LowEndBox - Cheap VPS, Hosting and Dedicated Server Deals

Alvotech – €19.50/6 Months 512MB Linux-vserver VPS in Germany

Tags: , , Date/Time: April 20, 2011 @ 2:45 pm, by LowEndAdmin

Alvotech Another LowEndBox special today! Michael from Alvotech has sent me their vServer Special for LowEndBox readers, with up to 20% off. Plan “vServer L” is €19.50/6 months (€3.25/month ~USD$4.72). Here is what you will get:

  • 512MB guaranteed/2048MB burstable memory
  • 30GB storage
  • First 1TB on 1Gbps, and then throttle to 10Mbps unmetered
  • Linux-VServer/Custom web-based control panel

Servers in KPN EuroRings data center in Düsseldorf Germany (see their data center page). Offer expires end of May. Alvotech was founded in 2009, and had some good reviews from last time.

The original owner of LowEndBox known as "LowEndAdmin" or "LEA" for short founded LowEndBox in 2008 and created the concept of hosting applications on low resource "Low End Boxes". After creating the roots of the community that we know today, "LEA" stepped aside and allowed others to carry the torch forward.

95 Comments

  1. Logain:

    ‘Plan “vServer L” is €19.50/month (€3.25/month ~USD$4.72).’
    A little Freudian slip there, I guess. €19.50/year would make more sense ;)

    April 20, 2011 @ 2:51 pm | Reply
    • SwordfishBE:

      It’s 19.50/6 month according to there website.

      April 20, 2011 @ 2:57 pm | Reply
      • Logain:

        Ahh, should have done the math, sorry. Of course your’re right, it’s per six month, not per year.

        April 20, 2011 @ 3:52 pm | Reply
    • €19.50/half year would be right

      April 20, 2011 @ 2:58 pm | Reply
    • Snape:

      Should also point out it’s not “2048MB burstable memory”, but 2048MB swap.

      April 20, 2011 @ 7:58 pm | Reply
    • Yes sorry it was obviously a PEBCAK. Updated now saying 19.50 EUR/6 months.

      April 20, 2011 @ 11:41 pm | Reply
  2. Ztc:

    Yea must be a typo.

    April 20, 2011 @ 3:04 pm | Reply
  3. what about ipv6? do they support gentoo?

    April 20, 2011 @ 5:27 pm | Reply
    • you found a list of useable images at: http://www.alvotech.de/vserver/leb-compare/
      gentoo is currently not offered. IPv6 is not currently offered for our VPS services. The introduction of IPv6 for both new and existing customers is planned for 3rd quarter of 2011. We will notify all customers in time before launch via the newsletter.

      April 20, 2011 @ 5:30 pm | Reply
    • Snape:

      No IPv6, though it’s “coming soon”. No TUN/TAP either. No sundry-other-things-not-supported-by-vserver.

      Not sure about Gentoo availability, sorry.

      I’ve been using them for a couple weeks, and quite enjoying the server. vServer takes some getting used to, but it’s nothing insurmountable for what I want to do. Server’s crazy fast, the connection is excellent, and the setup was quick and painless.

      April 20, 2011 @ 7:57 pm | Reply
      • Markus:

        TUN/TAP is possible but you have to request a tun/tap device by there support team

        April 20, 2011 @ 8:34 pm | Reply
      • SwordfishBE:

        Did anyone ever tried to use tb-tun to establish an ipv6 tunnel on linux-vserver?

        May 23, 2011 @ 1:57 pm | Reply
        • rm:

          It is not possible because the tun device on VServer is a bit more limited than it usually is.
          However they said native IPv6 is coming Q3 2011.

          May 23, 2011 @ 2:10 pm | Reply
        • rm:

          Now Q3 2011 came and gone, still no IPv6 support!
          And http://www.alvotech.de/vserver/faq/ still says “3rd quarter 2011”.

          October 2, 2011 @ 3:36 pm | Reply
  4. Daniel @ LowEndTalk:

    Its not unmetered 1GBPS

    A better way to put it, 1TB on 1GBPS (over-usage will be throttled to 10mbps)

    April 20, 2011 @ 8:39 pm | Reply
    • mina:

      That’s what it exactly says at the moment, with different writing?

      April 21, 2011 @ 8:16 am | Reply
      • Daniel @ LowEndTalk:

        Oh it originally said Unmetered on 1GBPS

        April 21, 2011 @ 4:06 pm | Reply
  5. I guess 1,000 GB / month is a typo, the decimal comma should not be there?
    (I am from Sweden so I often get confused with international numbers).

    What happens after the 6 months, will next period be at ordinary price without the rebate or will this lower price go on forever if the contract is renewed? I like the drop to 10 Mbit/s if traffic limit is reached. Then I would never have to worry about getting the website closed because of traffic limits.

    I saw there was 64-bit OS options also. 512 MB RAM should be OK with a 64-bit minimum debian installation I guess.

