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

Ok, Cloudflare I am leaving

lexx.gr

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–124 of 124 posts

Re: Ok, Cloudflare I am leaving

#121

Post by thelastkek »

vb-8448 wrote: post #58

The thing that scary me most is that his business get shut down without any notice period (at least the author not mentioning any previous communications from Cloudflare team about the issue). This is really a shitty thing from Cloudflare, you cannot shut down an already running business without any notice/grace period.

If you break any companies ToS they have the right to terminate your service at any time, unannounced. If you break Facebooks ToS, do they email you with a headsup warning? No, they would just ban you instantly.

Re: Ok, Cloudflare I am leaving

#122

Post by apple4ever »

thelastkek wrote: post #121
vb-8448 wrote: post #58

The thing that scary me most is that his business get shut down without any notice period (at least the author not mentioning any previous communications from Cloudflare team about the issue). This is really a shitty thing from Cloudflare, you cannot shut down an already running business without any notice/grace period.

If you break any companies ToS they have the right to terminate your service at any time, unannounced. If you break Facebooks ToS, do they email you with a headsup warning? No, they would just ban you instantly.

Yes they should give you a warning to stop or migrate or pay. Companies should be fair to people, Cloudflare and Facebook included.

Re: Ok, Cloudflare I am leaving

#123

Post by celsoazevedo »

noduerme wrote: post #109
celsoazevedo wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're still accessing the file via their network, so for them it's probably cheaper to actually cache the file so they don't have to hit the origin server every time a request comes in.

So, if they want to penalize a customer, it's pretty trivial for them to route those excessive requests around their cache and directly to the customer's server. Cloudflare can choose to dump a ddos they're mitigating on their customers whenever they feel like it, so why the hell not throttle or redirect their own throughput when it's in their financial interest or people aren't paying enough for it?

They can choose not to cache and pass each request to the customer's server, but the traffic is still going through their network. Not caching or letting DDoS requests reaching the customer's server doesn't stop using their bandwidth or lower the load on their systems. For that, they need to stop accepting traffic to that domain.

In this case I believe they simply blocked the sub-domains being used as CDN for other sites (which breaks their ToS). They didn't point the domain directly at the origin server (which would expose the original IP) or throttle the traffic (again, wouldn't reduce the load on their system).

My understanding is that what OP was doing is allowed on a higher plan, but like any other CDN, it costs more than the $20/month plan OP was using. Still, a warning and a few days to deal with the problem would be better for everyone: OP wouldn't have downtime and Cloudflare could be making more money. Instead they lost a customer and have some bad PR.

Re: Ok, Cloudflare I am leaving

#124

Post by vb-8448 »

apple4ever wrote: post #122
thelastkek wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you break any companies ToS they have the right to terminate your service at any time, unannounced. If you break Facebooks ToS, do they email you with a headsup warning? No, they would just ban you instantly.

Yes they should give you a warning to stop or migrate or pay. Companies should be fair to people, Cloudflare and Facebook included.

I partially agree with you if he would had suddenly started doing something wrong, but he was doing this for a lot of time and no one complained before. Cloudflare should give him the possibility to clarify or resolve the issue.

Obviously, in some cases immediate shut down is fine (eg. crazy resource usage, serving some illegal content) however doesn't seem to apply here.

Post reply on HN