Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

DigitalOcean Raises $37.2M From Andreessen Horowitz to Take on AWS

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 299 posts

Re: DigitalOcean Raises $37.2M From Andreessen Horowitz to Take on AWS

#241

Post by aluskuiuc »

jcampbell1 wrote: post #238
ceejayoz wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That being said, do they dump your instance if they reboot the physical server? I was under the impression that "Oh we want to upgrade they hypervisor kernel, your instance is toast", was fairgame/default on Amazon. Nope. In most cases, you get two weeks warning before a physical host is decommissioned. I've gotten as little as 24 hours (guessing it was a more significant than usual hardware issue). When that happe…

You mean they copy the ephemeral disk over? Really? Amazon should really advertise this, if that is the case. I was under the impression that Amazon couldn't be relied on as a VPS.

If you get a notification that your instance is going to get terminated - then yes, you can stop/start, but then you will lose ephemeral disks (but not EBS volumes). If you get a notification that your instance is just going to get rebooted, then nothing's going to get lost.

As I said above - the terminology can get hairy pretty fast. It's valuable to take stock of what you really need persisted, and what use can be made of 'scratch disks'. Local ephemerals are fast and cheap (included in the price of any instance). They come with the operational overhead of needing to rsync data off of them yourself if you want to retire that instance however.

Re: DigitalOcean Raises $37.2M From Andreessen Horowitz to Take on AWS

#242

Post by MichaelGG »

beachstartup wrote: post #211
MichaelGG wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you elaborate on "blacklisted IPs" for hosting content? For spam or compromised boxes, sure. For hosting a webpage that "embarrasses" someone? At any rate, I have no way of knowing about this issue. It's just curious that DO would put embarrassment as a ToS violation. All sorts of stuff embarrasses all sorts of people. Might as well just put up "DO reserves the right to terminate your services, at any time, witho…

celebrity photos are huge, huge business. sites pop up all the time trying to monetize papparazzi shots and hosting providers have to deal with all sorts of fallout from anyone with a vested interested in the intellectual property or famous name. these people do not give a shit about the streisand effect. they are going after their money.

So in that case DO receives a DMCA takedown, they comply, and let the customer deal with it? Or you're saying they file malicious lawsuits against the hosting provider and courts happily allow these suits to proceed and don't award fees to a neutral hosting provider?

Re: DigitalOcean Raises $37.2M From Andreessen Horowitz to Take on AWS

#243

Post by bananas »

mattbee wrote: post #215
bananas wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No because hosts on 1/10th of the budget are doing these things already. I have great hope for http://bigv.io but they're not quite there yet.

Thanks dude, working on it and I'm really happy with the core after two years of building and testing. We've just finished building our own data centre, a nice steady influx of customers are buoying us up, and we recently hired two new developers to fix up our various front-ends. It's definitely looking more presentable by the week.

Great stuff. Glad to hear it. You could really knock all these companies on the head with your offering!

Re: DigitalOcean Raises $37.2M From Andreessen Horowitz to Take on AWS

#244

Post by bananas »

rschmitty wrote: post #92
phaemon wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do: sudo ufw allow proto tcp from any to any port 22 sudo ufw enable Then you can just edit /etc/ssh/sshd_config the same as you would on OpenBSD.

This is why I love having a static IP. sudo ufw allow from your.ip.addr to tcp port 22 Rest of the world doesnt know I have ssh up and if I'm ever in a hotel or something I can tunnel through my home or login to DO's panel and allow another ip

Don't do that. I did that once and our static ip changed suddenly despite lots of money being spent on it. That was a painful day driving from London to Manchester for me to get to the console.

Re: DigitalOcean Raises $37.2M From Andreessen Horowitz to Take on AWS

#245

Post by IBalic »

samwillis wrote: post #31

I would love to see DO or Linode do a S3 type service as well. I prefer the persistent virtualization of DO and Linode to EC2 but also want to use a nice quick persistent file store that isn't on my own slice. I could just use S3 from Linode but that would result more paid bandwidth and increased latency.

Second that. This is what still keeps me at AWS.

Re: DigitalOcean Raises $37.2M From Andreessen Horowitz to Take on AWS

#246

Post by blueskin_ »

Do they have IPv6 yet?

What about actual security too?

Maybe they'll stop the censorship if they want to be a real VPS player? (https://vpsexperience.wordpress.com/)

Oh, and I wish they'd use real industry terms, not stuff like 'Droplet'. That's just stupid.

Right now, anyone at all who aren't GoDaddy or Network Solutions are better than Digital Ocean. You get what you pay for (AWS excepted, who are price gouging).

Full disclosure: Happy Linode customer.

Re: DigitalOcean Raises $37.2M From Andreessen Horowitz to Take on AWS

#247

Post by checker659 »

mjn wrote: post #202
checker659 wrote: post #170

DigitalOcean banned me because I was using their server to fetch chromium's source code so that I could git-bundle/rsync it's 12 GB mammoth of a repo and download it to the third-world country that I live in (my network connection is really bad even though it's the best money can buy). Apparently I violated their TOS. As long as they limit their TOS to such narrow purposes as hosting a wordpress site or doing straigh…

> With AWS, amazon doesn't care if I spawn out a 1000 node render farm, as long as I'm paying, it's all fair game. For smaller numbers of instances it's true that you can spawn whatever you want and use them for whatever you want, as long as you pay the stated rates. But for larger numbers of instances you do actually have to tell Amazon what you want them for, and your requested use-case "will be considered". You ca…

Well, 1000 was just a number I blurted out.

Re: DigitalOcean Raises $37.2M From Andreessen Horowitz to Take on AWS

#248

Post by blueskin_ »

sneak wrote: post #205
middleclick wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would be good if you can elaborate your point and back it up otherwise just saying this doesn't inspire much confidence.

https://www.digitalocean.com/company/blog/transparency-regar... The lies are still up on their blog: "At no time was customer data "leaked" between accounts. This would require that a user not scrub their volume after destroying their server; in this instance data would be recoverable and should be considered not sensitive." For a long time, if you deleted a DO virtual machine, it would not delete your data by defaul…

Don't forget how they censor on demand for their friends.

http://vpsexperience.wordpress.com/2014/01/05/digital-ocean-...

Re: DigitalOcean Raises $37.2M From Andreessen Horowitz to Take on AWS

#249

Post by blueskin_ »

checker659 wrote: post #170

DigitalOcean banned me because I was using their server to fetch chromium's source code so that I could git-bundle/rsync it's 12 GB mammoth of a repo and download it to the third-world country that I live in (my network connection is really bad even though it's the best money can buy). Apparently I violated their TOS. As long as they limit their TOS to such narrow purposes as hosting a wordpress site or doing straigh…

Try Linode. Far better service in every way. I've done similar things on Linode (as well as used it for SSH tunneling to appear in a different country to reality), never a problem.

Re: DigitalOcean Raises $37.2M From Andreessen Horowitz to Take on AWS

#250

Post by icebraining »

oasisbob wrote: post #223
icebraining wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The dispute (counter-notice) and put-back procedures in the DMCA say that the provider can put the content back online if the copyright owner does not bring a lawsuit within 14 days . I don't see anyone in that thread saying they violate this procedure; all I see is talk about some 48 hours limit, which is definitively not in the law.

Whoa! I didn't realize that virtual hosting providers fall under 512(c). I figured they'd apply 512(a) (conduit provider). Anyone have any citations for case law where virtualized hosting falls under 512(c), and doesn't qualify for safe harbor under 512(a)?

No case law, just Chilling Effects: https://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512/faq.cgi#QID127
Post reply on HN