    April 21, 2011 @ 10:08 am | Reply
    • I’ve fixed the decimal thingy. Sorry about that international visitors! :)

      April 21, 2011 @ 10:11 am | Reply
    • Alvotech:

      @ronnylow:
      yes – the lower price go on forever if the contract is renewed

      April 21, 2011 @ 10:46 am | Reply
    • dd:

      “the decimal comma”

      The comma is not a decimal separator. The dot is. Its time the world standardized on the dot as the decimal separator as it is used by the majority. Usually I am all for diversity but not when it comes to interfaces. The more the interfaces are standardized the less confusion there will be.

      April 23, 2011 @ 7:28 am | Reply
      • s:

        According to ISO 31-0: “the decimal sign is either the comma on the line or the point on the line”. Further “Numbers consisting of long sequences of digits can be made more readable by separating them into groups, preferably groups of three, separated by a small space. For this reason, ISO 31-0 specifies that such groups of digits should never be separated by a comma or point, as these are reserved for use as the decimal sign.”

        So international standard is already there, to bad that US is one of the very few countries which have not signed it.

        May 28, 2011 @ 5:05 pm | Reply
  6. Marco:

    Any test IP?
    Test file?

    April 21, 2011 @ 2:04 pm | Reply
    • 2011-04-23 15:22:02 (62.0 MB/s) – `100mb.test’ saved [104857600/104857600]
      dd if=/dev/zero of=test bs=64k count=16k conv=fdatasync
      16384+0 records in
      16384+0 records out
      1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB) copied, 16.5468 seconds, 64.9 MB/s

      24h open test: http://de.seovarna.com/100mb.test

      April 23, 2011 @ 12:24 pm | Reply
  7. m:

    Looks nice… I might give it a try!

    I’ve never used a VPS with LVS before… I usually prefer installing CSF on my servers, so what I want to ask is: Are the necessary modules for CSF running?

    Thanks!

    April 25, 2011 @ 2:34 am | Reply
    • m:

      I took the liberty of emailing this same question to their support, they were very friendly and answered my question.

      There is no “regular” iptables support (which means no iptables scripts) but you can enable a firewall and add/remove rules via their control panel.

      Hope this helps someone else too.

      WBR,

      m

      April 26, 2011 @ 10:48 am | Reply
  8. Can anyone share the control panel screenshots? Thank you.

    April 25, 2011 @ 3:48 am | Reply
  9. I’ll manage test file for a week :)
    You understand that if it stay longer – mu bandwidth will hit the trigger :)

    April 25, 2011 @ 12:45 pm | Reply
    • Steliyan, can you share your experience with Alvotech with the Lowendbox readers here? Thank you.

      April 26, 2011 @ 4:25 am | Reply
      • What you expect to say?
        For this low price the service is more than acceptable.
        I’m based in Europe and this VPS is so close to me. Speed and connection is ok. Stability is ok.
        Sanctification guaranteed! :)

        April 26, 2011 @ 8:40 pm | Reply
        • I am expecting stability (uptime). Thank you for your valuable comments :)

          April 27, 2011 @ 4:01 am | Reply
  10. Not cachefly file download:
    2011-04-28 19:04:23 (21.3 MB/s) – `linuxmint-debian-201012-gnome-dvd-amd64.iso’
    And Uptime with one restart from me: top – 19:06:00 up 4 days, 6:48

    April 28, 2011 @ 4:06 pm | Reply
  11. innya:

    Is anyone from us use it?
    If so, let me know how is it?

    April 28, 2011 @ 4:32 pm | Reply
    • Snape:

      It’s been excellent for me. Fast, stable network, good performance… quick setup. Haven’t needed to contact support in the moth I’ve had the server. There is a bit of a learning curve compared to OpenVZ or Xen, because of the vserver limitations, but nothing too major for anyone familiar with Linux.

      April 28, 2011 @ 6:25 pm | Reply
    • Instant setup (<10 minutes), very fast network, friendly online chat.
      The server looks fast in terms of I/O and processing speed. The cpu is Xeon E5420@2.50GHz with 6MB cache. Online for 5 days, with Debian 5.0 x64

      April 28, 2011 @ 8:20 pm | Reply
    • innya:

      Which USA location(west,central,east) you access from your vps?

      I know that I should try it out myself instead of asking :)

      I am trying to control myself from getting any good vps offer :D

      April 29, 2011 @ 4:25 pm | Reply
      • Snape:

        I’m somewhere in the central US.

        29 days uptime and counting. More impressively, I’ve been logged in via SSH continuously for 26 days and counting, with no network hiccoughs or other unpleasantness…

        May 3, 2011 @ 10:27 pm | Reply
    • I’m with Alvotech about 10 days now. The UPtime is: up 9 days, 5:58. Speed is great. VPS is more than GOOD. Alvotech together with BHost are the greatest VPS providers for European customers like me.

