Howdy, Stranger!

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


finalhosting.nl: chasing pavements - Page 4
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.

finalhosting.nl: chasing pavements

12467

Comments

  • lowending said: My question would then be "why keep the OP around any longer than he wants to?"

    It saves some face by offering you the free credit, instead of just telling you to bugger off. It is a passive aggressive way of saying, we fucked up but here is something. Makes me want to puke, but that is how a lot of companies handle things.

    Thanked by 1lowending
  • joepie91joepie91 Member, Patron Provider
    edited December 2019

    jordynegen11 said: We never advertised with a money back guarantee and we do not offer it, besides the 14-day return right that is determined by Dutch law.

    Dutch law (as in the EU in general) also mandates general conformity; if you are not delivering the product or service that the customer paid for and could reasonably expect, then they can demand that either it is rectified, or the purchase agreement / contract is dissolved, which means a (proportional) refund.

    It's not entirely clear how this applies to ongoing services that have been partly correctly delivered and partly not (especially in terms of whether you're entitled to compensation for the duration of the non-conformity, after it's been fixed), but it's certainly not as simple as "we don't offer any guarantees beyond the 14-day right of return".

    Of course, all of this is hardly relevant, because you should've made the customer whole as soon as you became aware of the problem, fully and properly, and admitted fault - seeing as you're running a legitimate business. Right?

    Edit: As an aside, the Netherlands has incredibly strong consumer protection. It's generally unwise to try and hide behind it to argue that you don't have to do something, because chances are that you actually do...

  • K4Y5K4Y5 Member
    edited December 2019

    @joepie91 said:

    jordynegen11 said: We never advertised with a money back guarantee and we do not offer it, besides the 14-day return right that is determined by Dutch law.

    Dutch law (as in the EU in general) also mandates general conformity; if you are not delivering the product or service that the customer paid for and could reasonably expect, then they can demand that either it is rectified, or the purchase agreement / contract is dissolved, which means a (proportional) refund.

    It's not entirely clear how this applies to ongoing services that have been partly correctly delivered and partly not (especially in terms of whether you're entitled to compensation for the duration of the non-conformity, after it's been fixed), but it's certainly not as simple as "we don't offer any guarantees beyond the 14-day right of return".

    Of course, all of this is hardly relevant, because you should've made the customer whole as soon as you became aware of the problem, fully and properly, and admitted fault - seeing as you're running a legitimate business. Right?

    Edit: As an aside, the Netherlands has incredibly strong consumer protection. It's generally unwise to try and hide behind it to argue that you don't have to do something, because chances are that you actually do...

    This thread will most likely result in @jordynegen11's company becoming his finalhosting venture. Sad, but true.

    Thanked by 1BlaZe
  • Oh I had forgotten the provider was this same guy https://www.lowendtalk.com/discussion/157519/hosting-fivem-servers/p1

  • I can't see this ending well

  • @vimalware said:
    Oh I had forgotten the provider was this same guy https://www.lowendtalk.com/discussion/157519/hosting-fivem-servers/p1

    And following that link, I was reminded that he's the password guy: https://www.lowendtalk.com/discussion/comment/2970170

    To many negative data points. The end is nigh.

  • uptimeuptime Member
    edited December 2019

    @poisson - just as an aside, it occurs to me that this sort of "final reckoning" may present an opportunity to do some retrospective tuning for the salt weights (referring back to discussion about modeling collective wisdom on LES) ...

    As another aside - recognizing how the above comment inevitably veers toward apparent "word salad" status, even as I edit myself a bit. Funny ...

    Thanked by 1dahartigan
  • 18 hours since the last ticket, it looks like all 5 VPSes (17 vCPUs worth) are on an "i9-3" node. Have not accessed them to check since they are displayed as offline in the panel. I'll sit on it for a bit more before I try it. Should I run tests?

