the same company.

      It's just like by now everyone know wootalphanfp are the same guy.

      Thanked by 1eol

      HostDoc representative | Purveyor of high quality potassium | "A KVM VPS with 64 IPs? Must be Evolution Host."

    • arhuearhue Member
      edited January 11

      @Daniel15 said:
      ... I don't think I'd trust a host that doesn't even use their own services to host their site. If they can't even trust themselves, why should anyone else trust them?

      This smells a lot like a host getting a powerful server on a fast network for their own site (so people think that their services are fast), and then their actual products are on a poor oversold overloaded network.

      Could be. But if I were a host I would host my infra at a place other than my own so that any downtime/mess up doesn't take down the main website/status page. Agree that it reflects poorly tho.

    • HostEONSHostEONS Member, Provider

      I won't host our own website on a third party infrastructure (because if we don't trust our own network for our website how can we expect our clients to trust us) but we do understand like any other network even our own network can go down.

      So what we do is:

      1) Use DNS of our registrar as name servers for our domain
      2) We use GSuite for emails
      3) We use our own infrastructure for our website, billing, blog etc... It is on same network as our VPS and web hosting servers

      We use DNS from third party because it's not worth it to invest a lot of time in managing redundant DNS Servers just for our own website and if in case if anything goes wrong with our network our dns will also go down, if our DNS is up we can at least setup a temporary page elsewhere to keep our clients updated about what's going on.

      Same reason for hosting our mail server with GSuite

      hostEONS - SSD KVM &OpenvZ VPS (FUSE, DOCKER, TUN/TAP Supported) | cPanel Web Hosting | VPS Locations: Los Angeles (Psychz and Internap), New York (Internap) | Free Blesta License | Latest Offer

    • randvegetarandvegeta Member, Provider

      HostEONS said: I won't host our own website on a third party infrastructure (because if we don't trust our own network for our website how can we expect our clients to trust us) but we do understand like any other network even our own network can go down.

      Agreed. We used to run our site on a 3rd party host, not because we didn't trust our own network/infra, but just to make sure we were reachable and able to make announcements in the even we DID have a problem.

      This was years ago now, but it turned out to be a very bad idea. The host we used (which will remain un-named) was extremely unreliable and our site had numerous and relatively long lasting downtime. It also looked bad to our clients who were checking our network and found we were on a different network. And finally, it confused some people thinking that our services were located elsewhere from what we advertise.

      Ultimately we now run our own site on the same network as our clients, but with a bit of extra redundancy for our main server in particular.

      Thanked by 1Daniel15
    • h2oh2o Member

      JohnMiller92 said: Alpha

      @JohnMiller92 said:

      @dahartigan said:
      I know Virmach are reputable around here although I haven't used them myself, and they have a CC location but who is a trusted host using QN?

      I have a AlphaRacks VPS on QN. It's been super stable so far. I've only had it for around a month though

      Yep, that's why I asked for a good plan from JJ @alpharacks through their low price guarantee yesterday. :wink:

    • @JohnMiller92 said:

      @dahartigan said:
      I know Virmach are reputable around here although I haven't used them myself, and they have a CC location but who is a trusted host using QN?

      I have a AlphaRacks VPS on QN. It's been super stable so far. I've only had it for around a month though

      WE say VERY stable, NOT "super" stable when we talk in English. STOP corrupting our language.

      Thanked by 1Xenos
    • XenosXenos Member

      @asterisk14 said:

      WE say VERY stable, NOT "super" stable when we talk in English. STOP corrupting our language.

      Good luck with that! Have you had a conversation with a kid that didn't use the word "like" non stop?

    • eoleol Member

      Good like with your kid.

      Thanked by 1uptime

      ˙ɹǝuzʇǝɥ

    • @asterisk14 said:

      @JohnMiller92 said:

      @dahartigan said:
      I know Virmach are reputable around here although I haven't used them myself, and they have a CC location but who is a trusted host using QN?

      I have a AlphaRacks VPS on QN. It's been super stable so far. I've only had it for around a month though

      WE say VERY stable, NOT "super" stable when we talk in English. STOP corrupting our language.

      Okay, sorry

    • @Francisco said:
      Seems they've now bought a WHMCS license.

      It's a real shame WHMCS doesn't have a wall of shame.

      Francisco

      I believe once upon a time (going back many many many years) they used to, mostly on their forums as customers used to confirm them.

    • @eol said:
      Quadranet is CC afaik.

      Oh yeah? Your dad and me are the same too!

      Thanked by 2eol hostdare
    • eoleol Member

      @dustinc said:

      @eol said:
      Quadranet is CC afaik.

      Oh yeah? Your dad and me are the same too!