      May 3, 2011 @ 3:18 pm | Reply
  12. kampreto:

    how many cpu core will get if take vServer L and vServer XL package ?

    April 29, 2011 @ 2:44 am | Reply
  13. ben:

    argh, can’t order through paypal ’cause it charges me directly with my credit card account which i dont have

    April 30, 2011 @ 9:41 am | Reply
  14. m:

    I just got a VPS from Alvotech.
    The only downside for me seems to be the awful speed they have for Asia. I’m currently in China and working via SSH on this VPS is painfully slow comparing to another one I have in USA.

    Other than that, the VPS seems to behave fine so far…

    WBR,

    m

    May 1, 2011 @ 7:44 am | Reply
    • ben:

      any other comments on speed on asia? need this as most my clients are from there

      May 1, 2011 @ 6:46 pm | Reply
      • m:

        I guess my net was kind of lossy yesterday, so I guess that explains part of my bad SSH experience.. Today is better, but it’s still slower than my other VPS in Dallas. The difference is sitting between ~85ms, being the US one the fastest. The difference should be barely noticeable for the end-user visiting the web-pages, I guess?

        If you want I can carry out some some test, just name it.

        WBR,

        m

        May 2, 2011 @ 4:58 am | Reply
        • ben:

          can you make a 10mb test file so i can test my speed on it? :D btw im from asia

          May 5, 2011 @ 2:05 pm | Reply
  15. ben:

    one of those vpn company with the best support staff! very helpful!

    May 1, 2011 @ 6:54 pm | Reply
  16. shearerc:

    On vServer can you change/upgrade kernel like in Xen PV (with PVGrub)?

    May 2, 2011 @ 1:53 am | Reply
    • As far as I know you can’t. Is a kind of OpenVZ… in some way.

      May 2, 2011 @ 2:18 am | Reply
  17. I have been with Alvotech for over 7 months now and am very please with the responsiveness and speed as well as reliability. (Only down one time due to confusion on their part about which user was delinquent in paying. I emailed them and was back up in no time.)

    They clearly do not overload their servers. Alvotech is far and away the best of the 4 providers I currently have. This is the way to do business: top quality service at a bargain price. Hope they’re going to be around for years!

    May 2, 2011 @ 4:08 pm | Reply
  18. taltaki:

    Just ordered been two hours no setup yet I am in UK paid with Paypal.

    May 3, 2011 @ 4:27 pm | Reply
    • Alvotech:

      I could not found any pending vserver order currently in our system. Could you maybe write us an mail with your customer name to support@alvotech.de please. I’m think I can help you to get your access data soon as possible (with received yesterday one order but the yahoo address was not working (mailer daemon).

      May 4, 2011 @ 7:33 am | Reply
  19. After half year of experiments with cheap and cheapest VPS providers all over the world I finally found my future hosts. One of them is Alvotech in Germany. My experience with them, with their support is great. So, if you are located in Europe and wondering which VPS to choose – you are at the right place.

    May 5, 2011 @ 6:26 am | Reply
  20. Fansico:
    vs23:~# cat /proc/cpuinfo
    processor       : 0
    vendor_id       : GenuineIntel
    cpu family      : 6
    model           : 15
    model name      : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU           E5345  @ 2.33GHz
    stepping        : 7
    cpu MHz         : 2333.110
    cache size      : 4096 KB
    physical id     : 0
    siblings        : 4
    core id         : 0
    cpu cores       : 4
    apicid          : 0
    initial apicid  : 0
    fpu             : yes
    fpu_exception   : yes
    cpuid level     : 10
    wp              : yes
    flags           : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36 clflush dts acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss ht tm pbe syscall nx lm constant_tsc arch_perfmon pebs bts rep_good aperfmperf pni dtes64 monitor ds_cpl vmx est tm2 ssse3 cx16 xtpr pdcm dca lahf_lm dts tpr_shadow
    bogomips        : 4666.22
    clflush size    : 64
    cache_alignment : 64
    address sizes   : 36 bits physical, 48 bits virtual
    power management:
    
    processor       : 1
    vendor_id       : GenuineIntel
    cpu family      : 6
    model           : 15
    model name      : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU           E5345  @ 2.33GHz
    stepping        : 7
    cpu MHz         : 2333.110
    cache size      : 4096 KB
    physical id     : 0
    siblings        : 4
    core id         : 1
    cpu cores       : 4
    apicid          : 1
    initial apicid  : 1
    fpu             : yes
    fpu_exception   : yes
    cpuid level     : 10
    wp              : yes
    flags           : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36 clflush dts acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss ht tm pbe syscall nx lm constant_tsc arch_perfmon pebs bts rep_good aperfmperf pni dtes64 monitor ds_cpl vmx est tm2 ssse3 cx16 xtpr pdcm dca lahf_lm dts tpr_shadow
    bogomips        : 4667.00
    clflush size    : 64
    cache_alignment : 64
    address sizes   : 36 bits physical, 48 bits virtual
    power management:
    