  • @Neoon said:

    @cybertech said:
    Well I have automatic PayPal refunds too

    Yea, works.
    If it does detect a long downtime, it creates a WHCM's ticket.
    If the issue is not resolved, it fills out a paypal dispute.

    You forgot the autodialler with completely recorded audio to the cc issuer to open a chargeback without doing anything.

  • cybertechcybertech Member
    edited December 2019

    @lowending said:

    18 hours since the last ticket, it looks like all 5 VPSes (17 vCPUs worth) are on an "i9-3" node. Have not accessed them to check since they are displayed as offline in the panel. I'll sit on it for a bit more before I try it. Should I run tests?

    Pls run extensive benchmarks on those.

    Thanked by 1MrH
  • @Stryp said:

    @tgl said:
    the @cociu effect: guerantee failture failture

    no refound but 1 mount free iz god

    But cociu always refunds

    Cociu’s trying, even when I never used their services before. Considering the price tag, I imagine it’s reasonable.

    Besides, people just idle that stuff anyway or dumb useless data or torrents, and that’s it.

  • @lowending said:
    18 hours since the last ticket, it looks like all 5 VPSes (17 vCPUs worth) are on an "i9-3" node. Have not accessed them to check since they are displayed as offline in the panel. I'll sit on it for a bit more before I try it. Should I run tests?

    I’m sure you know this, but you’re running with 16 cores on one single 8c/16t machine. That doesn’t seem to fit the bill. It certainly does not give you the scalability which made you choose this over a dedicated machine.

  • joepie91joepie91 Member, Patron Provider

    @poisson said:

    @vimalware said:
    Oh I had forgotten the provider was this same guy https://www.lowendtalk.com/discussion/157519/hosting-fivem-servers/p1

    And following that link, I was reminded that he's the password guy: https://www.lowendtalk.com/discussion/comment/2970170

    To many negative data points. The end is nigh.

    Ouch.

    The only conclusion I can draw here, frankly, is that @jordynegen11 means well in principle, but doesn't know when to stop and admit that he messed something up.

    You see that with this incident (not wanting to admit that he transferred something manually), and with the password encryption case as well - which, for posterity, cannot be secure by definition, no matter how much fancy encryption you throw at it (given that if the panel can decrypt it, so can anyone controlling the panel).

    That attitude is... a problem, for a hosting provider, and really needs to be fixed.

    @jordynegen11: As a concrete recommendation: don't just defer to a 'cybersecurity expert' without understanding how the security (supposedly) works yourself - take the time to understand it fully. Someone working for big companies doesn't automagically make them right; said big companies often have very poor security practices that are more security theater and cargo culting than actual, well-reasoned security.

    Don't defer blame for things that happen. Think carefully before you make decisions (eg. whatever led to that VPS migration that this thread revolves around), and ask for help if you get stuck. There's a provider thread on here that's perfectly suitable for that, for example.

    You have the potential to run a successful hosting company, but if you keep going like you're going now, you're going to run into trouble at some point in the future, and that might end up costing you your company. Think carefully about what you're going to do next.

    Thanked by 1FHR
  • Thanked by 1dahartigan
  • lowendinglowending Member
    edited December 2019

    This is the link to the original promo thread, where @angelius shared his outstanding 1 vCPU (of i9-9900k) results- which was a big part of why my monies went to him.

    This is the same benchmark he used, but with mine I am using the 4 vCPU version of allegedly "i9-9900K"s because on the panel now it says it's on the i9-3 node. (spolier: they aren't) For clarity, as of now two VPSes are shown as online on the i9-3 node, and the rest seems to have gone back to BLADE shit nodes again- maybe because they are "still being migrated" (or have not been spoofed yet).

