Turns Out My New Client Has Colocation At CloudAtCost Datacenter In Waterloo
-
@NashBrydges said in Turns Out My New Client Has Colocation At CloudAtCost Datacenter In Waterloo:
I've only really dealt with 3z in Toronto
Those guys are awesome, that's who I use in Canada!
-
@NashBrydges said in Turns Out My New Client Has Colocation At CloudAtCost Datacenter In Waterloo:
Am I wrong in thinking this should be an alarm bell?
Everything about this should set off alarms. Your gear is basically being handed to an anonymous third party. And the datacenter is run by known crooks!
-
If I was running anything with ColoudAtCost, I would assume its a spot instance. In other words, it could be spun down at literally any time. Sometimes spot instances are ok for some testing functions, but its not something I usually see with colo.
The amount of downtime these guys have had in the past, not to mention the shady business tactics, you cannot trust them at all. I am sure they are cheap as hell.
I wouldn't trust their physical security at all. They have blatantly lied to customers before and they'll do it again. Just because they have cameras doesn't mean they give a shit. If something bad happened, I doubt they would disclose anyway. When you are a crook legal contracts mean nothing.
-
@Obsolesce said in Turns Out My New Client Has Colocation At CloudAtCost Datacenter In Waterloo:
@NashBrydges said in Turns Out My New Client Has Colocation At CloudAtCost Datacenter In Waterloo:
Yeah they have key fob access so I assume access to building and rooms is logged. I’ve also spotted UniFi cameras facing every aisle.
That's all fine and dandy after the fact, after the damage has been done. One of the risks in Colo, but still not as much as alternatives.
A locked rack is like telnet with 1234 as password. It will only keep honest people out.
Because a datacenter has a customer that uses shady business practices doesn't mean anything. The same video doesn't mean it's the same owners. It could mean that they just used the datacenters video.
So I wouldn't worry about other customers having access to a customers "locked" rack versus "unlocked" rack. But I would weigh in physical security as part of the value you are paying for. And also to account for the risk that data end up in the wrong hands. If the risk is acceptable or not, depends on the customer and their data.
-
@Pete-S said in Turns Out My New Client Has Colocation At CloudAtCost Datacenter In Waterloo:
Because a datacenter has a customer that uses shady business practices doesn't mean anything. The same video doesn't mean it's the same owners. It could mean that they just used the datacenters video.
Except Cloud@Cost is just one "face" of a datacenter company. The issue isn't the datacenter having a shady customer, although certainly they must, but that the datacenter IS the shady company here.
The bigger concern isn't the other customers stealing your stuff, but the datacenter itself (and then maybe blaming other customers.)
-
@Pete-S said in Turns Out My New Client Has Colocation At CloudAtCost Datacenter In Waterloo:
So I wouldn't worry about other customers having access to a customers "locked" rack versus "unlocked" rack. But I would weigh in physical security as part of the value you are paying for. And also to account for the risk that data end up in the wrong hands. If the risk is acceptable or not, depends on the customer and their data.
This is a vendor so bad, both unethical and incompetent, that it would be the vendor equivalent of running servers but not having RAID or backup for your data.
In general terms we say "if data is worth backing up, it isn't worth storing". In server terms, if a server is worth powering on, it's worth not putting at C@C (or whatever name they use today.)
-
@scottalanmiller said in Turns Out My New Client Has Colocation At CloudAtCost Datacenter In Waterloo:
@Pete-S said in Turns Out My New Client Has Colocation At CloudAtCost Datacenter In Waterloo:
Because a datacenter has a customer that uses shady business practices doesn't mean anything. The same video doesn't mean it's the same owners. It could mean that they just used the datacenters video.
Except Cloud@Cost is just one "face" of a datacenter company. The issue isn't the datacenter having a shady customer, although certainly they must, but that the datacenter IS the shady company here.
The bigger concern isn't the other customers stealing your stuff, but the datacenter itself (and then maybe blaming other customers.)
But where are the proof for what you said? How do you know it's not another colo customer?
-
@Pete-S said in Turns Out My New Client Has Colocation At CloudAtCost Datacenter In Waterloo:
A locked rack is like telnet with 1234 as password. It will only keep honest people out.
That's why top end datacenters don't let anyone in.
On Wall St., even the internal IT staff weren't allowed in the datacenters.
-
@Pete-S said in Turns Out My New Client Has Colocation At CloudAtCost Datacenter In Waterloo:
@scottalanmiller said in Turns Out My New Client Has Colocation At CloudAtCost Datacenter In Waterloo:
@Pete-S said in Turns Out My New Client Has Colocation At CloudAtCost Datacenter In Waterloo:
Because a datacenter has a customer that uses shady business practices doesn't mean anything. The same video doesn't mean it's the same owners. It could mean that they just used the datacenters video.
Except Cloud@Cost is just one "face" of a datacenter company. The issue isn't the datacenter having a shady customer, although certainly they must, but that the datacenter IS the shady company here.
The bigger concern isn't the other customers stealing your stuff, but the datacenter itself (and then maybe blaming other customers.)
But where are the proof for what you said? How do you know it's not another colo customer?
Doesn't matter. It's the datacenter that we are concerned about. That risk alone makes the whole situation unacceptable. That there is also the risk of the other colo customers is just icing on the cake of "nope" that we already have. Not knowing which bad actor in this case doesn't change anything.
-
@Pete-S said in Turns Out My New Client Has Colocation At CloudAtCost Datacenter In Waterloo:
But where are the proof for what you said?
Besides their corporate filings and postings online? We aren't claiming anything that they've not announced themselves. It's public info, not something in question or disputed.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Turns Out My New Client Has Colocation At CloudAtCost Datacenter In Waterloo:
@Pete-S said in Turns Out My New Client Has Colocation At CloudAtCost Datacenter In Waterloo:
But where are the proof for what you said?
Besides their corporate filings and postings online? We aren't claiming anything that they've not announced themselves. It's public info, not something in question or disputed.
Well, if it's truly the datacenter that is shady, then I would strongly urge my customer to move their gear elsewhere as quickly a possible. Locked rack or not.
-
@Pete-S said in Turns Out My New Client Has Colocation At CloudAtCost Datacenter In Waterloo:
@scottalanmiller said in Turns Out My New Client Has Colocation At CloudAtCost Datacenter In Waterloo:
@Pete-S said in Turns Out My New Client Has Colocation At CloudAtCost Datacenter In Waterloo:
But where are the proof for what you said?
Besides their corporate filings and postings online? We aren't claiming anything that they've not announced themselves. It's public info, not something in question or disputed.
Well, if it's truly the datacenter that is shady, then I would strongly urge my customer to move their gear elsewhere as quickly a possible. Locked rack or not.
Exactly, that's what we're thinking. It's the datacenter (aka Cloud@Cost) that is scary here.