    processor       : 2
    vendor_id       : GenuineIntel
    cpu family      : 6
    model           : 15
    model name      : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU           E5345  @ 2.33GHz
    stepping        : 7
    cpu MHz         : 2333.110
    cache size      : 4096 KB
    physical id     : 0
    siblings        : 4
    core id         : 2
    cpu cores       : 4
    apicid          : 2
    initial apicid  : 2
    fpu             : yes
    fpu_exception   : yes
    cpuid level     : 10
    wp              : yes
    flags           : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36 clflush dts acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss ht tm pbe syscall nx lm constant_tsc arch_perfmon pebs bts rep_good aperfmperf pni dtes64 monitor ds_cpl vmx est tm2 ssse3 cx16 xtpr pdcm dca lahf_lm dts tpr_shadow
    bogomips        : 4667.00
    clflush size    : 64
    cache_alignment : 64
    address sizes   : 36 bits physical, 48 bits virtual
    power management:
    
    processor       : 3
    vendor_id       : GenuineIntel
    cpu family      : 6
    model           : 15
    model name      : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU           E5345  @ 2.33GHz
    stepping        : 7
    cpu MHz         : 2333.110
    cache size      : 4096 KB
    physical id     : 0
    siblings        : 4
    core id         : 3
    cpu cores       : 4
    apicid          : 3
    initial apicid  : 3
    fpu             : yes
    fpu_exception   : yes
    cpuid level     : 10
    wp              : yes
    flags           : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36 clflush dts acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss ht tm pbe syscall nx lm constant_tsc arch_perfmon pebs bts rep_good aperfmperf pni dtes64 monitor ds_cpl vmx est tm2 ssse3 cx16 xtpr pdcm dca lahf_lm dts tpr_shadow
    bogomips        : 4667.00
    clflush size    : 64
    cache_alignment : 64
    address sizes   : 36 bits physical, 48 bits virtual
    power management:
    
    vs23:~# dd if=/dev/zero of=test bs=8k count=16k conv=fdatasync
    16384+0 records in
    16384+0 records out
    134217728 bytes (134 MB) copied, 2.53642 s, 52.9 MB/s
    vs23:~# dd if=/dev/zero of=test bs=16k count=16k conv=fdatasync
    16384+0 records in
    16384+0 records out
    268435456 bytes (268 MB) copied, 4.93079 s, 54.4 MB/s
    vs23:~# dd if=/dev/zero of=test bs=32k count=16k conv=fdatasync
    16384+0 records in
    16384+0 records out
    536870912 bytes (537 MB) copied, 11.0632 s, 48.5 MB/s
    
    vs23:~# wget http://cachefly.cachefly.net/100mb.test
    --2011-05-05 11:08:33--  http://cachefly.cachefly.net/100mb.test
    Resolving cachefly.cachefly.net... 205.234.175.175
    Connecting to cachefly.cachefly.net|205.234.175.175|:80... connected.
    HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK
    Length: 104857600 (100M) [application/octet-stream]
    Saving to: `100mb.test'
    
    100%[======================================>] 104,857,600 63.5M/s   in 1.6s
    
    2011-05-05 11:08:34 (63.5 MB/s) - `100mb.test' saved [104857600/104857600]
    
