[jgalt212]

It's a been a long time since I read a post where someone bashes Hetzner. Usually they are well received. We use their VMs as back up servers, so not really pushing them hard. The most negative things I've read about them is they have much stronger KYC than AWS.

[hipadev23]

Not trying to derail the thread, but having used a variety of dedicated, virtualized, and shared hosts since the mid 90's, Hetzner was hands-down the worst experience I've ever encountered. Their KYC process is indeed arduous but that's not my complaint, in fact I naively believed it meant they took things seriously.

They null-routed my server on launch day because their false-positive laden abuse detection thought it was being attacked. Despite filling out their attestation form and replying to support that my server was completely under my control and not being attacked, they still null-routed the box, and took ~8 hours to respond to my pleas (the first half of which was during normal CEST support hours) to re-enable traffic, along with an extremely patronizing tone when they did. After that event, looking at online review sites (e.g. trustpilot) and webhosting forums, these are common complaints when someone uses Hetzner and actually attempts to use the CPU, memory, or bandwidth resources included with their server.

After they killed my server, I quickly spun up the exact same services with a different provider and haven't had any issues since.

[antoniojtorres]

Agreed, have been a hetzner customer for years running a myriad of services there without issues.

[fijiaarone]

People were running high power severs and databases on pentium 2s. Most cloud servers and programming frameworks) don’t exceed their performance.