    This is the 3rd consecutive benchmark result so I wasn't using it from idle.

    root@finalhostingiii01:~# inxi -C
    CPU:       Quad core QEMU Virtual version 2.5+ (-MCP-) cache: 16384 KB
               clock speeds: max: 3599 MHz 1: 3599 MHz 2: 3599 MHz 3: 3599 MHz 4: 3599 MHz
    root@finalhostingiii01:~# (curl -s wget.racing/nench.sh | bash; curl -s wget.racing/nench.sh | bash) 2>&1 | tee nench.log
    -------------------------------------------------
     nench.sh v2019.07.20 -- https://git.io/nench.sh
     benchmark timestamp:    2019-12-06 10:50:43 UTC
    -------------------------------------------------
    
    Processor:    QEMU Virtual CPU version 2.5+
    CPU cores:    4
    Frequency:    3599.960 MHz
    RAM:          7.8G
    Swap:         8.0G
    Kernel:       Linux 4.15.0-66-generic x86_64
    
    Disks:
    vda    300G  HDD
    
    CPU: SHA256-hashing 500 MB
        2.026 seconds
    CPU: bzip2-compressing 500 MB
        3.437 seconds
    CPU: AES-encrypting 500 MB
        2.069 seconds
    
    ioping: seek rate
        min/avg/max/mdev = 15.2 us / 34.6 us / 4.88 ms / 35.4 us
    ioping: sequential read speed
        generated 55.2 k requests in 5.00 s, 13.5 GiB, 11.0 k iops, 2.69 GiB/s
    
    dd: sequential write speed
        1st run:    468.25 MiB/s
        2nd run:    833.51 MiB/s
        3rd run:    1239.78 MiB/s
        average:    847.18 MiB/s
    
    IPv4 speedtests
        your IPv4:    xx.xx.xx.xxxx
    
        Cachefly CDN:         43.31 MiB/s
        Leaseweb (NL):        50.75 MiB/s
        Softlayer DAL (US):   14.06 MiB/s
        Online.net (FR):      46.96 MiB/s
        OVH BHS (CA):         14.84 MiB/s
    
    No IPv6 connectivity detected
    -------------------------------------------------
    

    In another test, but this time with the same 1 vCPU specs as @angelius, I am still getting >2x slower results for AES-encrypting.

    CPU: SHA256-hashing 500 MB
        1.961 seconds
    CPU: bzip2-compressing 500 MB
        3.554 seconds
    CPU: AES-encrypting 500 MB
        2.015 seconds
    
    1. Processor info is hidden, as opposed to before.
    2. Why are the AES-encryption results 2x worse?
    3. Why do the sequential write speeds look like they have to "spin up"? I thought NVMes' have no disk to spin?

    Only one thing is certain, popcorns for everyone!

    Thanked by 1bjo
  • FalzoFalzo Member
    edited December 2019

    long story short: the i9 offer wasn't sustainable and the nodes have been canceled and everything moved to the blade things. most likely the VMs have been on two different nodes and that's why it happened on different times.
    now you are requesting to be moved 'back' and because there are no real or not the same i9 nodes anymore, they probably used something comparable (in terms of clockspeed).
    that's probably with a totally different DC or provider, hence they need to change IPs as well...

    prem failover solution :-D

    Thanked by 3MrH bjo bikegremlin
  • lowendinglowending Member
    edited December 2019

    At some point, it would be time to go on the offensive. Great customers are also usually very bad victims, looks more and more llike it will be a lowending

  • @lowending said:
    This is the link to the original promo thread, where @angelius shared his outstanding 1 vCPU (of i9-9900k) results- which was a big part of why my monies went to him.

    I've had the 1vCPU i9-9900k for some months as part of a free giveaway Finalhosting did here. Seemed to perform very very well back then. Was ~September IIRC.

    This is the same benchmark he used, but with mine I am using the 4 vCPU version of allegedly "i9-9900K"s because on the panel now it says it's on the i9-3 node. (spolier: they aren't) For clarity, as of now two VPSes are shown as online on the i9-3 node, and the rest seems to have gone back to BLADE shit nodes again- maybe because they are "still being migrated" (or have not been spoofed yet).

