CloudatCost Issues
-
@IRJ said:
I am actually somewhat surprised with a few people in this community that are supporting such a poor product.
Who has supported them? I've not seen that at all yet. I've seen lots of people trying them out. Who has been supporting them?
-
@scottalanmiller said:
How much outage have you had? I've seen a bit, but 99.9% uptime is an average of 8.76 hours a year. They had one outage of some length, caused by an upstream ISP that also took out huge swaths of the country. Nothing that Amazon and Rackspace haven't seen. And way less than we've seen from normal datacenters.
Why didn't they have more then one provider? Keep in mind Amazon and Rackspace were both up while C@C was not.
-
@IRJ said:
The bottom line is they promise him an availability and they failed to deliver. Their policy also states a they have a 30 day refund policy so he is within his rights
What policy states that? There terms are no refunds. http://www.cloudatcost.com/terms.php The only credits are for downtime exceeding 24hrs which you have 30 days to claim. and it specifically even says credit not refund.
8.3 All fees paid are non-refundable.
-
@IRJ said:
In IT, we don't accept things like downtime from other companies.
Down time is inevitable no matter the product or service. You just have to properly plan for it (Not have all your eggs in one basket).
-
@IRJ said:
In IT, we don't accept things like downtime from other companies.
That's an SMB mentality and a foolish one, IMHO. Amazon is the best in the business, period, and they have outages. Avoiding outages requires IT, not the vendor, to make it happen. You need geographic and vendor failover. Amazon tells you this right up front. IT is the biggest player there. No enterprise would ever suggest that they don't accept downtime. I see this constantly in the SMB, this obsession with uptime at all costs. It just doesn't fit with the SMB business models.
SMBs want cheap, then they want uptime promises that no company can deliver on, none. It makes no sense.
Now if there is an SLA for a certain uptime and it isn't met, there are SLA terms for that. There is no reason to get upset unless the SLA you agreed to was not met. We looked at the SLA during their outage and the terms were met.
So why are you upset?
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@IRJ said:
I am actually somewhat surprised with a few people in this community that are supporting such a poor product.
Who has supported them? I've not seen that at all yet. I've seen lots of people trying them out. Who has been supporting them?
I am just surprised all the issues (pretty much daily) and bad press from external sources has been ignored.
-
@IRJ said:
We wouldn't even tolerate this kind of downtime for free products let alone paid products.
Actually with the one-time fee product it is "free" we didn't pay for the service it is consider a one time setup fee by them.
Part of it is exceptions if you are going with cloud at cost you shouldn't be expecting to solely run a production environment off there. I have my personal site (no big deal for down time) Owncloud and a fee other non-critical systems there.
-
@IRJ said:
Honestly, there are much better options out there and everyone here knows it. We wouldn't even tolerate this kind of downtime for free products let alone paid products.
Honestly, this rant seems crazy to me. CloudatCost is a fraction of the cost of anything else we use. A tiny fraction. And their SLA is much smaller too, only 99.9%. And the speed isn't as good. It's working great for us building out our lab systems, it is saving us a fortune. It's doing exactly what it is supposed to do.
Name anyone offering VMs at this price that is delivering a better service. If not, how do you define other products as "better". Amazon, Rackspace, Digital Ocean, Vultr... they all cost more. So they aren't comparable services.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@IRJ said:
Honestly, there are much better options out there and everyone here knows it. We wouldn't even tolerate this kind of downtime for free products let alone paid products.
Honestly, this rant seems crazy to me. CloudatCost is a fraction of the cost of anything else we use. A tiny fraction. And their SLA is much smaller too, only 99.9%. And the speed isn't as good. It's working great for us building out our lab systems, it is saving us a fortune. It's doing exactly what it is supposed to do.
Name anyone offering VMs at this price that is delivering a better service. If not, how do you define other products as "better". Amazon, Rackspace, Digital Ocean, Vultr... they all cost more. So they aren't comparable services.
There are plenty delivering a better solution at a lower price
-
@IRJ said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@IRJ said:
Honestly, there are much better options out there and everyone here knows it. We wouldn't even tolerate this kind of downtime for free products let alone paid products.
Honestly, this rant seems crazy to me. CloudatCost is a fraction of the cost of anything else we use. A tiny fraction. And their SLA is much smaller too, only 99.9%. And the speed isn't as good. It's working great for us building out our lab systems, it is saving us a fortune. It's doing exactly what it is supposed to do.
Name anyone offering VMs at this price that is delivering a better service. If not, how do you define other products as "better". Amazon, Rackspace, Digital Ocean, Vultr... they all cost more. So they aren't comparable services.
There are plenty delivering a better solution at a lower price
That's a reoccurring cost for all of them. Not sure how that could be a "lower price".
-
Nobody does that lifetime deal they do, but from everything I've experienced it isnt worth the effort.
-
@IRJ said:
Nobody does that lifetime deal they do, but from everything I've experienced it isnt worth the effort.
What where you trying to use if for? For testing and playing with stuff it works great.
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
@IRJ said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@IRJ said:
Honestly, there are much better options out there and everyone here knows it. We wouldn't even tolerate this kind of downtime for free products let alone paid products.
Honestly, this rant seems crazy to me. CloudatCost is a fraction of the cost of anything else we use. A tiny fraction. And their SLA is much smaller too, only 99.9%. And the speed isn't as good. It's working great for us building out our lab systems, it is saving us a fortune. It's doing exactly what it is supposed to do.