      ˙ɹǝuzʇǝɥ

    • @dustinc said:

      @eol said:
      Quadranet is CC afaik.

      Oh yeah? Your dad and me are the same too!

      No, his spare chromosome doesn't match yours.

      Thanked by 1eol
    • @dustinc said:

      @eol said:
      Quadranet is CC afaik.

      Oh yeah? Your dad and me are the same too!

      Did you just tell him you fucked his mom?

      Thanked by 2eol imok

      I like my uptime down low and my servers all hacked. Can see me droppin' twenty-fours with a router in the rack.
      Ya like ya Switch-Ports hot and ya servers all hacked. If ya pings real high and ya networks pitch black.

    • eoleol Member

      @teamacc said:

      @dustinc said:

      @eol said:
      Quadranet is CC afaik.

      Oh yeah? Your dad and me are the same too!

      Did you just tell him you fucked his mom?

      That would explain...

      EDIT2:
      Hi, Dad.

      ˙ɹǝuzʇǝɥ

    • @asterisk14 said:

      @JohnMiller92 said:

      @dahartigan said:
      I know Virmach are reputable around here although I haven't used them myself, and they have a CC location but who is a trusted host using QN?

      I have a AlphaRacks VPS on QN. It's been super stable so far. I've only had it for around a month though

      WE say VERY stable, NOT "super" stable when we talk in English. STOP corrupting our language.

      Some of us English folk even say "strong and stable".

    • hostdarehostdare Member, Provider
      edited January 17

      eol said: That would explain...

      dustin is donating some spoon purchase money in other thread , you can request him directly now

      Thanked by 1eol

      HostDare - One of the cheapest and coolest providers online! :) | Our premium unmanaged vps plans | Cheap Shared Hosting

    • AnthonySmithAnthonySmith Top Provider

      Am I the only one who appends “with the ill behaviour” in my head to the end of this thread topic every time I see it on LET

      Thanked by 1Mr_Tom

      Had enough of the scams on lowendbox, lowendtalk is now being infiltrated by corruption so I have chosen to make an low end exit #lexit for now - you can find me HERE

    • ChuckChuck Member

      @AnthonySmith said:
      Am I the only one who appends “with the ill behaviour” in my head to the end of this thread topic every time I see it on LET

      I believe LET is the only place that has this thread topic.

      I like what she said, not what it means.

    • AnthonySmithAnthonySmith Top Provider

      Thanked by 1mfs

      Had enough of the scams on lowendbox, lowendtalk is now being infiltrated by corruption so I have chosen to make an low end exit #lexit for now - you can find me HERE

    • @asterisk14 said:
      WE say VERY stable, NOT "super" stable when we talk in English. STOP corrupting our language.

      I made a question on stackexchange just to double check:
      https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/481359/is-super-stable-correct-english

      They are saying it's a informal adverb. I'm not sure what you mean by "corrupting our language", could you clarify?

      Thanked by 3solaire eol maverickp
    • xaocxaoc Member

      @JohnMiller92 said:

      @asterisk14 said:
      WE say VERY stable, NOT "super" stable when we talk in English. STOP corrupting our language.

      I made a question on stackexchange just to double check:
      https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/481359/is-super-stable-correct-english

      They are saying it's a informal adverb. I'm not sure what you mean by "corrupting our language", could you clarify?

      It's either stable or it's not.

      Thanked by 2eol t0m

      So Say We All

    • eoleol Member

      @xaoc said:
      It's either stable or it's not.

      True.

      ˙ɹǝuzʇǝɥ

    • @asterisk14 said:
      WE say VERY stable, NOT "super" stable when we talk in English. STOP corrupting our language.

      How about YOU stop corrupting any language by MISUSING CAPITALIZATION?

      Super stable, though informal, is grammatically correct. I even come across this combination of words in research papers.

    • xaocxaoc Member

      @solaire said:

      @asterisk14 said:
      WE say VERY stable, NOT "super" stable when we talk in English. STOP corrupting our language.

      How about YOU stop corrupting any language by MISUSING CAPITALIZATION?

      Super stable, though informal, is grammatically correct. I even come across this combination of words in research papers.

      If it is stable it can only get unstable, it cannot get "more" stable tho because stable was the upper limit. Think of it as a on/off switch.

      So Say We All

    • xaoc said: If it is stable it can only get unstable, it cannot get "more" stable tho because stable was the upper limit. Think of it as a on/off switch.

      If it can get "very" stable, it can get "super" stable by the very same logic? I'm really not seeing the issue here. It can even get "stablest" (the superlative form of "stable", which pretty much is defined as "most stable" in most dictionaries afaik), which I believe would be the upper limit you're referring to?

      Even the president of the US has claimed to be "very stable". Besides that being worth a good laugh, I'd think he knows the English language?

