LowEndBox - Cheap VPS, Hosting and Dedicated Server Deals

ChicagoVPS - $7 2GB OpenVZ VPS in Chicago

ChicagoVPS When Chris from ChicagoVPS sent me this offer — “first time ever” — he is trying to emphasis on the significance of price break through, for ChicagoVPS at least. However it is not the first time a VPS with 2GB memory was offered at low end box price. Last time 2GB VPS was offered, the said provider ended up being very close to the dead pool just 2 months down the track. ChicagoVPS would fare better I am sure, judging from their track records, but indeed it is somewhere I consider a dangerous territory at the brink of super-over-selling. Anyway. Here are the deals:

  • Enterprise — Sign up link
  • 2048MB memory
  • 50GB storage
  • 2000GB/month data transfer
  • OpenVZ/SolusVM
  • $7/month with coupon code 2048
  • Professional — Sign up link
  • 1024MB memory
  • 30GB storage
  • 1500GB/month data transfer
  • OpenVZ/SolusVM
  • $5.50/month with coupon code 1024

Servers in Chicago IL with ColoCrossing. How does it work I wonder, but I guess it all got to do with human psychology. Would you pay just $1.50/month more (27% more) to get double the memory at Two-Gigabytes?! Sure, why not?! Despite that bootstrapping from a low-end-script to run a dozen or so PHP sites would probably use 200MB RAM max. But I guess “PHP sites” are far from the only applications for VPS, 2GB memory would find its applications when you load up monsters such as Minecraft and other bloated software requiring JavaVM…

Anyway. Great offer for those who need it. Chris/Jeremiah have also been providing good support at ChicagoVPS.

Update: Some FAQs in the comments:

370 Comments

  1. MIYU-G's avatar
    MIYU-G:
    server ~ # 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, 43.857 s, 24.5 MB/s
    server ~ # ls
    test
    server ~ # 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, 43.1907 s, 24.9 MB/s
    server ~ # 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, 48.416 s, 22.2 MB/s
    server ~ # 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, 20.351 s, 52.8 MB/s
    server ~ # 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, 37.963 s, 28.3 MB/s
    server ~ # 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, 37.1624 s, 28.9 MB/s
    

    The disk io looks worse and worse,I just bought yesterday,the iso was about 75MB/s yesterday.I’m on node 20

    September 8, 2011 @ 7:55 am
  2. Ricky's avatar
    Ricky:

    “yum update” is a nightmare..
    download speed is fast 8MB/s
    but it takes >5 minutes for the VPS to resolve the dependency….

    i am still waiting for it to finish (5/160)
    it takes one minute for one update, ouch.

    I hopes not all people is running some benchmark all at once..
    Disk IO is 38MB/s btw.

    September 8, 2011 @ 10:00 am
    • Ricky's avatar
      Ricky:

      Same node 20 here.

      September 8, 2011 @ 10:21 am
    • Ricky's avatar
      Ricky:

      yum update completed in 30 minutes finally. It got speeded up.

      September 8, 2011 @ 11:25 am
      • Meester Sneeky's avatar
        Meester Sneeky:

        You might want to check what mirrors your OS template uses. I know that for instance the Debian 6 template uses German mirrors.

        September 8, 2011 @ 1:21 pm
        • Ricky's avatar
          Ricky:

          Um… as i mentioned the download speed is OKAY (@8.1MB/s)
          The bottleneck is at the installing part. In my previous VPS @DS, yum update finished within 5 minutes (same amount of packages)

          September 8, 2011 @ 1:41 pm
  3. Ricky's avatar
    Ricky:

    mem_alloc error! with java 1G Ram argument. My VPS is running NOTHING else. Any idea?

