Kryptview lifespan?

[Macabre]

Originally Posted by helpfull

Seriously they are giving plenty for the money you have spent. The main channles are Movies and Sport and these are fine. So it's no joke, it's a very decent service for the money.

Some people never happy mate . no point in trying to get through to them that what they are getting is more than they should be .

[TheCoder]

Originally Posted by helpfull

I'll give a tip to anyone reading this. Good long term servers are small and kept that way for a reason. The reason being too many people on a server causes glitching.

Actually, thats not really the case !

Small servers tend to stay small for cheapness. They use very few cards (often just a single card for each provider) so that they are very client limited. Adding more clients than a card can cope with causes glitching (I should say, its only one casue).

Big servers use an entirely different configuration whereby they tend to use one card per 10-20 channels. The channels that a particular card decrypts is fixed and never various. The load on a single card is constant, irrespective of the number of clients. All cleints get their results from a cache and never actually talk to a real card. In this way a relatively small 20 card setup could provide a full providers service to a potentially unlimited client base - no glitching whatsoever (at least no glitching caused by the cards)

Cheap servers are cheap for a reason, they want numbers. They are more than likely commercial servers who can/will disappear without notice.

Cheap servers tend to be run by operators who have little clue about what they are doing or the technologies involved. Unfortunately, you can mostly blame the 'tutorials' for these guys

[helpfull]

[QUOTE=TheCoder;597456][/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]

Actually, thats not really the case !

Small servers tend to stay small for cheapness. They use very few cards (often just a single card for each provider) so that they are very client limited. Adding more clients than a card can cope with causes glitching (I should say, its only one casue).

QUOTE]

The point I was trying to make was the cost of running a small server make it unlikely you are going to get it cheap as the costs need to be covered by the clients. So break even at £5 a month is 20 clients at £10 a month 10.

The point I was trying to make about the large servers is they are run by unknown people ( unknown by most) who can if they choose move on at any time taking your money with them. They are also more open to the problems recently faced by KV and SV.


I'm not disagreeing with you as I know you know what your talking about. Just wanted to make myself clear.

[TheCoder]

Originally Posted by helpfull

The point I was trying to make was the cost of running a small server make it unlikely you are going to get it cheap as the costs need to be covered by the clients. So break even at £5 a month is 20 clients at £10 a month 10.

The point I was trying to make about the large servers is they are run by unknown people ( unknown by most) who can if they choose move on at any time taking your money with them. They are also more open to the problems recently faced by KV and SV.

Yep, I agree with pretty much all of that although I'll add that all public cardshare systems, large or small, are vulnerable to attacks of one form or another. The smaller ones tend to be more vulnerable to EMM attack whilst the larger ones are obviously more prone to the more direct 'assaults'.

Put simply, all cardhare is inherantly risky to some greater or lesser extent. No client should ever expect 100% uptime nor should any server guarantee such a thing.