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
Whoever thinks good riddance, remember this was a price depressant and something many people made use of. As i read the guy was nice too and is issuing refunds.
Hate is easy, contributing hard.
Go read any of the Crissic threads post recently, you'll see what's going on with them.
For all the weird customer service issues in the past, Ryan is being pretty good about this. Refunds are indeed being issued, I got the remaining 6 months of my server back via Paypal dispute.
I'd imagine a bunch of people had multiple containers thanks to his great combo offers. I picked up a collection of 5 and was considering more.
FWIW I'm looking at your 256MB Dallas offer right now. If I got 2 of them would it be possible to combine them to get a 512MB RAM container?
Why did he close the service I'm not surprised it ?
@jarland can you fix the spelling mistake in the title, it's doing my head in...
Shuttd up.
Fixed :P
Shame to see this happen. Hope everyone can get their money back. Seems very likely as Paypal is very consumer friendly.
Why open PayPal dispute when there is a migration path offered?
The migration path is for NAT customers. As of now, there's still no email to non-NAT customers about what has happened. Officially, non-NAT customers haven't heard anything.
By the way, NL01 is still up, but VirtWire's billing/control panel is no longer accessible (yesterday, it was still accessible).
ask that on the lowendspirit forums.
As of now, I can access CP, but not Support (my.virtwire.com/clientarea.php). At least they found a way to stop ticket-influx...
Come on guys. If you had to put money on GestionDBI, VirtWire, Ransom or inception to die. It was virtwire. One man running upwards of 8000 containers?
True, I've never used GestionDBI but the rest I have, Virtwire being the worst out of the bunch in the LES range.
However Ryan was quite nice when I hit support up about their shitty network... even though I wasn't supposed to do that..
You must mean the Solus control panel. I always simply used the control panel (I don't know its name) available directly within the client area. But, yes, there were probably a lot of tickets being submitted ...
Well, it was hard to see such details as a customer. But it's true that the prices (especially the numerous discounted offers) probably weren't sustainable over a longer period.
Can't speak for all providers but most things are automated.
Inception has self-service when adding domains that should be forwarded on port 80. Feature is available in SolusVM.
It sucks they never bothered to put sniproxy for SSL, such a waste. If you already have everything automated how hard can it be to add sniproxy and offer your customers proper SSL support? The service would be so much more useful if they did this.
Too bad actually, I have/had 12 containters with Virtwire (Atlanta, Kansas City, Seattle, Los Angeles, Lenoir, Dusseldorf, 2x Falkenstein, Strasbourg, Miami, St. Petersburg and Stockholm) and while some of them went up and down a lot, I've actually been very happy with what has been offered at that price point.
I also have servers with GestionDBI and while I will take up the offer to move some servers there, their price is higher than what I've been paying to Virtwire so I'll have to say good bye to quite a few of those. Let's hope that the Falkenstein and LA locations will be stable.
I'm sure that if you post your experience with sniproxy on the lowendspirit forums and suggest that the providers implement it, they will listen to your request.
When LowEndSpirit was initially set up, we looked at SNI-based proxying as well, but at that time there were no stable options for this. It's quite possible that the LES providers simply haven't looked into it any further since that time, and aren't aware of the existence of
sniproxy.So yeah, I'd recommend creating a thread on the LES forums
Inception uses HAProxy and when that was written, version 1.5 was yet to be released.
(feels like I'm beating a dead horse
)
You could just use cloudflare IPv4 to v6 to get around using LESs proxy.. it's essentially the same thing, but you have more control..
@elwebmaster
http://forum.lowendspirit.com/viewtopic.php?id=2617
I am aware. I was the one who made the original recommendation for that
That's a really bad idea. You won't get TLS between CloudFlare and the origin server.
You can get TLS as you can just do port 443 on IPv6, CloudFlare reverse-proxies. Still, what's the use of having a server in say ZA or HK if you can't setup low-latency access for local users? Who knows where CloudFlare will route you through, especially on the free plan. Although I do support (and use) CloudFlare all the time.
Sniproxy is essentially the same thing as HAProxy, that's why I am saying it's just another package that needs to be installed on the server, same config.
If your so worried about it then just pay more than a few dollars a year for a server. You can't expect all these features for the price you are paying.
I'm specifically referring to the tutorial that was linked, which instructs how to set up "Flexible SSL", which means you don't have TLS between CF and the origin server.
(Then again, even if you do use "Full SSL", you still have a security problem.)
Hence, create a thread on the forums
Yes, I know about this, when CloudFlare first introduced support for SSL I mentioned this problem in a number of threads. Since then I have mostly accepted it. Why? Because in my opinion SSL is broken by design. Do you trust the organizations listed here: https://mozillacaprogram.secure.force.com/CA/IncludedCACertificateReport more than CloudFlare? Because if only ONE of these organizations is rogue it can cause just as much damage as CloudFlare sitting in the middle of your traffic. That's why I think the way CloudFlare is doing SSL is a problem, but it's the least of our problems with web security.
Will it make a difference to put in the forums? I don't think I have an account there. I believe @AnthonySmith and the other LET providers are active on LET so they know about sniproxy and they know it's exactly the same as haproxy but with added support for SSL passthrough.
I have looked in to it many times, I am yet to find a config that will actually work in the les environment, I would love to expand the feature set if someone wants to come up with a sample config I will be happy to test it, so far every method I have tried has failed.
So that's NAT servers sharing up to 3 IP's on simfs, paths keys etc need to be taken in to account and the fact that almost everyone will be using lets encrypt, because who pays 1.99 for a server and 10 on an ssl certificate
Not entirely true. The problem with CF is that it's a constant MITM, and one that has been accepted as "legitimate" by many people, so any compromise from their end would be completely unnoticed.
However, if a CA were to go rogue, that's a noisy event and people are going to notice it, especially with more and more CA metrics being kept everywhere. CF is absolutely a bigger problem than the CA system as a whole, because there's no way to keep track of what CF is doing.