    This is the 3rd consecutive benchmark result so I wasn't using it from idle.
    ```
    root@finalhostingiii01:~# inxi -C
    CPU: Quad core QEMU Virtual version 2.5+ (-MCP-) cache: 16384 KB
    clock speeds: max: 3599 MHz 1: 3599 MHz 2: 3599 MHz 3: 3599 MHz 4: 3599 MHz

    Well, 3.6 GHz and 16MB cache does look like the i9. I'm not sure if this can be spoofed.

    1. Processor info is hidden, as opposed to before.

    This isn't unheard of, but feels a bit iffy given the scenario.

    1. Why are the AES-encryption results 2x worse?

    Which cpu flags are passed through?

    1. Why do the sequential write speeds look like they have to "spin up"? I thought NVMes' have no disk to spin?

    You won't get this sequential write speed on HDD's, im pretty sure this is SSD.

  • @lowending said:

    At some point, it would be time to go on the offensive. Great customers are also usually very bad victims, looks more and more llike it will be a lowending

    Initiate a chargeback and get it over with.

  • @Falzo said:
    long story short: the i9 offer wasn't sustainable and the nodes have been canceled and everything moved to the blade things.

    I noticed that the i9 'Premium VPS' offer is offline as well. So this is probably true. Why you wouldn't inform your customers about this is beyond me.

  • debaser said: This isn't unheard of, but feels a bit iffy given the scenario.

    Yeah I'm looking at everything with a skeptical lens. Not a fun deal.

    debaser said: Which cpu flags are passed through?

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

    Also yeah it looks like it's turned off. So all in all it should be a comparable (if not identical) to an i9-9900K.

    root@finalhostingiii01:~# cpuid | grep -i aes
          AES instruction                         = false
          AES instruction                         = false
          AES instruction                         = false
          AES instruction                         = false
    
  • poissonpoisson Member
    edited December 2019

    Run Geekbench and compare single node performance with other i9-9900k single core results there. Too much of a deviation plus deliberately obscuring the host node CPU information is pretty much smoking gun that he didn't do what he promised.

    Thanked by 2dahartigan debaser
  • pikepike Veteran
    edited December 2019

    10/10 Thread, very entertaining.

    Also to compare such behaviour with dear cociu is utter bullshit. He is an honorable member of this community, with a long history here and many users trusting him, honest when issues appear and refunds any reasonably unhappy customer with no questions asked.

    Thanked by 3dahartigan dosai MrH
  • Our beautiful soul @cociu would have pushed the refound button by now.

    Thanked by 1pike
  • Love the deafening silence from the cociu haters. If not for double standards, those people would have none.

  • @poisson said:
    Run. Geekbench and compare single node performance with other i9-9900k single core results there. Too much of a deviation plus deliberately obscuring the host node CPU information is pretty much smoking gun that he didn't do what he promised.

    I'd recommend this as well. Mind that a little deviation could just mean that you're on a busy node.

    Furthermore, you should really have a look at the EX62-NVME at @Hetzner_OL or the Agile XL Pro V2 at @Ikoula. It would cost you less, but as you still have 16 threads the performance should be equal. Put Proxmox on it to run your own VM's.

    Thanked by 1Hetzner_OL
  • @jordilaforge refound the guy man its been 2 days since you're hiding behind the TOS

  • BlaZeBlaZe Member, Host Rep

    Jordy was online here just 55 minutes ago. Assuming he read the thread and chose to ignore it concludes everything.

    But who are we to judge, I'm just here for some drama.

  • This thread provided me much needed drama dose. That other HostDoc thread let me down.

  • To be honest I have also stopped to use finalhosting because of frequent short downtimes (several times per month) and also lacking vmx cpu flag.
    I have moved to an AX41 dedicated
    But jordy seems to be a great guy and I'm sure he will improve his service on the long run

Sign In or Register to comment.