Wednesday, October 27, 2004's peculiar definition of "connectivity"

I wasn't originally going to post about this, but the "account recovery" guy who called me yesterday only underscored my issues with these folks.

Last month, I ordered a dedicated server from; they were one of the few companies out there I found who had a nice low-cost Linux box with RAID. I had nothing but problems; the box took them well over a week to set up, even though the salesperson swore they could get me one in 48 hours. When I got it, it was misconfigured: the resolver was set to a 10.* address, the timezone and realtime clocks were set wrong, and to top it all off, when I rebooted the box to fix these problems, it didn't come back up, because the installer had forgotten to set the boot menu so that it would start up automatically!

Then, a week and a half ago, the box was down for several hours without any action on their part, and when I called their NOC, I was informed the machine was powered down. Up until yesterday, I had received no explanation despite repeated e-mails, so I emailed, faxed, and sent a certified letter telling them I was terminating the hosting contract.

So yesterday, I get a call from some guy with them, with a "humor the crazy customer" attitude, who proceeds to tell me that even though the box was powered down it could still be considered to have connectivity, by their definition. Say what? Hello, McFly!

When I point out that the box can't receive any packets if it's powered down, he says that you don't have to be able to receive traffic to have connectivity. Um, sure, right. Maybe that definition works for co-lo, but not for a dedicated server. I suspect that that's really the problem here. I think is accustomed to doing co-lo, not dedicated servers, as the contract I got was very obviously a co-lo contract that had been hacked up to make a dedicated server contract.

Ah well. For the moment, I've gotten myself a nice $39/month dedicated server from Hostcentric, as a stopgap for backing up my main server. It was up and running in one hour, as promised, there were no configuration snafus, and the box rebooted cleanly when I asked it to.

I'm also looking at a $95/month offer from Cyberwurx to replace the box from Cyberwurx has a sweet deal where you can upgrade the hardware with optional one-time fees; most companies only do upgrades by bumping your monthly fee. Has anybody done business with Cyberwurx? Any good or bad experiences I should know about? I tried Googling for negative comments with phrases like "Cyberwurx sucks" and all I got were posts about how glad people were that they went to Cyberwurx because their last provider sucks... :)

(Update: the server from Hostcentric actually had its clock set 12 hours fast; I missed it initially because it "looked right".)