    Location Result min. rrt avg. rrt max. rrt IP 
     Singapore, Singapore: Okay  220.6 225.7 227.8 188.64.45.52 
     Amsterdam2, Netherlands: Okay  4.9 5.1 5.3 188.64.45.52 
     Florida, U.S.A.: Okay  116.2 116.4 116.7 188.64.45.52 
     Amsterdam3, Netherlands: Okay  4.5 4.7 4.9 188.64.45.52 
     Hong Kong, China: Okay  230.3 235.3 239.3 188.64.45.52 
     Sydney, Australia: Packets lost (10%)  327.6 329.5 338.7 188.64.45.52 
     München, Germany: Okay  10.7 10.9 11.1 188.64.45.52 
     Cologne, Germany: Okay  15.9 16.4 17.9 188.64.45.52 
     New York, U.S.A.: Okay  101.2 101.4 101.5 188.64.45.52 
     Cairo, Egypt: Okay  144.2 145.5 148.0 188.64.45.52 
     Amsterdam1, Netherlands: Okay  6.7 6.8 6.9 188.64.45.52 
     Stockholm, Sweden: Okay  32.1 32.2 32.6 188.64.45.52 
     Santa Clara, U.S.A.: Okay  174.8 175.0 175.2 188.64.45.52 
     Vancouver, Canada: Okay  179.0 179.2 179.4 188.64.45.52 
     London, United Kingdom: Okay  11.9 12.3 12.7 188.64.45.52 
     Madrid, Spain: Checkpoint temporarily not available  - - - - 
     Padova, Italy: Okay  21.3 21.5 21.8 188.64.45.52 
     Austin, U.S.A.: Okay  129.1 129.2 129.2 188.64.45.52 
     Amsterdam, Netherlands: Okay  5.7 5.9 6.0 188.64.45.52 
     Paris, France: Okay  14.4 15.7 25.3 188.64.45.52 
     Melbourne, Australia: Okay  333.5 334.0 334.7 188.64.45.52 
     Shanghai, China: Packets lost (10%)  351.3 352.3 353.7 188.64.45.52 
     Copenhagen, Denmark: Okay  16.0 16.1 16.4 188.64.45.52 
     Lille, France: Checkpoint temporarily not available  - - - - 
     San Francisco, U.S.A.: Okay  171.9 172.4 173.0 188.64.45.52 
     Zurich, Switzerland: Okay  27.0 27.1 27.3 188.64.45.52 
     Mumbai, India: Okay  320.2 361.7 416.5 188.64.45.52 
     Chicago, U.S.A.: Okay  109.1 109.3 109.5 188.64.45.52 
     Nagano, Japan: Okay  283.2 283.3 283.4 188.64.45.52 
     Haifa, Israel: Okay  71.9 72.3 72.6 188.64.45.52 
     Auckland, New Zealand: Okay  301.7 302.7 305.9 188.64.45.52 
     Antwerp, Belgium: Okay  11.8 12.0 12.1 188.64.45.52 
     Groningen, Netherlands: Okay  9.1 9.5 10.0 188.64.45.52 
     Moscow, Russia: Packets lost (90%)  62.8 62.8 62.8 188.64.45.52 
     Dublin, Ireland: Packets lost (10%)  19.2 19.5 19.6 188.64.45.52 
     Oslo, Norway: Packets lost (10%)  28.0 29.3 36.0 188.64.45.52 
     Kharkov, Ukraine: Packets lost (10%)  51.2 52.2 57.2 188.64.45.52 
     Manchester, United Kingdom: Okay  16.2 20.5 43.8 188.64.45.52 
     Vilnius, Lithuania: Okay  36.1 36.1 36.2 188.64.45.52 
     Bucharest, Romania: Okay  35.7 36.0 36.9 188.64.45.52 
     Bangkok, Thailand: Okay  230.7 231.7 233.2 188.64.45.52 
     Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: Okay  272.2 273.3 278.0 188.64.45.52 
     Jakarta, Indonesia: Okay  302.5 305.0 312.5 188.64.45.52 
     Cape Town, South Africa: Okay  161.6 162.8 164.5 188.64.45.52 
     Glasgow, United Kingdom: Okay  22.6 23.6 28.9 188.64.45.52 
     Lisbon, Portugal: Okay  44.9 45.4 46.1 188.64.45.52 
     Chicago, U.S.A.: Okay  105.6 105.8 106.9 188.64.45.52 
     Dallas, U.S.A.: Okay  138.7 138.8 138.9 188.64.45.52 
     Buenos Aires, Argentina: Packets lost (10%)  244.3 245.1 246.2 188.64.45.52 
     Istanbul, Turkey: Okay  52.0 52.3 53.1 188.64.45.52 
     Gdansk, Poland: Okay  35.0 37.0 40.8 188.64.45.52 
     Beijing, China: Okay  367.8 370.9 375.8 188.64.45.52 
     Belgrade, Serbia: Checkpoint temporarily not available  - - - - 
     Toronto, Canada: Checkpoint temporarily not available  - - - - 
     Novosibirsk, Russia: Checkpoint temporarily not available  - - - -
    
    May 5, 2011 @ 9:14 am | Reply
  21. marrco:

    well, it’s a good vps, buy far from being perfect. Great price, for sure, we’ll see if it’s stable, but has a few negative aspects too
    1) default image is old lenny, with squeeze still marked as beta
    2) reboot command not working with those 2 images, you have to find how to fix it (i still did not) or use their poor control panel
    3)there are no iptables, just an undocumented ‘firewall’ in the control panel where you can just set a few allow and deny, no more advanced rules. And this is bad for security and stability, no rate limiting no nat rules, no advanced config
    4) worst of all there is no direct-access console in the control panel so if you ssh access dies you’re on your own. You better hope that a restart fix the issue. And it happened to me a few times it did not in the pas years. 2 times upgrading lenny to squeeze, where dropbear didn’t start after a version-upgrade, one time after doing a mistake editing a nginx config file, so that my vps got instable, and i had to kill a few process, disallow nginx startup and reboot, and a few times more. This is the ony VPS that i know where you have no recovery console to access your vps.
    5)images are not standard, i had some symbols on the screen when performing my initial setup. I guess their templates default to german keymaps or something like that. And their sources list is just one line and (on squeeze) installing exim4 gave problems and found the panic log with notice of some ipv6 problems. All minor glitches, but you have to fix many things if you want to use this vps

    So there are a few negative aspects with this offer too. Some minor, some very important to me.

    so it’s nice to read dd and wget tests, but sometimes id’d appreciate a more comprehensive review. This vps is good, but definitely far from perfect

    May 8, 2011 @ 4:13 pm | Reply
  22. marrco:

    it was, just a few days ago, and it was a little buggy, as i reported. Today i checked and also in the control panel now i have the option to install squeeze, without the beta mark.

