Howdy, Stranger!

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


i7 2600 WSI Equivalent - Page 2
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.

i7 2600 WSI Equivalent

245

Comments

  • WSSWSS Member
    edited January 2018

    The truth of it is: LET, and shoeminers are not normal use.

    The fact that many of these programs are designed to push the CPU/GPU/etc to the limits and possibly cause issues in the future, and then have the client chargeback, et al, means that @qps doesn't want them.

    They've come out and said so much- I respect them for outright saying so, and am more inclined to consider them because I don't want those people, either, nor do I want IRC bots on my shared NAT boxes or teamspeak.

    I'm sure they've taken the stance of "No max CPU" just to deal with whatever the next bullshit mathematical craze happens next, say, Folding@Home4ButtCoins, or whatever. It's their policy, and although makes more sense for a VPS, is their stance. You can stop shitting on him for being transparent at any time.

  • Throw the affiliate link @WSS . Kappa

    @WSS said:
    The truth of it is: LET, and shoeminers are not normal use.

    The fact that many of these programs are designed to push the CPU/GPU/etc to the limits and possibly cause issues in the future, and then have the client chargeback, et al, means that @qps doesn't want them.

    They've come out and said so much- I respect them for outright saying so, and am more inclined to consider them because I don't want those people, either, nor do I want IRC bots on my shared NAT boxes or teamspeak.

    I'm sure they've taken the stance of "No max CPU" just to deal with whatever the next bullshit mathematical craze happens next, say, Folding@Home4ButtCoins, or whatever. It's their policy, and although makes more sense for a VPS, is their stance. You can stop shitting on him for being transparent at any time.

    Thanked by 1quick
  • WSSWSS Member

    @Hxxx said:
    Throw the affiliate link @WSS.

    I don't like you.

    Thanked by 1Hxxx
  • dahartigan said: knowing they are the only provider that keeps tabs on CPU usage on a dedicated server?

    Power usage

  • willie said: write a ridiculous TOS and then usually not enforce it, as a way to throw out customers or charge them extra at whim

    You must enjoy the no TOS or copy/paste TOS common these days.

  • williewillie Member
    edited January 2018

    doughmanes said: You must enjoy the no TOS or copy/paste TOS common these days.

    There's all kinds of TOS's. Incero's last time I looked at it was about the most obnoxious I've seen. Usually it's just a checklist of policies and permitted usages (DMCA response, no TOR, no IRC, that sort of thing).

    Regarding "push the CPU/GPU/etc to the limits and possibly cause issues in the future": at least with Xeon hardware, wtf? It's a server, it's built to run 24/7, Google and other cloud hosts actually consider cpu utilization as a metric to be maximized with 100% being the goal. If using it that way causes hardware issues, it's crap hardware and should be thrown out. And if there's a GPU in a server at all, it's likely marketed toward machine learning which is usually a 24/7/365 workload.

    I can understand if there's more failures with cheap-ass desktop hardware ala OVH/Hetzner but selling that as servers is a business model that those hosts enter by choice. I bought an Online.net E3 partly from worry about frying my Hetzner i7 with extended cpu runs. Even that hasn't been an issue in practice though.

    Thanked by 1Yura
  • Sounds like the guy is just mad he can't mine on their servers.

    If you aren't mining, you won't have any problems with quickpacket. Not that hard to comprehend.

  • This is your 'dedicated cpu thread' VPS is not really dedicated, all over again.

    I trust hetzner won't modify their TOS, since their Setup fee should be enough to keep out miners

  • Hxxx said: since miners most likely will use 100% the CPU day and night, power consumption might be higher making your earnings thinner.

    As a counter-argument, most miners use next to no bandwidth - I'm guessing that offsets the electrical costs, at least to some degree.

  • qpsqps Member, Host Rep
    edited January 2018

    Aidan said: As a counter-argument, most miners use next to no bandwidth - I'm guessing that offsets the electrical costs, at least to some degree.

    Very few dedicated server customers use much bandwidth anyway, so that isn't really a factor...

  • WSSWSS Member

    @qps said:

    Aidan said: As a counter-argument, most miners use next to no bandwidth - I'm guessing that offsets the electrical costs, at least to some degree.

    Very few dedicated server customers use much bandwidth anyway, so that isn't really a factor...

    Interesting choice to re-edit.

    Thanked by 1Aidan
  • williewillie Member
    edited January 2018

    Ewok said: If you aren't mining, you won't have any problems with quickpacket. Not that hard to comprehend.

    The TOS says something different than that. Not hard to comprehend either.

    Setup fee apparently won't keep scam miners away if they're in the habit of chargebacks. The root problem here seems to be that there's no cash-like payment system which can't be unilaterally reversed by the buyer. Ironically, cryptocurrency solves that.

    I emailed a buddy who is an FPGA circuit designer about mining Monero (and related) with FPGA's instead of CPU's. There's a good chance that FPGA mining can put an end to economical CPU mining. Think of it as a public service ;-).

    I don't see much reason to mine at Qps anyway. Qps is great and I consider myself a potential customer (not immediately but they've been on my radar for a while), but the main attractions (US location, good LET presence, and quality network) aren't of particular interest to miners. If I was mining I'd just want the cheapest possible CPU. Quickpacket is pretty good in that regard but it's hard to beat the big EU providers for raw iron. That does seem to filter away "legimate" miners from Qps, leaving the scam ones. Trust me I'm very sympathetic to Qps on this issue. I just think the current solution damages the product for non-miners.