      I'm by no means an expert in the English language, but I resided in the US for quite some time so I do know a fair amount.

    • eoleol Member

      For me there is stable and not stable.
      Just my jayztwocents.

      Thanked by 1xaoc

      ˙ɹǝuzʇǝɥ

    • @eol said:
      For me there is stable and not stable.
      Just my jayztwocents.

      90% of the time its 100% stable

      Thanked by 2eol xaoc

      I like my uptime down low and my servers all hacked. Can see me droppin' twenty-fours with a router in the rack.
      Ya like ya Switch-Ports hot and ya servers all hacked. If ya pings real high and ya networks pitch black.

    • xaocxaoc Member

      @solaire said:

      xaoc said: If it is stable it can only get unstable, it cannot get "more" stable tho because stable was the upper limit. Think of it as a on/off switch.

      If it can get "very" stable, it can get "super" stable by the very same logic?

      It really can't. You can only say stuff like "more stable(than unstable) or most stable(from the bunch of stable things) where most refers to the time it was in the stable state compared to the time it has been in the unstable state". English language has nothing to do with the above.

      Thanked by 1Chuck

      So Say We All

    • xaoc said: It really can't. You can only say stuff like "more stable(than unstable) or most stable(from the bunch of stable things) where most refers to the time it was in the stable state compared to the time it has been in the unstable state". English language has nothing to do with the above.

      You're wrong according to Oxford: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/stable

      Thanked by 1Chuck
    • eoleol Member

      @solaire said:
      You're wrong according to Oxford: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/stable

      Scam site reported to MIT.

      ˙ɹǝuzʇǝɥ

    • xaocxaoc Member

      @solaire said:

      xaoc said: It really can't. You can only say stuff like "more stable(than unstable) or most stable(from the bunch of stable things) where most refers to the time it was in the stable state compared to the time it has been in the unstable state". English language has nothing to do with the above.

      You're wrong according to Oxford: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/stable

      And what am i according to brain? :P

      So Say We All

    • eoleol Member

      @xaoc said:
      And what am i according to brain? :P

      Whose brain? :P

      ˙ɹǝuzʇǝɥ

    • xaocxaoc Member

      @eol said:

      @xaoc said:
      And what am i according to brain? :P

      Whose brain? :P

      A working brain belonging to anyone. :D

      So Say We All

    • eoleol Member

      @xaoc said:

      @eol said:

      @xaoc said:
      And what am i according to brain? :P

      Whose brain? :P

      A working brain belonging to anyone. :D

      Brains work differently from what I've observed...

      ˙ɹǝuzʇǝɥ

    • @deank said:
      Damn, must I register lowendtalk.ca ?

      @xaoc said:

      @solaire said:

      @asterisk14 said:
      WE say VERY stable, NOT "super" stable when we talk in English. STOP corrupting our language.

      How about YOU stop corrupting any language by MISUSING CAPITALIZATION?

      Super stable, though informal, is grammatically correct. I even come across this combination of words in research papers.

      If it is stable it can only get unstable, it cannot get "more" stable tho because stable was the upper limit. Think of it as a on/off switch.

      I used to think that way about "secure". It either is, or isn't. I've since realized the rest of the world has a range of "secure" with context (e.g. secure to neckbeard guy next to me, not secure against NSA).

      But I'd like to hear your rant on "a more perfect... " from, I think, the US Constitution (or Bill of Rights?). I consider perfect to have an upper limit.

      But if you're fucking Margot Robbie and you say, "perfect", how do you top that when Gal Gadot gets into bed with you?

    • xaocxaoc Member

      @TimboJones said:

      @deank said:
      Damn, must I register lowendtalk.ca ?

      @xaoc said:

      @solaire said:

      @asterisk14 said:
      WE say VERY stable, NOT "super" stable when we talk in English. STOP corrupting our language.

      How about YOU stop corrupting any language by MISUSING CAPITALIZATION?

      Super stable, though informal, is grammatically correct. I even come across this combination of words in research papers.

      If it is stable it can only get unstable, it cannot get "more" stable tho because stable was the upper limit. Think of it as a on/off switch.

      I used to think that way about "secure". It either is, or isn't. I've since realized the rest of the world has a range of "secure" with context (e.g. secure to neckbeard guy next to me, not secure against NSA).

      But I'd like to hear your rant on "a more perfect... " from, I think, the US Constitution (or Bill of Rights?). I consider perfect to have an upper limit.

      But if you're fucking Margot Robbie and you say, "perfect", how do you top that when Gal Gadot gets into bed with you?

      Nope, same shiz, won't waste my letter quota. How you perceive things does not change their state.

      So Say We All

    Sign In or Register to comment.