RemixedCat's Place of Meow!

Here I will be occasionally sharing experiences I've had with various hosting companies. I decided that the first volume of this will go to the latest "company" I've dealt with. Here's a bit of experience I've had with a company that promoted itself on Cisco Meraki's Google + page called: Weatherly cloud. They seemed like a decent company with some neat looking offerings such as SSD based "cloud" servers, a generous amount of space, and a decent looking website and management portal. I decided to take them up on the "trial offer" and I expected to have a month of awesome to play around with a speedy SSD cloud server. Seems fair enough. One problem.... How would the connectivity be and how redundant was this "cloud" hosting? If they didn't have good connectivity what good is redundant "cloud" architecture if the connectivity wasn't such to back that up? I asked their online chat representitive a...

ATT is to blame for the Diablo3 problems... they picked the worst backbone provider/hosting provider they could to partner with for this... They should have gone with level3 they are solid and awesome. They prolly fell for a smooth salesmen's promise of having lower cost per util. and thought it would be cheaper then L3 so they went with it... only it will end up costing them 4x as much as L3 and have lower capacity. ATT notes for hosting companies they can change the TOS at any time and you are agreed to using them for 2 year minimum contract duration. In order to get lower rates you must agree to changes that could screw you over in the end big time. This is another reason any reputable datacenters do not use them. They are a joke. Good IP backbones: level 3 twtelcom abovenet verizon xo cogent HE zayo soooo many others they could have chosen that would give them outstanding service and better value and they choose the worst possible one.... yucckkkk.... bliz...

"The cloud" and "cloud servers/hosting" are different things. The thing everyone knows of "the cloud" is just marketing for thier services that are based off of cloud servers. cloud servers are redundant, fault tolerant, scalable, and elastic server architecture that is very good. based of concepts such as grid computing, clustering, etc... Now people are starting to hate both. which is unfair. they see cloud hosting (which is alike to a VPS or Virtual Private server--->just with better architecture) and are scared from it, when the hosting architecture isn't bad it's the few services like amazon, icloud and google that are altering people's perception. now back when we had idrives, xdrives, and stuff like that people weren't as scared.... even though they used the same technology to do it, just not marketed as this "cloud" thing. all the sudden when you put the cloud spin on it it scares people. wow. I think peopl...