[2017] tastyspleen IP may be changing (new hosting)

[M1SERY]

Ive been getting the same box when trying to sign in~!

[quadz]

WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS SHIT!?!



TAISETSU NO MONO, PROTECT MY BALLS!

It seems to be some clever social engineering on behalf of whichever browser you're using.

They've noticed our website uses http instead of https, so they're displaying that message because the connection isn't end-to-end encrypted.

They know it will alarm users, and will pressure the sysadmin to pay for a certificate to securely encrypt the connection.

(Looks like I'll be shopping around for a reasonably priced wildcard SSL cert.)


LET'S FIGHTING LOVE!

[|iR|Focalor]

Yeah, I figured it was just some dumb shit that Firefox wedged into their latest update. I ain't worried either way. If it's their way of helping to scam folks, I wouldn't spend a dime to change anything. On the other hand, if it means someone could hijack an admin login and fuck everything up, I imagine you'd prefer to forego that headache. Like when I fucked over [EOM]Processor by deleting hundreds and hundreds of posts on the old EOM forums right before I quit the clan, haha! Wasn't shit he could do about it afterwards.

[bluemeanies]

It seems to be some clever social engineering on behalf of whichever browser you're using.

Google announced mid last year that Chrome was going to start alerting users in various ways to sites not served over https starting early 2017. I'm guessing other browsers might follow.

I've had good success using the FREE SSLs provided by Let's Encrypt (letsencrypt.org) for most of my recent SSL needs. My server setup has a daily cron job that checks the SSL status for all running domains and adds/renews security certs as needed. You can run the script manually when a new site comes online as well so that it's not waiting for the cron to setup the SSL.

[quadz]

If you haven't already, contact support at softlayer and see if you can get a discount. One of my old servers I ordered in 2011 at another provider started getting a bit expensive for the price and I was able to negotiate a 40% discount to the point where the price was good enough that I only had to replace it in December. Dedicated providers make a ton of profit on old hardware that would otherwise be unsalable, so they usually prefer giving discounts vs losing the customer entirely.

Hmm, good point. I suppose that's at least worth a try!

I don't have much hope for SoftLayer coming anywhere near what's being offered by this other provider, though:

  Xeon E5-2630 v4 (10 Cores, 20 Threads, 3.1GHz Turbo)
  64 GB RAM
  Redundant A+B power feeds to dual server PSUs from diverse UPS
  Two 960GB SSD drives
  30TB/month bandwidth on 10 Gigabit Fiber
--------
  $149/month (after setup fee)

Last I checked, those specs would cost around an order of magnitude more at SoftLayer.

[quadz]

I've had good success using the FREE SSLs provided by Let's Encrypt (letsencrypt.org) for most of my recent SSL needs. My server setup has a daily cron job that checks the SSL status for all running domains and adds/renews security certs as needed. You can run the script manually when a new site comes online as well so that it's not waiting for the cron to setup the SSL.

Ah, thanks for zee tip. That looks promising.

[ex]

I dunno if Spectrum (Time Warner) just sucks in general, but my ping to both servers can vary wildly:


Pinging tastyspleen.net [67.228.69.114] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 67.228.69.114: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=53
Reply from 67.228.69.114: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=53
Reply from 67.228.69.114: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=53
Reply from 67.228.69.114: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=53

Ping statistics for 67.228.69.114:
    Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 19ms, Maximum = 26ms, Average = 23ms


Pinging tastyspleen.net [67.228.69.114] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 67.228.69.114: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=53
Reply from 67.228.69.114: bytes=32 time=34ms TTL=53
Reply from 67.228.69.114: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=53
Reply from 67.228.69.114: bytes=32 time=30ms TTL=53

Ping statistics for 67.228.69.114:
    Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 21ms, Maximum = 34ms, Average = 27ms


Pinging tastyspleen.net [67.228.69.114] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 67.228.69.114: bytes=32 time=29ms TTL=53
Reply from 67.228.69.114: bytes=32 time=28ms TTL=53
Reply from 67.228.69.114: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=53
Reply from 67.228.69.114: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=53

Ping statistics for 67.228.69.114:
    Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 18ms, Maximum = 29ms, Average = 25ms


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pinging testing.tastyspleen.net [192.211.63.245] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 192.211.63.245: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=49
Reply from 192.211.63.245: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=49
Reply from 192.211.63.245: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=49
Reply from 192.211.63.245: bytes=32 time=28ms TTL=49

Ping statistics for 192.211.63.245:
    Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 21ms, Maximum = 28ms, Average = 23ms


Pinging testing.tastyspleen.net [192.211.63.245] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 192.211.63.245: bytes=32 time=29ms TTL=49
Reply from 192.211.63.245: bytes=32 time=28ms TTL=49
Reply from 192.211.63.245: bytes=32 time=28ms TTL=49
Reply from 192.211.63.245: bytes=32 time=20ms TTL=49

Ping statistics for 192.211.63.245:
    Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 20ms, Maximum = 29ms, Average = 26ms

Pinging testing.tastyspleen.net [192.211.63.245] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 192.211.63.245: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=49
Reply from 192.211.63.245: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=49
Reply from 192.211.63.245: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=49
Reply from 192.211.63.245: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=49

Ping statistics for 192.211.63.245:
    Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 19ms, Maximum = 27ms, Average = 22ms


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


If you take all the data, the testing server does look slightly lower in ping than the current one.  Of course, I tried it when this post was first made and the new server was higher on average.  However, none of this is reflective of the ping I average in game.  All of these pings were taken right as I hopped off pinging 13-15.  So I'm not sure how to interpret the data. 

[NIN-IceFox]

Short distance east, southeast of Atlanta GA

[quadz]

Whew. Well, the glaring red spike in the graph indicates a commitment has now been made to our new server.

I'll begin moving things over piece by piece, probably the forums or WallFly first, then eventually the game servers.

I'm anticipating it may take a month or so overall.

My own ping will be going up by almost 30ms (really bad routing by Time Warner Spectrum) but the monthly costs will be doing down quite a bit (once the move is all done.)

Thankfully from this thread it looks like most people's pings will not be affected too much.

[yahoo]

talking bout moving, i do noticed for some time now that there are instances that it takes a bit long to open the forums page.

[quadz]

i do noticed for some time now that there are instances that it takes a bit long to open the forums page

Hmm. I hadn't much noticed that here. So it would depend on what the actual problem is. But the new server will have faster disks, as well as more RAM.

[|iR|Focalor]

I've seen it once or twice. I've clicked my TS bookmark only to have the browser sit there for 60 to 120 seconds before it says "website may be offline, blah blah blah." And then I think, "Maybe it's my shite connection.", so I try other sites, and they all work. The few times it's ever happened it never lasted longer than 5 mins, but still... free web shit has drops like that. For the kinda cash you're paying, shouldn't be no interrupts. They been hosing you, aye.

[yahoo]

i do noticed for some time now that there are instances that it takes a bit long to open the forums page

Hmm. I hadn't much noticed that here. So it would depend on what the actual problem is. But the new server will have faster disks, as well as more RAM.

Browser says its connected and waiting for reply.. quite a bit long for the transferring data thing.