LowEndBox - Cheap VPS, Hosting and Dedicated Server Deals

BuffaloVPS – $3.75 512MB OpenVZ VPS in Chicago

Tags: , , Date/Time: August 19, 2011 @ 1:50 pm, by LowEndAdmin

BuffaloVPS Adam from BuffaloVPS sent me some exclusive coupons for the LowEndBox readers. Their “Standard” OpenVZ VPS plan is normally $9.95. With coupon code LEBsale it’s reduced to $3.75/month. Use use coupon code LEBsaleyr to have it for $40/year.

  • 512MB memory
  • 20GB storage
  • 1000GB/month data transfer
  • OpenVZ/SolusVM

Here is the direct sign up link. PayPal only. Servers in Chicago with ColoCrossing (test IP: 205.234.159.210) similar to ChicagoVPS and some packages from eNetSouth. Domain has been registered since December last year and they had their grand opening in March.

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.

39 Comments

  1. ab:

    have they move to their own stuff or it’s resell cvps still ?

    August 19, 2011 @ 2:44 pm
    • That’s what they did last time…

      August 19, 2011 @ 2:52 pm
    • How can they resell ChicagoVPS when they’re all under the same mother brand? Don’t get me wrong, I’m just curious.

      August 19, 2011 @ 3:11 pm
      • Kuro:

        It was mentioned in their last offer here that they have now moved to their own boxes.

        August 19, 2011 @ 3:25 pm
  2. I was looking at this morning to get a VPS to put a bunch of half-dead sites I had before, and was chanting “discount, discount”…
    and looks like it worked! Gosh, looks like I have to chant more :)

    August 19, 2011 @ 3:14 pm
    • Signed up and provision was instant, so far so good, will do some more testing and I guess it will be on the 96MB review list as well :)
      Note that they do not have burstable memory, so your total memory amount is going to be 512MB dedicated and nothing else.

      August 19, 2011 @ 3:35 pm
  3. rm:

    That’s funny
    – BuffaloVPS website has links to Privacy policy and TOS;
    – the TOS .pdf actually for ChicagoVPS.net, not BuffaloVPS;
    – the TOS references AUP which “may” be found on the ChicagoVPS.net website (why am I even looking there, if signing up with BuffaloVPS?), but the AUP is nowhere to be found;
    Flashy storefront but a complete, hopeless mess underneath.

    August 19, 2011 @ 3:43 pm
    • Wesley:

      That because ChicagoVPS and BuffaloVPS are both from “New Wave NetConnect”

      August 19, 2011 @ 4:02 pm
      • The site may seem that way but its not true.

        BuffaloVPS was going to be a project of mine, but got way too busy with ChicagoVPS so I handed it over to Adam to run for himself since it was virtually all setup. I have not had the time to edit all the sites yet but plan on it shortly.

        Also, yes all the ToS and AUP are the same as us, since when Adam first started he was reselling for us. Now that he has his own equipment I have instructed him to make it his own.

        I hope this explains everything.

        Regards,

        Chris

        August 20, 2011 @ 1:33 am
  4. dpflap:

    I wonder why only a handfull of companies these days offer control panels, is it so much hassle for them? I’m after a LEB with DirectAdmin, and apart from NewWebSite/FeHosting/Burst/Virpus nobody seems to do them. anyone knows a provider that does DA?

    August 19, 2011 @ 6:26 pm
    • Joe Fister Filly:

      Because most VPS hackers like their console more than some dubious web-based administration systems that can only handle standard-stuff on a ressource-eating level.

      August 19, 2011 @ 6:31 pm
    • Wesley:

      ZazoomVPS does, cost around $6

      August 19, 2011 @ 7:31 pm
      • dpflap:

        1) they’re out of stock
        2) I don’t trust providers that’s been around for 2 months

        August 19, 2011 @ 8:25 pm
        • $5.50 to be exact, we buy them straight from DA for a little less then that, but if we went any cheaper then we would make a loss.

          August 19, 2011 @ 11:01 pm
    • Tom:

      1) X orders Cpanel for 15$ on 5$ plan.
      2) You order Cpanel for 15$ from a Cpanel reseller.
      3) You email the serial to X.
      4) X fails to install it.
      5) X starts sending tickets.
      6) You don’t deal with software, because you are UNMANAGED.
      7) X goes to post a WHT thread of HORRIBLE “insert yourself here”.
      8) You got to defend yourself.
      9) X issues a paypal dispute.
      10) You see paypal dispute, you get a headache.
      11) X stops paying for hosting.
      12) You lose paypal dispute (OW YEAH, IT HAPPENS even on virtual goods!!!).
      13) You lose your monthly hosting income.
      14) You lose your CP license cash since no one will take it back.
      15) 1 idiot gets replaced by another idiot and you get to point 1.

