206
Cloudflare took down our website after trying to force us to pay 120k$ within 24h
(robindev.substack.com)
this post was submitted on 26 May 2024
206 points (81.2% liked)
DevOps
1670 readers
1 users here now
DevOps integrates and automates the work of software development (Dev) and IT operations (Ops) as a means for improving and shortening the systems development life cycle.
Rules:
- Posts must be relevant to DevOps
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
- Try to keep discussions on topic
- No spam of tools/companies/advertisements
- It’s OK to post your own stuff part of the time, but the primary use of the community should not be promotional content.
Icon base by Lorc under CC BY 3.0 with modifications to add a gradient
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It baffles me that you can advertise something as "unlimited" and then impose arbitrary limits after the fact. AWS and Google advertise their CDN rates with tiers for certain bandwidth limits. It seems like CF is advertising as "unlimited" and then once you're fully invested, they pull the bait and switch and say you're over the limit for that tier. Based on those HackerNews links, it seems systemic and something the FTC should fine them, like they did with AT&T over the same thing.
We've been using CF for a long time as enterprise and non enterprise customers and while their support went to absolute shit compared to what it was, I agree with the first comment on that article.
Casino was in violation of TOS and the only solution was BYOIP with enterprise plan. They were given 48 hours to correct, but tried to weasel their way out of it for two weeks when CF finally shut down their account.
I'm 100% on the side of CF in this instance. This also explains the sales calls. There was no tech issue to resolve.
I didn't saw anything on the post that suggests that was the case. They start with a reference to a urgent call for a meeting from cloud flare to discuss specifics on how they were using the hosting provider's service, which sounds a lot like they were caught hiding behind the host doing abusive things,and afterwards they were explicitly pointed out for doing abusing stuff that violated terms of service and jeopardized the hosting service's reputation as a good actor.
That's how I read this too, they were upset that this company was using so much and "only" on their lower tier. But, if they didn't want that then that means either their billing/account code has bugs in it because it didn't lock them out and force an upgrade... or it was mislabeled (intentionally or not). On all accounts, CF's problem, not this company's