    Maybe i’ll try in the next few days and see if they fixed all other problems with the old image.

    my major concern is about the poor firewall and especially about the lack of any direct (emergency) console access.

    this vps still has a strange problem, i tested from 4 different locations in eu + 1 in the us, there is a packet loss of about 1%. Their support answered my ticket that their network is fine, so i still have no clue why my vps keeps losing packets. Sometimes 0,5% , other times 2%.

    May 12, 2011 @ 12:18 pm | Reply
  23. marrco:

    i tried pinging de.seovarna.com (one of the test address posted in this topic) and there’s a 1% packet loss there, too.

    Ne1 knows why ?

    May 19, 2011 @ 5:10 pm | Reply
    • rm:

      Here is what I have for 200 packets. You can try the same test by “mtr” on *nix or http://winmtr.sf.net/ on Windows.

       Host                                     Loss%   Snt   Last   Avg  Best  Wrst StDev
      ...
       3. xe-10-2-1.edge4.Amsterdam1.Level3.net  0.0%   200   68.7  70.3  68.6 156.2   8.5
       4. ae-2-52.edge3.Amsterdam1.Level3.net    0.0%   200   83.4  72.2  68.8 165.1  13.0
       5. 212.72.33.10                           0.0%   200   70.0  77.0  69.5 278.6  27.5
       6. asd2-rou-1022.NL.eurorings.net         0.0%   200   70.2  73.0  69.5 112.2   7.7
       7. dssd-s2-rou-1021.DE.eurorings.net      0.0%   200   73.4  74.1  73.0 120.2   5.1
       8. dssd-s2-rou-1041.DE.eurorings.net      0.0%   200   72.7  75.9  72.6 132.9   9.4
       9. 134.222.122.102                        3.0%   200   72.8  73.7  72.5 242.2  12.2
      10. de.seovarna.com                        1.0%   200   72.7  74.2  72.6 315.8  17.3
      
      May 19, 2011 @ 5:30 pm | Reply
      • marrco:

        And this is what they keep answering to my support tickets: “Hello Marco,

        we are not able to solve your problem because our network is fine. Maybe comes your losse from a point outsite of our network, but we can’t solved problems oursite of your own network”

        can you please test my vps too ?
        alvotech.miramare.it and if you need a test file http://alvotech,miramare.it/1g (it’s a 1 giga file)

        i think it’s alvotech fault, but they already answered 3 times that their network is fine…

        May 20, 2011 @ 8:07 am | Reply
        • Is really necessary for your apps to get a 0% of packet losing?

          --- alvotech.miramare.it ping statistics ---
          50 packets transmitted, 48 received, 4% packet loss, time 49024ms
          rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 13.478/13.926/28.804/2.179 ms
          

          A ping -f

          --- alvotech.miramare.it ping statistics ---
          939 packets transmitted, 905 received, 3% packet loss, time 12172ms
          rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 13.428/13.710/35.084/1.511 ms, pipe 3, ipg/ewma 12.976/13.535 ms
          

          Your jitter is low, but I got that 2 of 50 packets loss from my hostrail offshore

          And these from germany

          --- alvotech.miramare.it ping statistics ---
          59 packets transmitted, 55 received, 6% packet loss, time 95770ms
          rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 9.618/10.508/20.509/1.901 ms
          

          -f

          --- alvotech.miramare.it ping statistics ---
          40 packets transmitted, 16 received, 60% packet loss, time 8444ms
          rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 9.862/10.136/10.669/0.264 ms, pipe 2, ipg/ewma 216.526/10.143 ms
          

          Sometimes feels good, and others is unstable :S

          About your file, I got 2-3MB/s from switzerland and 1-1.3MB/s from germany

          Btw, your file is filled with zeros? That can give weird results if compression is applied in the transfer.

          May 20, 2011 @ 8:36 am | Reply
        • marrco:

          @yomero THANKS a lot. About the test file, it’s a speed test i downloaded from a different provider, so i guess it’s ok. About the packet loss that’s a good question. How bad is suffering from a 5% packet loss ? Is that a problem that NEEDS to be fixed? Can such a packet loss cause problems with www/ftp ? I don’t know the answer. But i doubt a ftp transfer can be fast with such a network problem. I think after a packet loss there’s a smaller tcp window and the transfer recover slowly. My VPS should be on a gigabit link, that looks slow. And what about http requests? I don’t know what happens ? Timeouts ? Packets that have to be resent? Really, no idea how bad it is.