      As you can see there is SO MUCH WRONG with offering control panel licenses in budget market, that no logically thinking providers are even bothering to do it.

      August 19, 2011 @ 8:24 pm
      • dpflap:

        DA internal licensing is about $5/month, even cheaper if the provider owns the license (owned internal lifetime is $49). What makes your calculation more useless is the fact that I’m not aftef a 128MB machine, nor such machine would work with DA

        August 19, 2011 @ 8:27 pm
        • The DirectAdmin Team are actually very understanding, we had a chargeback on a DA license, and once we proved to them it was chargebacked, they cancelled the license and reverse the payment.

          August 19, 2011 @ 11:03 pm
        • Tom:

          “I wonder why only a handfull of companies these days offer control panels, is it so much hassle for them?” Do you have amnesia or just can’t manage to reread what you said in your previous post? But guess you just though meaningless unfought commentaries.

          August 20, 2011 @ 6:50 am
        • dpflap:

          I suspect problem is somewhere else. Most of these “ventures” because they are not a real companies – are run by people who are either too young or too unexperienced to deal with such things as licensing. These days it’s quite difficult to find a website without misspels and a real proper TOS/AUP – not ones copied from some other site. Renting servers is cheap as chips and everyone seems to think is a piece of cake, hence the number of failed ventures and growing number of providers in dead pool.

          August 20, 2011 @ 9:21 am
        • KuJoe:

          I’ve never dealt with DA before but how can you get an internal license for $5? Their site lists internal licenses for $9. :(

          August 20, 2011 @ 9:54 am
        • dpflap:

          talk to them and ask :) or talk to Daniel. the more you buy the less you pay, I’m not sure how many you need for $5 level

          August 20, 2011 @ 10:36 am
        • Kuro:

          @KuJoe those licenses for $9 are dedicated server licenses, VPS hosts can ask for special VPS licensing at $5 per license. :)

          August 20, 2011 @ 10:41 am
      • Travis:

        Tom, you hit the nail on the head.

        August 20, 2011 @ 12:30 am
      • KLIKLI:

        @KuJoe – Send your website to DA(Mark?) and include your registered DA client ID#. Then you’ll got permission to issue/buy internal licenses which includes a option of “Code 500 Licenses” – that’s the license for VPS from DA.

        August 20, 2011 @ 11:03 am
    • As a cPanel Partner NOC, I don’t get much call for DA, but do offer it as well, but I would never buy the lifetime license without the customer paying for 1 year up front as I see very few stick with it past 3 months, where those buying cPanel stay for years.

      August 22, 2011 @ 12:07 am
  5. Awesome! Thanks for the advice everyone. I’ve already sent them an e-mail and hope to hear back from them soon. Sorry to hijack the comments.

    August 20, 2011 @ 12:15 pm
    • dpflap:

      no need to apologize :) I’m extremely happy with a machine from you and hoping can get one with DA soon :)

      August 21, 2011 @ 8:32 am
  6. BuzzPoet:

    Beast. I just signed up for a 512 and here’s the GeekBench result on the same hardware as ChicagoVPS: http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/467867

    I hope I’m not digging my own grave, but get it while you can. :)

    Also, this is the sanest default OpenVZ I’ve seen among about 12 hosting providers. No locale warnings on first login and no useless default services (like sendmail / apache). Just pure Debian base (in my case) and configure it how you want. That’s nice.

    August 21, 2011 @ 4:00 am
    • Adam:

      No BURST memory???

      August 21, 2011 @ 2:00 pm
      • Adam: Correct, dedicated RAM is all you’ve got :)

        August 21, 2011 @ 4:04 pm
    • Fast connectivity to Asia too. I have 3 with them. :) (On their ChicagoVPS brand though)

      August 23, 2011 @ 1:59 am
  7. Josh:

    Is it reccuring? Or it will be 3.75 for the first month and 10 for all the next ones?

    August 21, 2011 @ 11:39 am
    • Josh,

      All sales we have are recurring.

      Thanks,

      Adam

      August 22, 2011 @ 12:47 am
  8. natz09:

    i got 1 vps from them.. they got defective tun/tap module plus a bad support its been 5 hrs since i made a ticket but still no respond!!!

    August 23, 2011 @ 12:52 pm
    • Natz,

      When you get a flood of tickets that is what happens, support slows down, I know Adam was very overwhelmed.

      I also think that 5hrs is exceptional granted the situation Adam was in, what is wrong with the tun/tap?