Name anyone offering VMs at this price that is delivering a better service. If not, how do you define other products as "better". Amazon, Rackspace, Digital Ocean, Vultr... they all cost more. So they aren't comparable services.
There are plenty delivering a better solution at a lower price
That's a reoccurring cost for all of them. Not sure how that could be a "lower price".
C@C isn't going to be around for very long if their product remains this unstable. People want stability even on non production systems. You can get webhosting that is much more reliable for $2 a month ($24 a year).
-
NTG bought three more servers today, Dev2. Nothing crazy. But with the community discount the cost of three servers on CloudatCost, one time price, is the cost of two months service of similar machines from Rackspace. Actually just a tiny bit less than two months.
Are people seriously comparing the two? One is so much cheaper than the other. They are not competitors. And one is cloud and one is VPS. Not that that matters much, but it is a different audience that they are going for.
But can you really just say that Rackspace is a "better" service? No. It's a different service, for different needs. CloudatCost as, thus far, been better for our lab needs than Rackspace. Rackspace is better for hosting MangoLassi. It's not better or worse as they aren't comparable. It's two different products with very different features and prices.
We work in IT, we know that better isn't clear cut. And no service can ever be evaluated in a price vacuum. The price of any service is always a significant factor.
-
@IRJ said:
C@C isn't going to be around for very long if their product remains this unstable. People want stability even on non production systems. You can get webhosting that is much more reliable for $2 a month ($24 a year).
C@C isn't really for web hosting if you are choosing them just for a web host. You are choosing the wrong solution.
-
@IRJ said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@IRJ said:
Honestly, there are much better options out there and everyone here knows it. We wouldn't even tolerate this kind of downtime for free products let alone paid products.
Honestly, this rant seems crazy to me. CloudatCost is a fraction of the cost of anything else we use. A tiny fraction. And their SLA is much smaller too, only 99.9%. And the speed isn't as good. It's working great for us building out our lab systems, it is saving us a fortune. It's doing exactly what it is supposed to do.
Name anyone offering VMs at this price that is delivering a better service. If not, how do you define other products as "better". Amazon, Rackspace, Digital Ocean, Vultr... they all cost more. So they aren't comparable services.
There are plenty delivering a better solution at a lower price
That looks more expensive than what I'm paying.
-
@IRJ said:
@thecreativeone91 said:
@IRJ said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@IRJ said:
Honestly, there are much better options out there and everyone here knows it. We wouldn't even tolerate this kind of downtime for free products let alone paid products.
Honestly, this rant seems crazy to me. CloudatCost is a fraction of the cost of anything else we use. A tiny fraction. And their SLA is much smaller too, only 99.9%. And the speed isn't as good. It's working great for us building out our lab systems, it is saving us a fortune. It's doing exactly what it is supposed to do.
Name anyone offering VMs at this price that is delivering a better service. If not, how do you define other products as "better". Amazon, Rackspace, Digital Ocean, Vultr... they all cost more. So they aren't comparable services.
There are plenty delivering a better solution at a lower price
That's a reoccurring cost for all of them. Not sure how that could be a "lower price".
C@C isn't going to be around for very long if their product remains this unstable. People want stability even on non production systems. You can get webhosting that is much more reliable for $2 a month ($24 a year).
What kind of stability issues have you seen? The only time my site has been down from them (personal site) was the aforementioned outage caused by an ISP. Should they have more links? Yes, but they are in Canada where that generally isn't an option, from what I've seen about the Canadian infrastructure everyone just resells from two different providers.
-
All bad press about C@C
http://lowendtalk.com/discussion/22558/cloudatcost-one-time-payment-cloud-vps
http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?t=1433805
http://danielsokolowski.blogspot.com/2013/12/cloudatcost-buyer-beware.html
http://www.hostjury.com/blog/view/702/cloudatcost-ignores-clients-gets-spurned-on-social-media
-
@IRJ said:
Nobody does that lifetime deal they do, but from everything I've experienced it isnt worth the effort.
That's your own personal needs. While having one large outage that was caused by an outside vendor (systems didn't fail, just couldn't be accessed, I've had that happen all over the place) sucks, it doesn't at all make us find them not an outstanding value for how we are using them. The last thing that I want to do is pay ten times as much for our research boxes just to avoid a little pointless inconvenience now and then. And one outage does not a trend make. If you are basing the reliability on one major nationally crippling event (half the country lost Internet, phones and even television) then there is no making you happy. Every vendor has events like this. That you hit one right as you were testing out the service is just coincidental. You have to test them over time to see what the reliability really is like.
I had a half day outage with Rackspace just last week. And it was completely Rackspace's fault. But I'm not freaking out about it.
-
@IRJ said:
C@C isn't going to be around for very long if their product remains this unstable. People want stability even on non production systems. You can get webhosting that is much more reliable for $2 a month ($24 a year).
I'm paying way more for webhosting than I am for a VM on CloudatCost. Even $24/year you can get a VM cheaper. But this isn't about web hosting, it's about IaaS. If you are comparing to not even getting a VM then you are doing an apples to oranges comparison. I'm not sure what getting cheap web hosting has to do with CloudatCost. What comparison are you attempting to make?