          May 20, 2011 @ 8:51 am | Reply
        • rm:

          @Yomero
          Yes, it is necessary to have zero packet loss, because with a 3% loss like this, and combining that with the lost packet resend logic, for HTTP it will mean that 3 people out of 100 visitors will have a THREE SECOND DELAY before your website even starts loading for them (when their TCP SYN packet was lost and needed to be resent).

          May 20, 2011 @ 9:01 am | Reply
        • @rm @marrco Well, I don’t have too much experience on networking issues and web services. I guess, if that 3 visitors get a little delay, they will reload or something xD, the site continues working, maybe you can live with that. But I don’t have a real experience. In my case, I mainly host gameservers, getting packet losing is a BIG problem in that situation.

          @marrco You must get an acceptable answer, IMO this is ridiculous.

          May 20, 2011 @ 4:16 pm | Reply
        • I hate to say it but I’m not seeing it.

          From the library:

          Ping statistics for 91.206.143.136:
              Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
          Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
              Minimum = 104ms, Maximum = 108ms, Average = 106ms
          
          Ping statistics for 91.206.143.136:
              Packets: Sent = 25, Received = 25, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
          Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
              Minimum = 104ms, Maximum = 113ms, Average = 106ms
          
          Ping statistics for 91.206.143.136:
              Packets: Sent = 25, Received = 25, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
          Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
              Minimum = 104ms, Maximum = 123ms, Average = 107ms
          

          From the Quickweb Germany VPS:

          --- alvotech.miramare.it ping statistics ---
          671 packets transmitted, 671 received, 0% packet loss, time 14819ms
          rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 4.254/4.712/5.578/0.210 ms, ipg/ewma 22.118/4.733 ms
          

          Not doubting you but sorry that I can’t see it.

          May 20, 2011 @ 6:32 pm | Reply
        • marrco:

          @drmike, you’re 100% right, but doing a traceroute i found the reason. Today they have a dirrent routing !
          they dropped the eurorings.net path and now i get to my box thru cogentco.com (or level3).

          considering that in the last 2 weeks they kept telling that there was no packet loss on their network, i found amusing that today with the new peering everything works fine.

          btw, from my Quickweb Germany vps now it’s only 4 hops, with avg time less than 2 ms:

          342 packets transmitted, 342 received, 0% packet loss, time 343108ms
          rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.847/1.268/2.411/0.152 ms

          May 21, 2011 @ 1:27 pm | Reply
        • Glad *someone* resolved it for you. ;)

          In their defense, as someone who leases a pair of house lines to my racks, they may have been at the mercy of their datacenter and their routings. I have a pair of dedicated uplinks as well and they seem to be quicker even though all of them are rated the same.

          Of course I’ve seen routings loop back on themselves. Always amazed when I see those.

          May 29, 2011 @ 12:54 pm | Reply
        • marrco:

          I wish they did. But that *someone* broke everything again… new routing, packet loss again. This time at least they admit the problem. “I don´t know what they have changed but now they find out that their corerouters are causing the problem and they will change them”

          so at the moment i have this VPS for 1 month and still never used it! And i don’t believe that their DC is the problem. I smell some old, small switch not able to cope with oversold nodes. My guess is some app installed (torrent ?) on their nodes are using too much resources on their switch.

          June 1, 2011 @ 5:27 pm | Reply
        • SwordfishBE:

          If they are overselling, I say IF. Then you really don’t notice it.

          ping -c 50:

          be -> alvo
          50 packets transmitted, 50 received, 0% packet loss, time 49075ms
          rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 15.923/16.789/19.018/0.927 ms

          nl -> alvi
          50 packets transmitted, 49 received, 2% packet loss, time 49109ms
          rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 4.306/4.763/21.990/2.487 ms

          ro -> alvo
          50 packets transmitted, 50 received, 0% packet loss, time 49021ms
          rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 41.338/41.606/41.986/0.209 ms

          dallas -> alvo
          50 packets transmitted, 49 received, 2% packet loss, time 49014ms
          rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 122.654/122.849/123.504/0.493 ms

          chicago -> alvo
          50 packets transmitted, 49 received, 2% packet loss, time 49037ms
          rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 110.161/110.278/110.516/0.259 ms

          san jose -> alvo
          50 packets transmitted, 50 received, 0% packet loss, time 49001ms
          rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 170.547/172.884/180.227/2.461 ms

          uk -> alvo
          50 packets transmitted, 50 received, 0% packet loss, time 49059ms
          rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 12.650/12.952/19.603/0.958 ms

          June 1, 2011 @ 5:44 pm | Reply
        • rm:

          Since early morning on 04 June, the packet loss seems to be completely gone.
          http://ompldr.org/vOHllNQ/nyu_last_864000.png
          blue = loss, green = none.

