[rossdev]

So when will this actually be the case?

[vps247]

I'm not going to rage on VPS.net, but I have had over 30 hours downtime in the past 2 months. The 100% uptime sounds great, I just can't wait until it's reality. I'm sure over time, they'll get it right. I'm hoping anyway. It's a really good brand.

With that said,

Did VPS.net recently change something that can actually guarantee 100% uptime? If so, I'm certainly gonna launch several new servers. (Testimonials anyone?)

This post has been edited by Lawrence: 10 September 2011 - 04:12 AM

[anthonysomerset]

i've been waiting for nearly 2 years for said uptime, minor blips i can deal with, its just the huge periods of poor performance where support wrongly assume its our fault and we should buy more nodes (which is 90% not the case) or the huge outtages when things really do go tits up, some of the handling of the lates issues are less than ideal for a company of vps.net's size from what i have seen

[anthonysomerset]

oh looky here, looks like LON-B is down, or just a clients vps.....

[vps247]

I think that statement should be considered fraud. Nothing's been 100% here.

[mrtorrent]

Accusations of fraud aside, the OP has a good point and it's something I've wondered about since I first started with VPS.net over a year ago -- what does the auto-healing actually mean? There have been any number of issues on one of the clouds I'm on (London- which have caused a fair bit of downtime, so how can 100% uptime be claimed?

Even now, I am writing somewhat out of immediate frustration, because I simply added a node to my VPS and, 10 hours later, it won't start up and the support ticket I filed an hour ago has had no response. It seems every time I've made a change to the provisioning of one of my VPSes it has taken ages to apply the changes and required manual intervention to start back up, so where is the vaunted ease of scaling?

I want to like VPS.net because of their offerings and their style, but I do feel the past year has been one of intermittent frustration. I weigh this against 12 years of experience with various hosting providers which, truth be told, have been bad more often than not. In fact, the only one that I can say I've been truly happy with is Servint, in the US. It's a traditional VPS offering, but downtime is minimal, scheduled maintenance is announced well in advance by e-mail, support is very fast and very helpful, and their offerings are frequently upgraded, so existing customers regularly benefit from added resources. I think VPS.net could learn something from them.

Now, I'm not going to get all upset and huffy and threaten to leave (probably because the services I run on VPS.net aren't as critical to me as other people's are to them), but I would genuinely like to know what VPS.net has to say about what it claims and what it delivers and, more importantly, how they plan to improve the quality of their service and support going forward.

[paperweight]

I just posted a long thread, only to meet this error:

Bad Request
Your browser sent a request that this server could not understand.
Apache/2.2.14 (Ubuntu) Server at control.vps.net Port 80


My post was actually in support of VPS.net, but this error and all my wasted time on the post now is just too frustrating and it makes me want to chime in now with this: for all you newbies, you did not have to live through the death of SLC in February 2010 when EVERYTHING died for 2+ weeks in SLC. Everything died. Everything. It was horrible. Longterm, too, it unfortunately both ended our relationship with some of our clients, and it also hurt UK2.

But I stick with VPS.net because nobody is perfect. I use Rackspafe and AWS, and they have horrendous problems too sometimes. VPS.net has a human touch, and that is why I like them (as much as I complain...)