We don't know what to say other than this is plainly slanderous attack made out of unrelated frustrations, which our corporate infrastructure-focused sister company (which this review is actually about) has presented stockpiles of evidence archived to prove.

The cluster arrangement was explained in detail via spreadsheet, Visio diagram, the signup package, in our billing system, and in every PDF invoice ever sent out to the customer. It was then verifiable to the customer via shell access had they ever any doubt.

The customer was not satisfied with the # of pageviews sent out by the clustered arrangement during their time with us, which is true, and refused to acknowledge the fact that they ran an image hosting website with hotlinking enabled, making the # of pageviews served a near irrelevant factor over raw hits (which for the record reached well over 10 million per day before beginning to strain). This was in spite of turning down our recommended solution plainly made in our initial spreadsheet proposal to instead use our cheapest potential environment to attempt hosting the site with.

In spite of heavy verbal abuse to our staff and being given the attention of hundreds of hours of our management's time, our staff supplied approximately $6,000 (2 months) provided free fully functioning clustered hosting service, simply because it outweighed the support costs inflicted on our team. This was two-fold - for the first month, our staff assisted in rewriting the customer's PHP script to behave properly in a clustered environment at no development costs to the customer, as they did not refuse the problem to be on their end - but instead insisted their script to be our responsibility and not theirs.

During the second courtesy month, a free upgrade from the E6600 platform to Xeon 5310 web devices was made as charity (an environment never listed in any proposal), simply to prove that the clustered environment would work correctly. It did, and for a full month, we did not receive a single support request, as our staff was now monitoring not only their hosting environment, but also the content of their website to monitor the behavior of their code- a service above and beyond the obligation of any host. Finally in the last days, we got our 3rd demand for free service (the first support request in over 30 days), implying that the Alexa graph showing their traffic skyrocketing higher than it had been before they had started with us was a fraud, and that our staff was lying when we said we had been checking several times a day. We were not, and we refused the 3rd free month. This is the only possible reason I can find for the customer claiming they were billed outside of their billing cycle, as the transaction records we have clearly exhibit otherwise.