          June 7, 2011 @ 11:39 am | Reply
  24. zlotowinfo:

    alvotech.de: 3,9eur/512MB/30GB/1TB/1xIP/min.6m/0,66GHz (2,66quad/16users)
    burst.net: 4,3eur/512MB/20GB/1TB/2xIP/min.1m/1GHz guaranted

    May 29, 2011 @ 12:45 pm | Reply
    • rm:

      1) how do you know about “16 users”
      2) wrong to assume 0.66 GHz, that would be true only if everyone consumed 100% of their CPU, which doesn’t happen ever
      3) it’s not 3.9 but 3.25 (19.5/6) from this offer
      4) from this page http://www.lowendbox.com/blog/burstnet-512mb-openvz-miami/ it is not “guaranteed” 1000Mhz but a MAXIMUM limit of 1000Mhz with burst.net

      May 29, 2011 @ 1:06 pm | Reply
      • zlotowinfo:

        you can calculate it easy.

        vServer L – 16 customers
        vServer XL – 12 customers
        vServer XXL – 8 customers
        vServer XXXL – 6 customers

        Mit freundlichen Grüßen
        Alvotech Support-Team

        May 29, 2011 @ 1:23 pm | Reply
        • akam:

          I’m afraid it doesn’t work that way.
          For providers to achieve such a low price they have to oversell.

          May 29, 2011 @ 1:50 pm | Reply
        • marrco:

          on a presale question i have been told that the ONLY difference between packets **”It´s only the storage and RAM”** and i was willing to pay to stay on a less crowded node with more CPU.

          June 1, 2011 @ 5:31 pm | Reply
      • zlotowinfo:

        1) they told me
        2) but possible, i was cs1.6 & lagged ever 10-15seconds
        3) i compare standard offer
        4) on stadard is guaranted

        May 29, 2011 @ 8:24 pm | Reply
  25. hello..it is good offers you are giving.vps is very reliable.and mostly accepting by the companies.

    June 8, 2011 @ 11:43 am | Reply
  26. Christian:

    They are now charging 9,90 euro setup fee…

    July 7, 2011 @ 9:48 am | Reply
  27. Pieter:

    I have an dServerXL with them and I can say “I am so happy I found this company”
    The online support is very friendly and fast, finaly an company that know what they are doing .
    I give them them a rating 10/10 :)

    July 8, 2011 @ 4:42 pm | Reply
  28. tim:

    they have a new setup free promo at facebook http://www.facebook.com/Alvotech/posts/214639488578872

    July 11, 2011 @ 4:51 pm | Reply
  29. zlotowinfo:

    omg they applied setup fee with vps in de
    its impossible in vps ;p

    July 11, 2011 @ 7:47 pm | Reply
  30. zlotowinfo:

    NOT WORKS link: vServer Special for LowEndBox readers

    July 11, 2011 @ 7:59 pm | Reply
  31. Stephane:

    Hello, yesterday was the offer until July 31.

    Today it does not work!

    July 22, 2011 @ 7:15 am | Reply
  32. Winglet:

    Great service. I have VPS over three month with them.
    Great prices (without setup fee).
    Alvotech: Please remove setup fee for Germany VPS :)

    August 11, 2011 @ 8:28 am | Reply
  33. zlotowinfo:

    they have problem with iptables – totally not works
    my friend looses cash on account hosted there pbx
    debian 32bit unworkable

    September 11, 2011 @ 11:58 am | Reply
    • SwordfishBE:

      no problem with debian6 32bit here :)

      September 11, 2011 @ 8:04 pm | Reply
  34. pt1:

    Be careful with these guys, if you don’t close your account with 15 days of warning they’ll try to extort you money for the next cycle as well regardless of your will. ;)

    October 22, 2011 @ 7:04 am | Reply
  35. rm:

    WOOHOO Alvotech finally adds IPv6!!!
    Check your control panel, in the VPS server details you will find “Manage IPv6”.
    Up to 16 IPv6 addresses can be added.
    downsides:
    – …but not removed;
    – rDNS not available;
    – the firewall feature doesn’t support IPv6 yet.

    February 6, 2012 @ 6:43 pm | Reply
    • snape:

      Yeah, I saw that this morning. As far as I can see they haven’t announced anything about it, so I’m guessing maybe it’s in beta, or something.

      February 6, 2012 @ 7:58 pm | Reply

Leave a Reply

Some notes on commenting on LowEndBox:

  • Do not use LowEndBox for support issues. Go to your hosting provider and issue a ticket there. Coming here saying "my VPS is down, what do I do?!" will only have your comments removed.
  • Akismet is used for spam detection. Some comments may be held temporarily for manual approval.
  • Use <pre>...</pre> to quote the output from your terminal/console, or consider using a pastebin service.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *