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.
Full Transcript: Appalling Support From WeLoveServers
CraigWatson
Member
in Reviews
After a recent experience at WLS, I have decided to share the unfortunate aftermath with the world.
As WHM doesn't seem to want to let me take a full-page screenshot, I've saved the HTML output and uploaded to my own domain here: https://cwatson.org/wls
Please note that this ticket has not been edited in any way, shape or form - the HTML has only been modified to strip out external sources, in-line CSS and images and remove WLS' GA code.
I hope that "naming and shaming" this will serve as a hint to WLS that their style of support is unacceptable.
Comments
All i can say is WOW.
So Network speed affects I/O according to them? Bahaha....
They have been terrible for months now, which is kind of sad since they used to be professional and to provide an awesome service.
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=site:lowendtalk.com+"weloveservers"
They have deeply verified this.
Looks like from support replies they are paid by ticket numbers. Lots of useless answers to earn more moneyz.
Thanks - always nice to have more feedback, but better to share evidence.
They say they love servers, not customers. So I guess there's no problem with their answers :-)
But they increase network port!!!!
I like how they "increased network port" about 5 times
Their "automated" script took 4 days to stop the abuser after 3-4 manual "tweaks". I guess some of the high school kids can give better answers than "try now". This reminds me of cloudatcost, I had about 80% CPU wait for IO and ssh login once took 3 mins.
I was going to say that pretty much...but if they're letting their servers get abused, they must not love them either
Did they? They never confirmed the original value and the new value.
Hook a 10G port to a dialup net, well you get 56K not 10Gbps, and increase the port to 100Gbps still you will get 56K.
I'm not sure how you can even increase a network port. Are they physically removing the slot and putting in a new one or..?
I guess 3 or 4 posts in you just wanted to make an example of him.
Thanks for sharing your woes. I have some containers with them and suffer the same piss poor quality of service. Won't be renewing.
Not necessarily, I just wanted a functional VPS. I'm a professional sysadmin, so I know when I'm being fobbed off, because it's what I do for a living and I can't stand paying for a service I could do better myself.
Hey sysadmin,
Why didn't you move after submitting: http://www.lowendtalk.com/discussion/60877/we-love-servers-good-pricing-regular-offers-but-spotty-performance ?
Let me guess, To create another LET Drama?
Surely you would've known after a couple of posts what the outcome is.
Yeah you'd mentioned in the thread about dealing with lots of Amazon containers. I guess that's why Amazon are more expensive, one can only imagine how deeply they verify things!
No - I posted my experiences so that others can see the standard of their support.
If LET would let me edit posts, I would have done just that and bumped the original, but unfortunately you only have one hour after posting to edit, so I really could only post a new topic.
Amazon are more expensive because of their infrastructure - they actually run whole datacentres, have bought up and rolled out huge connectivity and have invested a lot of time and effort into creating their products, as opposed to renting or colo'ing a couple of dedi boxes, installing a few run-of-the-mill tools and calling it a product.
AWS is an awesome enterprise tool, but is unfortunately out of reach for most end-users that just want a VPS for a few low-end things. Even per-hour, a decently-priced VPS can work out cheaper than a t2.micro.
>
I think this guy works for ChicagoVPS too.
That's kind of the point, but you'd mentioned it in your thread like it was relevant to their poor service and the sock puppet answering your ticket.
I think for LET in general, 80/20 rule. 20% of hosts are just pure garbage.
Threads like these keep the market on its toes IMO. Having a semi-useless container should always be called out.
So, they fixed the issue after 4 days (not quite good but it's not really terrible according to Low End standards), and then you spent another 7(!) days asking them to tell you what exactly they did and why didn't they tell you exactly what are they doing?
Not quite. My problem is that any decent sysadmin or support agent with even an ounce of common sense would have been able to correctly diagnose and fix the issue in a lot less than four days - I even had to prod them in the right direction.
I asked them to clarify what they were doing because it was a relatively straightforward issue, and their supposed "solution" made absolutely zero sense - it's not just bad service, it's downright unprofessional.
They seriously are one of the worst hosting providers out there performance-wise. I've had terrible performance issues with them as well but I didn't bother to contact support because I expected the answers you've received.
It's like AlphaRacks/RIJX: nobody has a clue what's going on, nobody can do anything, and the customer always comes second. So if you want my personal advice: avoid WeLoveServers (and AlphaRacks/RIJX for that matter).
My experience with them 2 at times, on the whole they have been reasonably ok but if you do need support then it's very hit and miss. I have simply used the VPS as a learning enviroment.
If your host says any of the following in response to technical issues:
... run for the hills. Things will only go downhill from that point.
"We've moved some other services to another node"
Can you tell a bit more about these points? Why service transfer to the new node is bad and indicator of "going downhill"?
Because transferring your VPS to another node is a cheap way of saying "we're overcommitting resources and we're just going to move your VPS rather than fix the root cause". Overcommit in general isn't necessarily a bad thing and is safe to do in most scenarios, and a good host should never let it get bad enough that customers notice - monitoring and metrics should alert a provider of potential issues, never the customer.
The tactic is most often used to placate people without doing much (if any) investigation, and it generally just masks larger problems like resource contention. Moving a VPS to a different node just means that some other poor user will get the same symptoms once the node is overcrowded again.
That said, I would probably tolerate one node-move due to rebalancing of resources, but multiple moves are a huge alarm bell because it means that they can't manage their resources properly.
And if provider adding new nodes to the server farm? It's natural to balance load between nodes.
Usually provider move customers between nodes in order to achieve better performance for customers.
However, your experience with denial in basic support is definitely out of tolerance. Good luck to find another provider (maybe not low end this time?).
This should be covered under planned maintenance, and communicated via mass-email, rather than being prompted by a support ticket for bad performance.
If resource contention is a problem for end-users, then rebalancing is a bad and hacky solution, period. If you want to give customers better performance, don't overcommit your resources as much, don't take new customers once you've reached capacity and/or use more powerful hardware, or more nodes.
I've already moved providers to HostHatch, who do overcommit, but never to the extremes that WLS seem to.