  • qpsqps Member, Host Rep
    edited January 2018

    willie said: I just think the current solution damages the product for non-miners.

    Here's a tweak to the Terms of Service.

    Original term

    For dedicated server customers, if the Customer's server uses more electricity than the average dedicated server of similar specification utilizes due to the Customer's use of the server (including, but not limited to activities such as cryptocoin mining), QuickPacket reserves the right to bill the customer for the increased electricty usage. QuickPacket also reserves the right to retroactively remove any promotional pricing as the result of abnormal electricity usage.

    New term (change in bold)

    For dedicated server customers, if the Customer's server uses more electricity than the average dedicated server of similar specification utilizes due to use of the server in violation of the Terms of Service or Acceptable Use Policy (including, but not limited to activities such as cryptocoin mining), QuickPacket reserves the right to bill the customer for the increased electricity usage. QuickPacket also reserves the right to retroactively remove any promotional pricing as the result of abnormal electricity usage.

  • qps said: use of the server in violation of the Terms of Service or Acceptable Use Policy (including, but not limited to activities such as cryptocoin mining),

    That's a big improvement from a legit user viewpoint, so thanks. I still don't see how it helps you with scammers since it's so hard to collect from them in the first place, but it's a start :).

    Thanked by 1Aidan
  • Just curious, how would you know if someone is crypto mining just by the power usage? What if someone wasn't mining but had a higher power draw?

  • So much fucking bullshit. We write TOS, but don't worry we won't enforce it. Eh.

    Cryptomining this, cryptomining that. So here comes a client who runs video_editing/machine_learning and he gets a high bill or his service is terminated because "He must be running crypto" and "Did we say we won't enforce TOS? No, that is LEGAL CONTRACT, OBEY IT, FUCK YOU, ILLITERATE MORON".

    taking my chill pill, nurse

  • WSSWSS Member

    @Yura You do realize that there are differences in the two on how they impact the system, and I'm sure as hell not going to say how here, but let's say, uhm.. different resource utilization.

  • @WSS, this is about "average electricity" BS, not cryptocrap. If machine is billed per KW like colo, they should clearly show in the pricing, before order. Otherwise, electricity is included in the Dedicated server service. "Average" is "we decide if we like you or not and how much to bill you, afterwards".

  • WSSWSS Member

    @Yura I'm not getting into this stupid conversation- I'm just saying that you can tell the difference between crypto and transcoding.

    Thanked by 1vimalware
  • @WSS, thanks then. Take care

    Thanked by 1WSS
  • WSSWSS Member

    @Yura Sorry, man. It's not my axe to grind. If you say "I don't want your business", well, then I've got plenty of other places to go.

    Thanked by 1Yura
  • @WSS. I have no problems with what you said and I appreciate your input. I was saying "X is BS", you come in with an orthogonal point "Y is not X!" and I say "Ok, man, X is still a BS" and you keep on explaining how you can discern cryptomining from other activities. I got it. It's just not the point I'm putting the stress on. I'm glad that Host is able to separate one from another. Now to get rid of ambiguity of electrical consumption before it became the new standard (you like 0.25% CPU HVH threads, don't you) and we are all good and back to normal.

  • WSSWSS Member

    @Yura - OK, fine. I think basing your cost on electrical use should be built into the bill, too, but I also feel that it's just a bizarre way of saying "I don't want your business". Happy now?

    Thanked by 1Yura
  • @WSS said:
    @Yura I'm not getting into this stupid conversation- I'm just saying that you can tell the difference between crypto and transcoding.

    Is transcoding that much lower power usage than cpu mining?

  • WSS said: you can tell the difference between crypto and transcoding.

    I'd be interested to know how to tell, without the host running invasive snooping code in the customer's server. Of course that assumes the person is clueful enough to tunnel the crypto network traffic to some other location. That's just good practice on any server with sensitive data, crypto or not.

  • uptimeuptime Member
    edited January 2018

    Seems to me clearly stated that the restriction on miners is primarily about risk management, based on their experience several years ago already - enough fraud, chargebacks, and "boom and bust" demand patterns to make this provider wary of allowing more of the same to be encouraged by promotional pricing.

    They do not seem to be too hung up on CPU / electricity use or even mining in general - but they do see the need to address the real concerns listed above by communicating clearly ahead of time expectations about promotional offer vs. other options. With all due respect ....

  • gisadikgisadik Banned, Member

    @willie said:

    Digging at us for no reason. We allow anything legal on our dedis. This thread had nothing to do with us. GFY loser.

  • williewillie Member
    edited January 2018

    @Gisadik: SpeedyKVM TOS is here: https://speedykvm.com/tos.html

    Of course since you think it's such a welcoming document, you are undoubtedly happy for me to post the link so everyone can see how great it is. Therefore you will not even think of whining about my giving you this free advertising.

  • WSSWSS Member

    @willie said:
    @Gisadik: SpeedyKVM TOS is here: https://speedykvm.com/tos.html

    So he's kind of a dickhead, and he doesn't want any more shitty customers.. so?

    I must admit that I laughed a little at the "automated checks" for wasted IP addresses, but the $95/hr to "investigate", and $150 for spamming? Yeah, good way to get people to not abuse the services.

  • WSSWSS Member

    I just don't get this whole "I should be allowed on your network, because it's my right" sort of snowflake bullshit. If they don't want you- they don't want you.

    Thanked by 3Aidan gisadik ryanarp
This discussion has been closed.