LowEndBox - Cheap VPS, Hosting and Dedicated Server Deals

BlazeVPS - $10/Year 128MB OpenVZ VPS

Please read the comments below before purchasing a VPS from BlazeVPS, especially discussions on whether the offers are actually legitimate.

BlazeHost Timothy from Dinix LLC emailed me a few days ago about some new VPS packages they are about to launch — BlazeVPS. While I have received the details and am still waiting for the “okay” to post, the deals appears on WHT first. Not really “low end box exclusive” as stated in the email exchange but, well, at least the offer is now in the open. Annual payment only, starting from $10/year with the following spec

  • 128MB memory
  • 25GB storage
  • 1000GB/month data transfer on 1Gbps port
  • OpenVZ/SolusVM

Available locations are Chicago IL, Orlando FL, Phoenix AZ and London UK. There are other packages — $25/year for 256MB, $45/year for 512MB, etc.

Too good to be true? Without last week’s RackVM £6/year offer I would say yes. However many have their RackVM low end VPS delivered and are pretty happy with what they’ve got. RackVM’s domain was only registered in April so not much historical record either, but so far they’ve done pretty well.

BlazeVPS.com on the other hand was registered merely 2 days ago, from a company that still does not have its own website. Can’t seem to be able to find the LLC records in Arizona or Tennessee (but I am not in US so might be using the wrong tools). Andrew from 123Systems also picked some issues on page 3 of the WHT thread — worthwhile to have read.

I guess we’ll just have to wait for more reports to come in.

Latest posts by LEA (see all)


  1. David:

    I signed up to try it out after it was posted on wht, for $10/year. It hasn’t been setup yet, but they said they’ll set it up within 24 hours. We’ll see :)

    July 28, 2010 @ 2:48 pm | Reply
  2. Connor Roberts:

    looks like the sites down.

    July 28, 2010 @ 8:31 pm | Reply
  3. Rus:

    And their website is down……

    July 28, 2010 @ 8:32 pm | Reply
  4. Mike:

    Actually, looks like their DNS is dead. Could be their whole “network”, I suppose. Not terribly encouraging.

    July 28, 2010 @ 8:46 pm | Reply
  5. C:

    mabye there vps running ther DNS server wasn’t paid for ;)

    July 28, 2010 @ 8:58 pm | Reply
  6. Read the post on WHT. They claim its because of Paypal their DNS/Website is not working.

    July 28, 2010 @ 9:00 pm | Reply
  7. Mike:

    Well, PayPal do have a long and well-documented history of arbitrarily taking down websites and nameservers, you know. Sounds totally plausible to me.

    July 28, 2010 @ 9:09 pm | Reply
  8. Mike:

    Sorry, that was funnier before the site stripped the sarcasm and close-sarcasm tags. Doh.

    July 28, 2010 @ 9:10 pm | Reply
  9. C:

    so paypal is the evil google. that explains alot :D

    July 28, 2010 @ 9:14 pm | Reply
  10. earl:

    Yeah.. this deal seems kinda fishy!!

    July 28, 2010 @ 9:33 pm | Reply
  11. I’ve got to say, I was trying to retain from posting in that thread but i had to considering what was stated by Dinix, If you’ll look at most of the replies that i made i have pointed out critical flaws in their statements.

    EG: Private BGP on a /29 & /28 , The GigeVPS IP, The Transit IP’s.

    Not to mention the site is currently down due to ‘paypal issues?’ does anyone really believe that? While i do not go around bashing new host’s this one seemed fishy from the beginning hence the reason i posted.

    I would rather not see a ton of WHT users fall into a death trap which apparently a few already have done.

    Not to mention Jacob @ GigeVPS has stated that Dinix is not affiliated with them what so ever and he has no clue why he provided their IP address.

    July 28, 2010 @ 9:45 pm | Reply
  12. skomes:

    Please take this posting down.

    This VPS provider can’t give any test IPs, and when asked for test IPs he gave random IPs located in the datacenters he claims to colo in, not the IPs of his own servers.

    July 28, 2010 @ 9:55 pm | Reply
  13. It appears blaze VPS is back up, for how long I don’t know.

    July 28, 2010 @ 10:10 pm | Reply
  14. Mike:

    Just for future reference and Google posterity, the same people behing BlazeVPS and Dinix are also behind http://www.ikonbill.com/ , a newly-registered domain that looks set to be involved in some further suspicious activity in the near future.

    July 28, 2010 @ 10:36 pm | Reply
  15. Hey there,

    The rep. for hostdime on WHT posted on their thread confirming they have no equipment with them. There is a sales ticket pending with them so it seems they were simply collecting funds to pay for things. They were posting dedicated servers for sale from HostDime earlier in the week, but it seems they weren’t even a paying customer yet.

    Andrew and I were taking bets last night and I pointed out a lot of my findings, namely the testing IP’s pointing to gigeVPS amongst a few others like rapidswitch. The only subnets they had listed with ARIN to prove their massive BGP network was a /29 and a /27 from colocrossing. If they run this amazing BGP setup, why don’t they have allocations?

    Anyone doing the math on their operating costs would see that they would last a few months at best, barely get off the ground at worst. They need 8 VM’s just to cover a single quad core w/ 4GB RAM at HostDime, + some IP’s so a few more orders for a SINGLE month.

    I dunno, in the end I won a virtual cookie from Andrew so it all works out :P


    July 28, 2010 @ 11:12 pm | Reply
  16. @Fran

    The cookie was full of Malware, Enjoy~

    On a side note they have reopened sales which means yes, More users get to fall into this lovely trap. They posted sales before having the gear to deploy VE’s on which says a lot, I assume they posted the sales just to scrounge up enough change to get a Server to deploy them on. Which is quite ridiculous considering they stated they were financially stable (Go figure?)

    This is a very interesting company/scam.

    July 28, 2010 @ 11:17 pm | Reply
  17. *sigh*

    Brb, running CanadaHC.exe :(

    Either way, there is at least 1 report on WHT of the owner personally hounding down a few users to try to sell them colocation services. He opened tickets with them on their own billing system and started hounding them.


    July 28, 2010 @ 11:27 pm | Reply
  18. Mike:

    I pity the poor bastards who are getting – maybe, we’ll have to wait and see – VPSes (grossly oversold, natch) on what would have to be basically vanilla, unconfigured, un-tweaked, un-secured, un-optimized host nodes. Okay, we’ve all thrown boxes into production ten minutes after getting them provisioned; emergencies happen. But basing your business strategy around that? They can’t even keep their own sites up or deploy redundant DNS, I shudder to think what their degree of technical ability, if any, is.

    So if they order nodes today, the 28th, their second bill will come due on, what, August 27th? August 28th? August 31st? September 1st? (Depending on how the upstreams handle billing periods.) Allowing a grace period of between 1 and 7 days, I anticipate them disappearing back under the rock they crawled out from under somewhere between August 28th and September 8th, 2010.

    July 28, 2010 @ 11:29 pm | Reply
  19. For anyone interested in reading what fran is talking about here’s the link. However it appears Dinix was not the only one doing it (But they are just as guilty)


    July 28, 2010 @ 11:38 pm | Reply
  20. Thanks to Andrew and Francisco for chipping in.

    @skomes — the post will stay but I’ve put a notice at top. Having a warning there is probably better than having nothing at all.

    July 28, 2010 @ 11:49 pm | Reply
  21. Mike:

    Am I the only one who, as I read through the slightly illiterate posts by “Dinix” over on WHT, imagine him sounding just like Roman Bellic? “Cousin, it is your cousin! All servers are being setup, including any servers. Bursting will depend on which plan you choose. All machines are RAID-10. We use RAID-5 on our servers. Cousin, let’s go rip off a bunch of geeks and buy some hookers! Ah, American titties!”

    July 28, 2010 @ 11:50 pm | Reply
  22. For what it’s worth the WHT mods are still checking into them it seems.

    They’ve closed the thread at this point, not sure what that means but it can’t be anything good.


    July 29, 2010 @ 5:32 am | Reply
  23. David:

    For what it’s worth, the vps I ordered has been setup and it’s working. It’s at the Phoenix, AZ location. It’s got 128MB guaranteed RAM and 256MB burstable RAM. I posted some more info at wht.

    I put up a test file, if you want to check it:

    I’ll leave it up for a little while, if I can stay under my bandwidth quota.

    It’s too early to tell what will happen in the long run. But it’s working for now.

    July 29, 2010 @ 10:28 am | Reply
  24. Tom:

    “1000GB/month data transfer on 1Gbps port”

    I tested david’s link and to Europe it’s barely 500KB to 1.3MB after 20sek, I’m sure this will be cocked up once people deploy some of there websites. So if you have at least some Euro visitors, don’t even bother.

    July 29, 2010 @ 11:01 am | Reply
  25. Tom:

    PS: forgot to say I’m at 2MB full broadband.

    July 29, 2010 @ 11:01 am | Reply
  26. Srikanth:

    @David tried your link and the speed definitely seems good.

    Connecting to connected.
    HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK
    Length: 104857600 (100M) [application/octet-stream]
    Saving to: `100mb.test'
    100%[======================================>] 104,857,600 6.00M/s   in 15s
    2010-07-29 12:24:47 (6.47 MB/s) - `100mb.test' saved [104857600/104857600]

    Also the Phoenix Location reminds me that they might have got their server from Codero. They just had an offer running for the same.

    July 29, 2010 @ 12:28 pm | Reply
  27. David:

    I tried to post these test results earlier, but they didn’t show up. Maybe it’s too many links. Here’s one more try.

    This is from a Linode VPS in Fremont, CA:

    Connecting to connected.
    HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK
    Length: 104857600 (100M) [application/octet-stream]
    Saving to: `100mb.test'
    100%[====================================================================================>] 104,857,600 32.0M/s   in 3.3s
    2010-07-29 19:28:46 (30.4 MB/s) - `100mb.test' saved [104857600/104857600]

    This is from a Thrust::VPS in Los Angeles, CA:

    Connecting to connected.
    HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK
    Length: 104857600 (100M) [application/octet-stream]
    Saving to: `100mb.test'
    100%[====================================================================================================>] 104,857,600 10.9M/s   in 10s
    2010-07-29 19:31:08 (9.99 MB/s) - `100mb.test' saved [104857600/104857600]

    This is from a RackVM VPS in the UK:

    Connecting to connected.
    HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK
    Length: 104857600 (100M) [application/octet-stream]
    Saving to: `100mb.test'
    100%[=========================================================================================>] 104,857,600 1.98M/s   in 56s
    2010-07-29 19:33:31 (1.79 MB/s) - `100mb.test' saved [104857600/104857600]

    A whois on the VPS IP shows this:

    NetRange: -
    OriginAS:       AS32164
    NetName:        SECUREDSERVERS
    NetHandle:      NET-174-138-160-0-1
    Parent:         NET-174-0-0-0-0
    NetType:        Direct Allocation
    July 29, 2010 @ 12:53 pm | Reply
  28. Daniel:

    This is a RackVM VPS in OVH (France)

    Connecting to connected.
    HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK
    Length: 104857600 (100M) [application/octet-stream]
    Saving to: `100mb.test.1'
    100%[======================================>] 104,857,600 5.93M/s   in 29s
    2010-07-29 17:22:20 (3.42 MB/s) - `100mb.test.1' saved [104857600/104857600]

    This is a VPS in Oak Tower.

    Connecting to connected.
    HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK
    Length: 104857600 (100M) [application/octet-stream]
    Saving to: `100mb.test.2'
    100%[=======================================>] 104,857,600 9.49M/s   in 11s
    06:25:08 (8.88 MB/s) - `100mb.test.2' saved [104857600/104857600]
    July 29, 2010 @ 1:25 pm | Reply
  29. Tested David’s test file from my VPS in De. (Hetzner)

    vps:~# wget
    --2010-07-29 17:43:05--
    Connecting to connected.
    HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK
    Length: 104857600 (100M) [application/octet-stream]
    Saving to: `100mb.test'
    100%[======================================>] 104,857,600 6.13M/s   in 52s
    2010-07-29 17:43:57 (1.91 MB/s) - `100mb.test' saved [104857600/104857600]
    July 29, 2010 @ 1:47 pm | Reply
  30. Sorry about my code – How is the little black box done?

    July 29, 2010 @ 1:47 pm | Reply
  31. David:

    I’ve got 59 hits on the test file so far. I’m running nginx on the vps.

    Here are the Unix Bench results. Keep in mind the box probably isn’t loaded full of customers yet.

       BYTE UNIX Benchmarks (Version 5.1.2)
       System: mega.kilovox.com: GNU/Linux
       OS: GNU/Linux -- 2.6.18-194.8.1.el5.028stab070.2 -- #1 SMP Tue Jul 6 14:55:39 MSD 2010
       Machine: i686 (i386)
       Language: en_US.utf8 (charmap="UTF-8", collate="UTF-8")
       CPU 0: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5506 @ 2.13GHz (4266.9 bogomips)
              Hyper-Threading, x86-64, MMX, Physical Address Ext, SYSENTER/SYSEXIT, SYSCALL/SYSRET, Intel virtualization
       CPU 1: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5506 @ 2.13GHz (4266.9 bogomips)
              Hyper-Threading, x86-64, MMX, Physical Address Ext, SYSENTER/SYSEXIT, SYSCALL/SYSRET, Intel virtualization
       CPU 2: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5506 @ 2.13GHz (4266.8 bogomips)
              Hyper-Threading, x86-64, MMX, Physical Address Ext, SYSENTER/SYSEXIT, SYSCALL/SYSRET, Intel virtualization
       CPU 3: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5506 @ 2.13GHz (4266.8 bogomips)
              Hyper-Threading, x86-64, MMX, Physical Address Ext, SYSENTER/SYSEXIT, SYSCALL/SYSRET, Intel virtualization
       14:54:30 up 29 min,  2 users,  load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00; runlevel
    Benchmark Run: Thu Jul 29 2010 14:54:30 - 15:22:27
    4 CPUs in system; running 1 parallel copy of tests
    Dhrystone 2 using register variables        9946168.8 lps   (10.0 s, 7 samples)
    Double-Precision Whetstone                     1933.8 MWIPS (10.2 s, 7 samples)
    Execl Throughput                               3340.0 lps   (29.9 s, 2 samples)
    File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks        441941.0 KBps  (30.0 s, 2 samples)
    File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks          120365.1 KBps  (30.0 s, 2 samples)
    File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks       1135820.1 KBps  (30.0 s, 2 samples)
    Pipe Throughput                              757770.7 lps   (10.0 s, 7 samples)
    Pipe-based Context Switching                 240689.9 lps   (10.0 s, 7 samples)
    Process Creation                              12934.9 lps   (30.0 s, 2 samples)
    Shell Scripts (1 concurrent)                   4606.8 lpm   (60.0 s, 2 samples)
    Shell Scripts (8 concurrent)                   1559.6 lpm   (60.0 s, 2 samples)
    System Call Overhead                         582282.7 lps   (10.0 s, 7 samples)
    System Benchmarks Index Values               BASELINE       RESULT    INDEX
    Dhrystone 2 using register variables         116700.0    9946168.8    852.3
    Double-Precision Whetstone                       55.0       1933.8    351.6
    Execl Throughput                                 43.0       3340.0    776.8
    File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks          3960.0     441941.0   1116.0
    File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks            1655.0     120365.1    727.3
    File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks          5800.0    1135820.1   1958.3
    Pipe Throughput                               12440.0     757770.7    609.1
    Pipe-based Context Switching                   4000.0     240689.9    601.7
    Process Creation                                126.0      12934.9   1026.6
    Shell Scripts (1 concurrent)                     42.4       4606.8   1086.5
    Shell Scripts (8 concurrent)                      6.0       1559.6   2599.3
    System Call Overhead                          15000.0     582282.7    388.2
    System Benchmarks Index Score                                         855.0
    Benchmark Run: Thu Jul 29 2010 15:22:27 - 15:50:51
    4 CPUs in system; running 4 parallel copies of tests
    Dhrystone 2 using register variables       39191615.4 lps   (10.0 s, 7 samples)
    Double-Precision Whetstone                     7703.5 MWIPS (10.2 s, 7 samples)
    Execl Throughput                              13729.2 lps   (30.0 s, 2 samples)
    File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks        346902.4 KBps  (30.0 s, 2 samples)
    File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks           98403.2 KBps  (30.0 s, 2 samples)
    File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks        799684.7 KBps  (30.0 s, 2 samples)
    Pipe Throughput                             3004624.7 lps   (10.0 s, 7 samples)
    Pipe-based Context Switching                 952663.5 lps   (10.0 s, 7 samples)
    Process Creation                              29681.6 lps   (30.0 s, 2 samples)
    Shell Scripts (1 concurrent)                  11995.3 lpm   (60.0 s, 2 samples)
    Shell Scripts (8 concurrent)                   1848.2 lpm   (60.1 s, 2 samples)
    System Call Overhead                        1919497.6 lps   (10.0 s, 7 samples)
    System Benchmarks Index Values               BASELINE       RESULT    INDEX
    Dhrystone 2 using register variables         116700.0   39191615.4   3358.3
    Double-Precision Whetstone                       55.0       7703.5   1400.6
    Execl Throughput                                 43.0      13729.2   3192.8
    File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks          3960.0     346902.4    876.0
    File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks            1655.0      98403.2    594.6
    File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks          5800.0     799684.7   1378.8
    Pipe Throughput                               12440.0    3004624.7   2415.3
    Pipe-based Context Switching                   4000.0     952663.5   2381.7
    Process Creation                                126.0      29681.6   2355.7
    Shell Scripts (1 concurrent)                     42.4      11995.3   2829.1
    Shell Scripts (8 concurrent)                      6.0       1848.2   3080.3
    System Call Overhead                          15000.0    1919497.6   1279.7
    System Benchmarks Index Score                                        1852.2

    Here’s user_beancounters:

    # cat /proc/user_beancounters
    Version: 2.5
           uid  resource                     held              maxheld              barrier                limit              failcnt
          105:  kmemsize                  2202030              2591535           2147483646           2147483646                    0
                lockedpages                     0                    0               999999               999999                    0
                privvmpages                  5061                 8078                65536                65536                    0
                shmpages                     1282                 1298                32768                32768                    0
                dummy                           0                    0                    0                    0                    0
                numproc                        17                   18               999999               999999                    0
                physpages                    2286                 2357                    0           2147483647                    0
                vmguarpages                     0                    0                32768           2147483647                    0
                oomguarpages                 2286                 2357                32768           2147483647                    0
                numtcpsock                      4                    7              7999992              7999992                    0
                numflock                        3                    5               999999               999999                    0
                numpty                          2                    2               500000               500000                    0
                numsiginfo                      0                    5               999999               999999                    0
                tcpsndbuf                   93208              8940640            214748160            396774400                    0
                tcprcvbuf                   65536                    0            214748160            396774400                    0
                othersockbuf                11640                22352            214748160            396774400                    0
                dgramrcvbuf                     0                 8472            214748160            396774400                    0
                numothersock                   15                   17              7999992              7999992                    0
                dcachesize                      0                    0           2147483646           2147483646                    0
                numfile                       544                  565             23999976             23999976                    0
                dummy                           0                    0                    0                    0                    0
                dummy                           0                    0                    0                    0                    0
                dummy                           0                    0                    0                    0                    0
                numiptent                      30                   30               999999               999999                    0

    Free Memory:

    # free -m
                 total       used       free     shared    buffers     cached
    Mem:           256         19        236          0          0          0
    -/+ buffers/cache:         19        236
    Swap:            0          0          0

    Disk space:

    # df -h
    Filesystem            Size  Used Avail Use% Mounted on
    /dev/simfs             25G  788M   25G   4% /
    none                  128M  4.0K  128M   1% /dev

    When the VPS was first deployed, the burstable RAM was set to 158MB, and I had trouble running yum update until I disabled the fastestmirrors plugin. They upgraded the burstable RAM to 256MB as a courtesy. The regular plan may still be 158MB burstable RAM (not sure).

    July 29, 2010 @ 2:11 pm | Reply
  32. @David – What are you using this VPS for? Customers?

    July 29, 2010 @ 2:17 pm | Reply
  33. David:

    @Jackk, right now I’m just testing it, and I’ve got the link to the test file up. Eventually I hope to use it as an extra backup server. This is just for personal stuff. I don’t have any customers.

    My main VPS right now is with Linode.

    July 29, 2010 @ 2:20 pm | Reply
  34. @Jackk

    By not loaded with customers, I think he means that BlazeVPS has not fully loaded the server with VPS Clients.

    July 29, 2010 @ 2:54 pm | Reply
  35. @Thomas – Ah – That would make more sense. LOL – Thanks for clearing that up.

    July 29, 2010 @ 2:58 pm | Reply
  36. David:

    Right, that’s what I meant. The server is probably not under heavy load yet with lots of VPS clients setup on it. Perhaps in a few weeks or a month, if it’s still up, the results will be different.

    Support via email has been quick and responsive for me so far. They were able to enable the TUN adapter on my VPS.

    July 29, 2010 @ 3:07 pm | Reply
  37. @David – How did you place your results in the black code box earlier?

    July 29, 2010 @ 3:27 pm | Reply
  38. David:

    @Jackk, I didn’t, I think LEA must be cleaning it up and inserting the codes manually for the code box. If I knew of a way to do it, I would.

    July 29, 2010 @ 3:47 pm | Reply
  39. Ah – Thanks for the info though.

    July 29, 2010 @ 3:50 pm | Reply
  40. I’d like to invite everyone to give us a chance to service you. If you are not completely happy with your service within 7 Days, we will process your refund with no questions asked.

    We are that confident that you will enjoy our service that we invite you to signup and give us a try. All of our servers feature RAID 10 configurations with Quad Dual Xeon’s with locations available in Chicago, London, Phoenix, and Orlando. We are here to provide you with outstanding customer service at rock bottom prices.

    BlazeVPS is a new company however, we are here to service our customers and provide you top of the line service.

    July 30, 2010 @ 4:21 am | Reply
  41. Ricardo Melonie:

    Do you accept paypal payment?

    July 30, 2010 @ 10:42 am | Reply
  42. David:

    I’ve had 801 hits on my test file now, so far.

    714 of them are from the same IP address from Spacerich/Hetzner. It looks like they’re putting it through a good test (for the last 12 hours and continuing). :)

    I’ve got 80 GB of transfer used now.

    Here’s a screenshot of the Traffic graph for the last 12 hours.


    The VPS is still running fine.

    # uptime
    19:59:51 up 1 day, 2:02, 2 users, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00

    July 30, 2010 @ 12:06 pm | Reply
  43. David:
    July 30, 2010 @ 12:07 pm | Reply
  44. Once BlazeVPS gains the trust of the “population” I’m sure their offer will be over….

    July 30, 2010 @ 4:03 pm | Reply
  45. Joe Merit:

    Well.. im a sucker.. so I signed up.. this will be my 30th low end box (thats what it feels like!)

    July 30, 2010 @ 6:38 pm | Reply
  46. Joe Merit:

    so far I cant tell the difference between this and any other low end box.. got activated in phoenix.
    i’ll let people know if it starts to suck or vanishes or something.

    July 30, 2010 @ 11:25 pm | Reply
  47. server5:~# wget
    --2010-07-31 18:38:44--
    Connecting to connected.
    HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK
    Length: 104857600 (100M) [application/octet-stream]
    Saving to: `100mb.test'
    100%[=========================================>] 104,857,600 19.7M/s   in 9.0s
    2010-07-31 18:38:53 (11.1 MB/s) - `100mb.test' saved [104857600/104857600]

    from my server US

    July 31, 2010 @ 2:40 pm | Reply
  48. David:

    Thanks to everyone who helped test out the bandwidth. I’ve used around 800GB of transfer so far now, so I’ve removed the test files. Hopefully anybody that wanted to test it got a chance.

    Here are graphs for the last 4 hours:


    It was transferring around 30 MB/sec (240 mbps). At times during the testing it got up to 40 MB/sec (320 mbps).

    The 100MB test file got 11,899 hits, and a larger 5GB test file I put up for somebody that wanted it got 223 hits. Obviously not all of them completed the transfer all the way through.

    August 1, 2010 @ 2:01 pm | Reply
  49. David:

    I also ran some disk tests today.

    A “dd” with an if=/dev/zero writing a ~5GB file got 83.9 MB/s, and a file copy (read/write) of a ~5GB file got 39.1 MB/s.

    August 1, 2010 @ 2:07 pm | Reply
  50. David,

    That doesn’t really sound like a hardware raid10 at all.

    With the speeds you’re mentioning, it sounds like a single drive, but I could be wrong.


    August 1, 2010 @ 10:43 pm | Reply
  51. Mike:

    Francisco: That sounds fairly decent for a RAID array seeing a lot of disk i/o, as you’d expect for a VPS node with a high number of VMs running. A single-file read or read/write operation isn’t really a great way to test disk i/o performance, IMO.

    August 1, 2010 @ 11:10 pm | Reply
  52. David:

    @Francisco, I know, there’s no way to know for sure, though. They did say they’re using SATA drives, and it’s possible they are under heavy use by other nodes on the same server. For comparison, on my Linode and Thrust::VPS (both of which use RAID 10) I typically get anywhere from 150-350 MB/s. And on a dedicated server I used to have that had a single SATA drive, I got 73 MB/s.

    August 1, 2010 @ 11:23 pm | Reply
  53. InsDel:

    While the /20 for David’s IP belongs to SECUREDSERVERS, each individual /24 within that range points to CWIE LLC, a.k.a. Cavecreek, which provides colo in Phoenix.

    August 2, 2010 @ 3:20 am | Reply
  54. Dorian:

    Can anyone from Blaze VPS please issue TOS and AUP to enable me to make a decision about whether or not to take an account, as without this information I am stuck
    Kind regards

    August 2, 2010 @ 1:15 pm | Reply
  55. User:

    The lack of those two documents and the vague, inaccurate answers from the owner on WHT makes me extremely vary of this deal, but for $10/year .. it just might be worth it.

    August 4, 2010 @ 2:31 am | Reply
  56. Dorian:

    @user I wouldn’t mind taking a risk for $10 and was even considering more but as you say the lack those 2 very important documents basically make anything you do on their servers outside TOS and AUP so just putting something on a server could make you liable to hefty charges, that’s the risk I cant take (if that makes sense?) it would be like taking a job without knowing what your pay will be and what hours you should work

    August 4, 2010 @ 9:52 am | Reply
  57. User:


    I dont think they can legally prosecute since you never agreed to a TOS or AUP, at most they would just cancel your service. I’m more worried about privacy, security of my data on the server, and whether or not hes just scamming money and information. $10 I can live without, my personal information in the hands of a scammer is a different story

    August 4, 2010 @ 3:40 pm | Reply
  58. @User

    Why in the world would you put any data in someone new and you aren’t trusting at all? If your data is at all important, then throw a few bucks more into your pot and you’ll get something from even a trust worthy company.

    SUPPOSIDLY there is someone on WHT with damning evidence towards them, but there is nothing coming out to the public yet.


    August 4, 2010 @ 7:20 pm | Reply
  59. ^ -> http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showpost.php?p=6937407&postcount=139
    (About the evidence frantido is talking about)

    The owner only replies to the thread when ‘presales’ questions come up. He doesn’t reply to answer legitimacy questions (Which have been asked numerous times). While they have been providing support/setups etc. They way they went about it in the beginning (selling before having the gear to set the product up on) was far beyond fraudulent the way they started off is just bad business ethics.

    August 4, 2010 @ 7:50 pm | Reply
  60. Take it for what it’s worth but ‘Dinix’ has been disabled on WHT so he can’t post anymore. When the admins asked him a lot of questions he started to go quiet it seems.


    August 4, 2010 @ 8:14 pm | Reply
  61. Dorian:

    Thanks for that Fran, that was the thing that was bugging me the most, the inability to answer peoples basic questions, I’m just a VPS newbie and some of the stories I see on here and WHT make me cringe.

    August 4, 2010 @ 9:14 pm | Reply
  62. Taylor:

    All of the VPSs at the Orlando location have been down for 12 hours now, and no one is sure what’s going on. BlazeVPS has been answering support tickets/emails saying that they’re working on it and will be giving something to make up for the down time, but it seems pretty bad.

    August 5, 2010 @ 6:24 am | Reply
  63. Dorian:

    My problem is that when I pay someone else to do something I expect them to be reasonably professional in the way they do things, I don’t look to see has the most customers or the shiniest office block, just a good approach in the way they do business with you.
    It does look as though the hosting market whether it be VPS shared or dedicated is bursting at the seams with cowboys and scammer’s

    August 5, 2010 @ 7:14 am | Reply
  64. Peter:

    Have a UK based 128 MB VPS, is offline but the VPS Control Panel is up.
    Seems it was a $10,- a week VPS because that’s how long it lasted.

    August 5, 2010 @ 2:01 pm | Reply
  65. User:

    Oh well, it may have been too good to be true. The search for a cheap, reliable VPS with the highest specs continues!

    August 5, 2010 @ 4:36 pm | Reply
  66. Taylor:

    Peter: Are you sure yours is actually in the UK? I only ask because I had ordered one in the Chicago location but got one in Orlando instead.

    August 5, 2010 @ 5:56 pm | Reply
  67. I’d love to see what the IP is. Supposedly they had a RAID card fail in Orlando, but we’ll see.


    August 5, 2010 @ 11:46 pm | Reply
  68. Peter:


    I don’t know for sure, because I got the following ticket reply:

    “We are having problems with our Orlando node and I can move you to PHX free of charge and upgrade your package

    Please let me know”

    Orlando? PHX? no UK? :P I got “transferred” and upgraded (256 MB, 45 GB, 3 TB, instead of 128/25/1), but it’s a complete new VPS. Not that I had any data on it yet, but still.

    So thing are working, have to say that the service isn’t that bad at all for a couple of cents a month (when it stays online all year).

    August 7, 2010 @ 7:20 am | Reply
  69. Sounds like their nodes are being taken offline for some sort of reason.

    August 7, 2010 @ 11:17 am | Reply
  70. Dirk:

    Orlando is indeed off-line…accounts will be moved to Jacksonville, FL (at least mine will)
    Phoenix is still active.

    August 7, 2010 @ 12:37 pm | Reply
  71. hi i ordered the 128MB for testing it was working fine with webmin control panel. only for $10/yr… its gr88

    i wish their BZ-8010TB plan to be around 50-60$ i would really take a couple of servers from their all nodes.

    August 10, 2010 @ 3:39 am | Reply
  72. As a heads up to everyone, hostdime has confirmed publicly that they did *not* pay their bills and were suspended because of it. Please don’t take any other lies about the Orlando VM’s.


    Take it for what it’s worth…

    August 10, 2010 @ 4:08 am | Reply
  73. Looks like Secured Servers is more forgiving?

    August 10, 2010 @ 4:35 am | Reply
  74. Or they paid it with another method/paypal.

    Hostdime did state ‘ex-client’, meaning it sounds like they made no intention to correct the issue.


    August 10, 2010 @ 4:36 am | Reply
  75. Bear:

    Did anyone else get a full refund through 2Checkout/Paypal? I did, and got an email requesting that I pay through Google Checkout instead and that they are having trouble with 2checkout/Paypal.

    My VPS is still running, but now I have an unpaid invoice for $10 through Google checkout. I mean, I’m willing to pay it because I’ve been happy with my purchase (I’ve probably already got $10’s usage out of it), but I’m just wondering what’s up with this.

    August 11, 2010 @ 7:38 pm | Reply
  76. ikr.:

    dump em already ffs,

    they have troubles with:

    -hostdime (who have said they didn’t have a server til after thread, plus no raid issues)
    -every other provider under the sun

    August 12, 2010 @ 2:23 am | Reply
  77. Joe Merit:

    Im not really recommending anyone sign up.. but I was provisioned with a phoenix vps quickly after I ordered
    it (almost 2 weeks ago) and its been rock solid and just as good as any other VPS i’ve had.

    August 12, 2010 @ 1:15 pm | Reply
  78. i to got the refund via 2Checkout/Paypal 2 days back.

    i can state that their servers are working fine only problem with the payment process.

    most of the people and i want to pay via paypal.

    company asked me to pay by googlecheckout or authorize.net

    and they also said that the offer will end on 20th aug..

    August 13, 2010 @ 8:55 am | Reply
  79. Dirk:

    @santosh: were do you have your VPS? The one I have in Phoenix is running since day 1, the others not :-(

    August 13, 2010 @ 2:07 pm | Reply
  80. santosh:

    Location: AZ, Phoenix
    Status: Online

    running CP webmin

    August 14, 2010 @ 5:10 am | Reply
  81. Dirk:

    Anybody has a VPS with them that is NOT located in Phoenix, AZ, and that is realy working?

    August 15, 2010 @ 4:32 pm | Reply
  82. AlexuSSS:

    I have 2 vps on this Host company, they in Phoenix, AZ, But I want in London.

    August 17, 2010 @ 4:25 pm | Reply
  83. @AlexuSSS – Have you asked to be moved to London?


    August 17, 2010 @ 11:31 pm | Reply
  84. Well, they seem to have update their page. And it seems that the super promotion has ended.

    August 22, 2010 @ 5:40 am | Reply
  85. @David – What I find interesting is that all of the plans got a serious resizing, no more 8 – 10TB of bandwidth included. I’m curious if this is retroactive on everyone or just new signups – care to take a gander at your stats?


    August 22, 2010 @ 11:44 am | Reply
  86. @David — also I think you have failed to mention that you are the on designing their new website? It says

    Design by David Nuon

    at the bottom of the page. What’s your affiliation with them?

    August 22, 2010 @ 11:52 am | Reply
  87. @LowEndAdmin I have no affiliation with them. My designing a site template for them was merely an act of kindness. I finally got my VPS set up by them after them missing my order once. After that, everything went smoothly. Then I passed it on to my friend, from that point he ordered a package. And he was set up (in less time than myself (which irked me a little)). He then went on to say “dude, their sites sucks man. It’s pitiful.”

    I, being the eccentric designer that I am, decided to throw a template at them to help them out. My reasoning was, I’m not going to use a service that has a landing page that was created by TextEdit’s rich text feature.

    @Francisco From what I can tell, they’re going to honor all orders placed under the past promotion. Then, from this point, they will go under these rates.

    August 22, 2010 @ 6:44 pm | Reply
  88. Dirk:

    Not sure how they will honor them. Ordered 4 VPSes from them, all in different locations. Got Phoenix (still running), got one in Florida. This one was up for about a day and then down. Got a refund (as everyone using 2Checkout). And since then they promised to get the 2 others (new one in Florida and the one in Chicago) up-and-running. And they didn’t. We had a large discussion on it. Filled a dispute with Google CheckOut as they postphoned the refund all the time. And suddently large part of the ticket with the discussion is gone…oops we had to do a restore.
    Pointed them to it and only asked if I had AIM. The simply don’t do the refund, don’t setup the 2 other VPSes and ignore the request from Google CheckOut.

    August 22, 2010 @ 6:52 pm | Reply
  89. rem:

    I ordered one in UK.

    Its in pending state for 30hours now.

    I’m also a bit confused about the broken DNS :

    nslookup -query=ns blazevps.com

    blazevps.com nameserver = ns6.dinixhost.com
    blazevps.com nameserver = ns5.dinixhost.com

    nslookup ns5.dinixhost.com

    *** ns5.dinixhost.com Non-existent domain

    nslookup ns6.dinixhost.com
    *** ns6.dinixhost.com Non-existent domain

    August 24, 2010 @ 9:48 pm | Reply
  90. Hmm, it’s indeed broken – http://www.intodns.com/blazevps.com. Assume they last updated 19/Aug, there are 35 more days before the domain goes unresolved, unless they fix it before the SOA expiry.

    August 25, 2010 @ 3:18 am | Reply
  91. Mike:

    Be very, very wary of “hosts” who don’t have a clue about DNS. As seems to be the case with BlazeVPS, they often don’t have a clue about anything else, either…

    August 25, 2010 @ 3:49 am | Reply
  92. Joe Merit:

    Just an update on these guys.. Its too bad they werent just honest in the first place :) because
    their server in phoenix is fairly good.

    20:34:57 up 29 days, 21:11, 1 user, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00

    Hope it sticks around

    August 29, 2010 @ 4:37 pm | Reply
  93. Dirk:

    20:40:54 up 29 days, 23:10, 1 user, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00
    But the 2 others I ordered from them are not running at all. The only in Orlando was up for maybe 1 days and since then nothing anymore. The one that was ordered in Chicago well never received anything about it.
    A refund request is simply not honnored. It’s now even going via Google CheckOut. Still they are “trying” to sell me another VPS in Jacksonville, while I ordered Orlando. Wonder how long it will be before I get my $20 back. I know it’s just $20, but from a principes point of view I want it back.

    August 29, 2010 @ 4:43 pm | Reply
  94. Joe Merit:

    Ya its too bad they were not honest about the other locations.

    If they are willing to put the VPS you ordered in Orlando on a Jacksonville server, I would take that because
    Orlando is gone and is probably not coming back.

    August 29, 2010 @ 5:35 pm | Reply
  95. Dirk:

    @Joe Merit: after about a month that’s all they can do? In a support ticket they already told me that they were going to do that on Aug .., then it was a week later then nothing….the ticket I have with them is full of lies about the setup of the VPSes. There is still the Chicago VPS and there was even at first an order for Seatlle. Also for these a lot of promises (with dates) and none kept.

    August 29, 2010 @ 5:42 pm | Reply
  96. Joe Merit:

    Good luck with that, I just suggested it as at least you would
    be getting something for your money.. but maybe Jacksonville
    doesn’t even exist.

    I’m not defending them, was just reporting in that phoenix
    was still fine.

    August 29, 2010 @ 8:12 pm | Reply
  97. Orlando didn’t get paid for, even at first. Their payment got retracted is what word on the street is, hense the sudden ditch. I’m not sure what DC’s are in Jacksonville, but if they don’t have SEA/CHI/UK online, I doubt they’ll get Jacksonville open either.

    I’m glad Phoenix is still online, but for how long? who knows…


    August 29, 2010 @ 8:19 pm | Reply
  98. Anon:

    For anyone who is considering a RackVM VPS as mentioned here. AVOID RACKVM LIKE THE PLAGUE. They are straight up con artists – they don’t even make an effort to hide it. Do a search here or on WHT and you’ll find pages and pages of people who have been scammed.

    September 2, 2010 @ 12:15 pm | Reply
  99. Dirk:

    As if BlazeVPS is so much better….ordered 3 VPSes from them at the end of July. 1 is running. Rest not. Have already for a couple of weeks now a dispute open via Google CheckOut, only thing they do is pass on the info to BlazeVPS, who then tells them (after 4-5 days) that I refuse a refund and that they are willing to deliver parts and refund some. But they simply don’t/can’t deliver not refund apparently :-(

    September 2, 2010 @ 12:21 pm | Reply
  100. @Anon, I don’t know what your problem is with RackVM, but I’ve had a VM with them in the UK for a few months now and it’s been great!

    September 2, 2010 @ 12:36 pm | Reply
  101. @Hughesey — still up?

    September 2, 2010 @ 1:40 pm | Reply
  102. Bear:

    For what it’s worth my Phoenix VPS has been running strong since beginning of Aug.

    September 4, 2010 @ 4:39 am | Reply
  103. Dirk:

    Just received a full refund from Google Checkout and as reason they gave “We no longer allow DinixLlc to process orders using Google Checkout”

    September 7, 2010 @ 6:54 am | Reply
  104. blue:

    Currently also Phoenix Node 3 is unreachable ?!

    September 10, 2010 @ 3:33 pm | Reply
  105. Joe Merit:

    My phoenix vps is still up but its having problems, all the programs on my server dont think
    there is any diskspace left. strangely enough I can wget anything and it doesn’t mind writing
    to the disk.

    September 14, 2010 @ 6:53 pm | Reply
  106. Joe Merit:

    I think its safe to say that this vps is on its last legs.. cant write files, files disapearing,
    and the control panel doesnt work :(

    September 14, 2010 @ 9:01 pm | Reply
  107. Have you logged a ticket?

    September 14, 2010 @ 9:16 pm | Reply
  108. Joe Merit:

    No the billing/support system doesn’t let me login, doesn’t say bad password, just doesn’t do anything. sure looks like nobody is home and
    its about to just give out any day.

    September 15, 2010 @ 12:35 am | Reply
  109. My advise is get what data you can out and look at something else. At this point most people have seen pretty close to what they put into it in returned service so it isn’t too hurting.


    September 15, 2010 @ 3:14 am | Reply
  110. David:

    I’m able to login to the billing control panel, but it won’t let me get past the captcha to submit a ticket. I’m also not able to access the SolusVM control panel, and the disk space has had some issues the past few days.

    A few moments ago it was reporting this:

    # df -h
    Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on
    /dev/simfs 1.3G 771M 0 100% /
    none 128M 4.0K 128M 1% /dev

    And now it’s reporting this (from 1.3G size to 21G size):

    # df -h
    Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on
    /dev/simfs 21G 771M 0 100% /
    none 128M 4.0K 128M 1% /dev

    And this is on a plan with 25GB disk space. But the VPS itself is up, and it seems to continue to let me write to the disk for the time being.

    # uptime
    12:17:27 up 47 days, 18:19, 1 user, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00

    I don’t count on this vps for anything. It was mostly a curiosity due to the low price. I emailed dinix about SolusVM and the disk space a few hours ago, so I’ll see if he responds.

    September 15, 2010 @ 4:18 am | Reply
  111. I can explain why you can’t login.

    It’s quite likely that the billing server is on the same box, which means there isn’t enough space to create your session files.

    You won’t be able to login/etc until you clear out more space. At this point it seems he’s going to be in a nasty catch 22 unless he gets more space or ‘oops’ a server. If there is no space, he can’t send invoices, but if he can’t send invoices, he can’t collect new cash/payments/etc.


    September 15, 2010 @ 5:24 am | Reply
  112. blue:

    Hello, My VPS on Ph Node 3 is still running

    df -h
    Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on
    /dev/simfs 25G 2.5G 23G 10% /
    tmpfs 79M 0 79M 0% /lib/init/rw
    tmpfs 79M 0 79M 0% /dev/shm

    But ControlPanel is also not reachable from here.

    @Francisco (BuyVM)
    I think you shouldn’t throw bricks when you live in a glass house.

    September 15, 2010 @ 6:06 am | Reply
  113. Joe Merit:

    Seems someone reads this or someone actually got through to them, things are fine now
    and now there is space available again which means things (like the control panel) actually
    work again.

    September 15, 2010 @ 6:19 pm | Reply
  114. @blue – there’s a pretty big difference between how we run our things and how blaze has been. :P

    @Joe – excellent, how about your billing access?


    September 15, 2010 @ 6:20 pm | Reply
  115. Joe Merit:

    I spoke too soon.. there was HDD space available and things were working and
    then an hour later it all got up and disappeared.

    an hour ago:
    Filesystem 1K-blocks Used Available Use% Mounted on
    /dev/simfs 26214400 580560 14788756 4% /

    Filesystem 1K-blocks Used Available Use% Mounted on
    /dev/simfs 22476272 580572 0 100% /

    September 15, 2010 @ 8:28 pm | Reply
  116. David:

    Dinix emailed me back and said “We are waiting on fixing it.” At the moment, the disk space looks like it’s back to normal and I can login to SolusVM again.

    # df -h
    Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on
    /dev/simfs 25G 771M 14G 6% /
    none 128M 4.0K 128M 1% /dev

    September 15, 2010 @ 11:13 pm | Reply
  117. Joe Merit:

    Node just died… I wonder if thats the end for Blaze

    September 27, 2010 @ 9:07 pm | Reply
  118. Bear:


    September 27, 2010 @ 10:07 pm | Reply
  119. Their website is not resolving — their NS are down. It only happens in the last couple of hours though. We’ll see whether they get resurrected.

    September 27, 2010 @ 11:41 pm | Reply
  120. David:

    My BlazeVPS in Phoenix, AZ has been down more than 3 hours now, and I’m not able to access SolusVM or the blazevps website, either. It’s been exactly 2 months. I was able to contact Dinix through the gmail address on the dinixhost whois, and he said they are working on restoring it.