      August 31, 2011 @ 6:08 am
  9. Seems my VPS with them is not responding at the moment, anybody is experiencing that?
    Singapore, Singapore: Packets lost (100%) 96.8.*.*
    Amsterdam2, Netherlands: Packets lost (100%) 96.8.*.*
    Florida, U.S.A.: Packets lost (100%) 96.8.*.*
    Amsterdam3, Netherlands: Checkpoint temporarily not available – – – –
    Hong Kong, China: Packets lost (100%) 96.8.*.*
    Sydney, Australia: Packets lost (100%) 96.8.*.*
    München, Germany: Packets lost (100%) 96.8.*.*
    Cologne, Germany: Packets lost (100%) 96.8.*.*
    New York, U.S.A.: Packets lost (100%) 96.8.*.*
    Cairo, Egypt: Packets lost (100%) 96.8.*.*
    Amsterdam1, Netherlands: Packets lost (100%) 96.8.*.*
    Stockholm, Sweden: Packets lost (100%) 96.8.*.*
    Santa Clara, U.S.A.: Packets lost (100%) 96.8.*.*
    Vancouver, Canada: Packets lost (100%) 96.8.*.*
    London, United Kingdom: Packets lost (100%) 96.8.*.*
    Madrid, Spain: Packets lost (100%) 96.8.*.*
    Padova, Italy: Packets lost (100%) 96.8.*.*

    August 25, 2011 @ 7:58 pm
    • Seems the VPS was just rebooted and came back up:

      uptime
       23:55:47 up 6 min,  1 user,  load average: 0.07, 0.04, 0.00
      
      August 25, 2011 @ 8:00 pm
  10. 
    
       #    #  #    #  #  #    #          #####   ######  #    #   ####   #    #
       #    #  ##   #  #   #  #           #    #  #       ##   #  #    #  #    #
       #    #  # #  #  #    ##            #####   #####   # #  #  #       ######
       #    #  #  # #  #    ##            #    #  #       #  # #  #       #    #
       #    #  #   ##  #   #  #           #    #  #       #   ##  #    #  #    #
        ####   #    #  #  #    #          #####   ######  #    #   ####   #    #
    
       Version 5.1.3                      Based on the Byte Magazine Unix Benchmark
    
       Multi-CPU version                  Version 5 revisions by Ian Smith,
                                          Sunnyvale, CA, USA
       January 13, 2011                   johantheghost at yahoo period com
    
    
    1 x Dhrystone 2 using register variables  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
    
    1 x Double-Precision Whetstone  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
    
    1 x Execl Throughput  1 2 3
    
    1 x File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks  1 2 3
    
    1 x File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks  1 2 3
    
    1 x File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks  1 2 3
    
    1 x Pipe Throughput  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
    
    1 x Pipe-based Context Switching  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
    
    1 x Process Creation  1 2 3
    
    1 x System Call Overhead  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
    
    1 x Shell Scripts (1 concurrent)  1 2 3
    
    1 x Shell Scripts (8 concurrent)  1 2 3
    
    4 x Dhrystone 2 using register variables  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
    
    4 x Double-Precision Whetstone  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
    
    4 x Execl Throughput  1 2 3
    
    4 x File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks  1 2 3
    
    4 x File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks  1 2 3
    
    4 x File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks  1 2 3
    
    4 x Pipe Throughput  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
    
    4 x Pipe-based Context Switching  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
    
    4 x Process Creation  1 2 3
    
    4 x System Call Overhead  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
    
    4 x Shell Scripts (1 concurrent)  1 2 3
    
    4 x Shell Scripts (8 concurrent)  1 2 3
    
    ========================================================================
       BYTE UNIX Benchmarks (Version 5.1.3)
    
       System: server1.myprofis.info: GNU/Linux
       OS: GNU/Linux -- 2.6.18-238.12.1.el5.028stab091.1 -- #1 SMP Wed Jun 1 13:20:25 MSD 2011
       Machine: i686 (i386)
       Language: en_US.utf8 (charmap="UTF-8", collate="UTF-8")
       CPU 0: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5620 @ 2.40GHz (4800.3 bogomips)
              Hyper-Threading, x86-64, MMX, Physical Address Ext, SYSENTER/SYSEXIT, SYSCALL/SYSRET, Intel virtualization
       CPU 1: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5620 @ 2.40GHz (4800.1 bogomips)
              Hyper-Threading, x86-64, MMX, Physical Address Ext, SYSENTER/SYSEXIT, SYSCALL/SYSRET, Intel virtualization
       CPU 2: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5620 @ 2.40GHz (4800.1 bogomips)
              Hyper-Threading, x86-64, MMX, Physical Address Ext, SYSENTER/SYSEXIT, SYSCALL/SYSRET, Intel virtualization
       CPU 3: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5620 @ 2.40GHz (4800.1 bogomips)
              Hyper-Threading, x86-64, MMX, Physical Address Ext, SYSENTER/SYSEXIT, SYSCALL/SYSRET, Intel virtualization
       22:16:42 up  2:06,  1 user,  load average: 0.05, 0.04, 0.01; runlevel 3
    
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Benchmark Run: Wed Aug 31 2011 22:16:42 - 22:44:41
    4 CPUs in system; running 1 parallel copy of tests
    
    Dhrystone 2 using register variables       11014422.8 lps   (10.0 s, 7 samples)
    Double-Precision Whetstone                     2265.6 MWIPS (10.3 s, 7 samples)
    Execl Throughput                               3806.2 lps   (29.7 s, 2 samples)
    File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks        455838.4 KBps  (30.0 s, 2 samples)
    File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks          133081.0 KBps  (30.0 s, 2 samples)
    File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks        994794.1 KBps  (30.0 s, 2 samples)
    Pipe Throughput                              796229.3 lps   (10.0 s, 7 samples)
    Pipe-based Context Switching                 126795.3 lps   (10.0 s, 7 samples)
    Process Creation                               9349.1 lps   (30.0 s, 2 samples)
    Shell Scripts (1 concurrent)                   4483.2 lpm   (60.0 s, 2 samples)
    Shell Scripts (8 concurrent)                   1427.8 lpm   (60.0 s, 2 samples)
    System Call Overhead                         652624.4 lps   (10.0 s, 7 samples)
    
    System Benchmarks Index Values               BASELINE       RESULT    INDEX
    Dhrystone 2 using register variables         116700.0   11014422.8    943.8
    Double-Precision Whetstone                       55.0       2265.6    411.9
    Execl Throughput                                 43.0       3806.2    885.2
    File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks          3960.0     455838.4   1151.1
    File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks            1655.0     133081.0    804.1
    File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks          5800.0     994794.1   1715.2
    Pipe Throughput                               12440.0     796229.3    640.1
    Pipe-based Context Switching                   4000.0     126795.3    317.0
    Process Creation                                126.0       9349.1    742.0
    Shell Scripts (1 concurrent)                     42.4       4483.2   1057.4
    Shell Scripts (8 concurrent)                      6.0       1427.8   2379.6
    System Call Overhead                          15000.0     652624.4    435.1
                                                                       ========
    System Benchmarks Index Score                                         818.2
    
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Benchmark Run: Wed Aug 31 2011 22:44:41 - 23:12:47
    4 CPUs in system; running 4 parallel copies of tests
    
    Dhrystone 2 using register variables       39651371.0 lps   (10.0 s, 7 samples)
    Double-Precision Whetstone                     8634.5 MWIPS (10.2 s, 7 samples)
    Execl Throughput                               7071.8 lps   (29.9 s, 2 samples)
    File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks        329055.8 KBps  (30.0 s, 2 samples)
    File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks           88512.5 KBps  (30.0 s, 2 samples)
    File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks        844619.8 KBps  (30.0 s, 2 samples)
    Pipe Throughput                             2785831.8 lps   (10.0 s, 7 samples)
    Pipe-based Context Switching                 903513.8 lps   (10.0 s, 7 samples)
    Process Creation                              34064.7 lps   (30.0 s, 2 samples)
    Shell Scripts (1 concurrent)                  10670.0 lpm   (60.0 s, 2 samples)
    Shell Scripts (8 concurrent)                   1767.0 lpm   (60.0 s, 2 samples)
    System Call Overhead                        2215766.9 lps   (10.0 s, 7 samples)
    
    System Benchmarks Index Values               BASELINE       RESULT    INDEX
    Dhrystone 2 using register variables         116700.0   39651371.0   3397.7
    Double-Precision Whetstone                       55.0       8634.5   1569.9
    Execl Throughput                                 43.0       7071.8   1644.6
    File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks          3960.0     329055.8    830.9
    File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks            1655.0      88512.5    534.8
    File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks          5800.0     844619.8   1456.2
    Pipe Throughput                               12440.0    2785831.8   2239.4
    Pipe-based Context Switching                   4000.0     903513.8   2258.8
    Process Creation                                126.0      34064.7   2703.5
    Shell Scripts (1 concurrent)                     42.4      10670.0   2516.5
    Shell Scripts (8 concurrent)                      6.0       1767.0   2944.9
    System Call Overhead                          15000.0    2215766.9   1477.2
                                                                       ========
    System Benchmarks Index Score                                        1754.3
    
    
    August 31, 2011 @ 7:17 pm

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.