    September 28, 2010 @ 12:54 am | Reply
  121. Lucas:

    what did he say the problem is? Seems like it’s the beginning of the end

    September 28, 2010 @ 1:57 am | Reply
  122. David:

    @Lucas, he didn’t say what the problem was. There was still continuing disk space issues last time I checked while it was still up, though. It is interesting that it went down exactly 2 months after my order. I have a ping test that runs every minute, and it went down on Sept. 27, 2010 at 21:00 UTC.

    September 28, 2010 @ 3:10 am | Reply
  123. $10 for 2 months, not so cheap, hehe

    September 28, 2010 @ 4:46 am | Reply
  124. David:

    @Pineapple, it’s been a learning experience. :)

    September 28, 2010 @ 4:58 am | Reply
  125. Mizrahi:

    I was about to get a VPS from them until I read this thread a few weeks ago, the stuff in July scared the crap out of me :( I’ve got several BuyVM VPSes right now and they’re working really good – I host all my main stuff on them (DB, email, etc). Very glad I didn’t choose BlazeVPS.

    September 28, 2010 @ 5:14 am | Reply
  126. Joe Merit:

    I will try to get my money back if its not back up in 48hrs, I’ve had luck getting money refunded by google before when yearly prepaid services disappear after a few months.

    September 28, 2010 @ 1:58 pm | Reply
  127. Matt:

    The company is fraudulent. I just called Visa to have the charge reversed. Their website disappeared, the phone number on record from the dns (also the same number they filed with visa) has been disconnected… they basically took our money and ran

    September 29, 2010 @ 1:36 am | Reply
  128. pin:

    That phone number has always been fake. Not that it makes a big difference.

    September 29, 2010 @ 3:43 am | Reply
  129. Interesting… Hosted on HostGator now?

    > blazevps.com
    Non-authoritative answer:
    primary name server = ns1071.hostgator.com
    responsible mail addr = root.gator536.hostgator.com
    serial = 2010092901
    refresh = 86400 (1 day)
    retry = 7200 (2 hours)
    expire = 3600000 (41 days 16 hours)
    default TTL = 86400 (1 day)

    September 29, 2010 @ 10:45 am | Reply
  130. Yup. And showing an empty page. Possibly another one to be added to deadpool this month?

    September 29, 2010 @ 11:29 am | Reply
  131. AlexuSSS:

    мать его за ногу!!! Dinix is idiot!!! I’ll find him and tear him ass!

    September 29, 2010 @ 3:32 pm | Reply
  132. pin:

    I have his personal info and I’ll leak it if this isn’t resolved. :)

    September 29, 2010 @ 4:52 pm | Reply
  133. @pin What good will that do?

    September 29, 2010 @ 6:11 pm | Reply
  134. santosh:

    Ohh… i paid him the amount $10 x 4 vps but the amount was reurned by c2c. due to some problem i mailed c2c i came to know verification and some problem was there….
    i asked blazevps to provide the Regno. of the company but he didn’t..
    i used his service for 2months with out a cent….
    i though to pay him via alertpay ….think i was lucky thank god i haven’t paid him ….

    thanks .

    i would ask LOWENDBOX to check the Company and then provide the deals…..

    September 29, 2010 @ 6:26 pm | Reply
  135. AlexuSSS:

    Admin of LOWENDBOX please check company before write his deal to blog. And please do list of SCAM company.

    September 29, 2010 @ 6:46 pm | Reply
  136. Spirit:

    Check how? It’s easy to say but this is low end vps community with plenty new companies. Some aren’t even companies, but what rest of people around have to do with this?
    Same datas available to lowendadmin are also available to you, so don’t be lazy excpecting that other people will do research for you. Check company before your order by yourself!

    September 29, 2010 @ 7:34 pm | Reply
  137. In my opinion LEA did a good job in providing readers pretty informative details on all entries, for example – DNS redundancy, company records with the legistration authority, comments in WHT, etc etc. Besides, it is your money hence it is your responsibility in deciding whether to trust the company or entity.

    September 29, 2010 @ 8:19 pm | Reply
  138. @AlexuSSS — the notice at the very top of the post was pretty much there at the beginning. I’ll try to put out warnings if I can find it, but unfortunately, as Spirit said, I have about the same amount the info as you do.

    It is great to see the community coming together to find early hints on whether the company is sustainable though.

    September 29, 2010 @ 11:54 pm | Reply
  139. dirk:

    @AlexuSSS: not sure why you’re putting the responsibility on LEA for this. LEA posts what he gets/finds. If you want to use the posted offer, and you want to know more about the company that is being posted, then do some research.

    September 30, 2010 @ 6:42 am | Reply
  140. klam:


    This game is over.
    Google refunded in minutes and there Upstream said contracts ended Monday 27.09.2010.

    September 30, 2010 @ 11:48 am | Reply
  141. trance:

    klam, how did you go about getting the google refund?

    September 30, 2010 @ 3:27 pm | Reply
  142. Joe Merit:

    Login to google checkout and get the order# from the blazevps transaction, and then
    go into the help section and find the claim form. File a claim!

    October 4, 2010 @ 11:38 am | Reply
  143. Don:

    Google wrote back and said “we don’t allow Blaze to use Google Checkout” but they won’t refund my money, I’m to chase it down with my Credit Card company.

    nuf said!


    October 4, 2010 @ 5:15 pm | Reply
  144. As of today we have acquired the BlazeVPS assets. If you were a BlazeVPS customer please can I ask you to email me at rghf@blazevps.com


    November 5, 2010 @ 11:28 am | Reply
    • Dirk:

      Could you explain in what that would help? We will get the requested refunds from you? Or …?

      November 5, 2010 @ 11:33 am | Reply
      • We have an email we are sending out to customers. There are details in there of what we might be able to do

        November 5, 2010 @ 11:35 am | Reply
        • dirk:

          Then I’ll await that email to see what you can do…

          November 5, 2010 @ 11:44 am | Reply
  145. Dorian:

    @ Rus,Can I ask something that might sound silly, but what exactly did you aquire? I was under the impression that Blaze did not own any hardware and that they purely leased a server that they did not pay for….

    November 5, 2010 @ 12:48 pm | Reply
  146. We have a list of customers and the domainname so in essences assests and goodwill. No physical items however

    November 5, 2010 @ 12:50 pm | Reply
  147. Dorian:

    Ah OK thanks I was confused, sorry if the question sounded silly

    November 5, 2010 @ 12:59 pm | Reply
  148. The site is taking time to load, and when it loads, I got an error that “The site is potentially malicious”.

    March 28, 2020 @ 4:14 am | 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 *