    java.io.IOException: Cannot run program "sh": java.io.IOException: error=12, Cannot allocate memory
    	at java.lang.ProcessBuilder.start(ProcessBuilder.java:475)
    	at java.lang.Runtime.exec(Runtime.java:610)
    	at java.lang.Runtime.exec(Runtime.java:483)
    	at jline.UnixTerminal.exec(UnixTerminal.java:297)
    	at jline.UnixTerminal.exec(UnixTerminal.java:282)
    	at jline.UnixTerminal.stty(UnixTerminal.java:273)
    	at jline.UnixTerminal.initializeTerminal(UnixTerminal.java:77)
    	at jline.Terminal.setupTerminal(Terminal.java:75)
    	at jline.Terminal.getTerminal(Terminal.java:26)
    	at jline.ConsoleReader.(ConsoleReader.java:191)
    	at jline.ConsoleReader.(ConsoleReader.java:186)
    	at jline.ConsoleReader.(ConsoleReader.java:174)
    	at net.minecraft.server.MinecraftServer.(MinecraftServer.java:72)
    	at net.minecraft.server.MinecraftServer.main(MinecraftServer.java:501)
    	at org.bukkit.craftbukkit.Main.main(Main.java:127)
    Caused by: java.io.IOException: java.io.IOException: error=12, Cannot allocate memory
    	at java.lang.UNIXProcess.(UNIXProcess.java:164)
    	at java.lang.ProcessImpl.start(ProcessImpl.java:81)
    	at java.lang.ProcessBuilder.start(ProcessBuilder.java:468)
    September 8, 2011 @ 11:21 am
    • Ricky's avatar
      Ricky:

      However, minecraft is running fine, just the mem_alloc error occur.

      September 8, 2011 @ 11:23 am
  4. A. Hawkridge [VMPort]'s avatar

    Mem_alloc error basically means there’s not enough memory to run whatever your trying to run. So either your using it all or someone else is using the RAM you paid for, IE Overselling 😛

    September 8, 2011 @ 11:29 am
    • Chris's avatar

      Not overselling,

      I just checked and every node has a large amount of memory free.

      Thanks for the suggestions though.

      Regards,

      Chris

      September 8, 2011 @ 1:33 pm
      • Ricky's avatar
        Ricky:

        Hopefully, becoz I did not get this error in another 2G VPS.
        Having burstram or not might be the difference. I use the same config in both scenarios.

        September 8, 2011 @ 1:43 pm
        • ab's avatar
          ab:

          1 – java is crap
          2 – minecraft server is crap
          3 – minecraft in general’s coding is crap

          you’re probably trying to allocate 300gb of ram or something equally inane, before it drops down.

          you try using -Xms -Xmx?

          September 8, 2011 @ 1:46 pm
        • Ricky's avatar
          Ricky:

          Both 1G.

          September 8, 2011 @ 1:59 pm
  5. Ricky's avatar
    Ricky:
    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, 15.9063 seconds, 67.5 MB/s
    

    Thing is getting better. It seems that many enthusiasts have stopped “ff”ing the server.

    September 9, 2011 @ 1:42 am
    • Ricky's avatar
      Ricky:

      Typo: “dd”

      September 9, 2011 @ 1:43 am
      • Dave's avatar
        Dave:

        Don’t admit to the type. Claim you were inventing a new expletive specific to I/O subsystems.

        September 9, 2011 @ 8:42 am
  6. vps user's avatar

    I love chicagovps been using them for 6 months now have only had one issue in six months

    I have used volumdrive and virpus witch both kill all java every 10 min so i moved to Chicago vps and would not leave unless they started to do the same

    I run 3 vps with them on the Professional package i run about 870 mb ram steady with no issue 24/7

    September 10, 2011 @ 2:29 am
    • bmarkovic's avatar
      bmarkovic:

      Java VMs handle memory with all the grace of a kitchen strainer handling water. Add tomcat and 2GB without swap will run out pretty quickly. So you can’t really blame them for killing off processes that ruin the fun for the rest of us.

      September 12, 2011 @ 7:09 pm
  7. tinyray's avatar

    yeah, thanks to their great work, my boxes all work well so far, very good connections to EU.

    September 10, 2011 @ 4:15 pm
  8. captain_me's avatar

    Its a great offer. I’ve been at programming, network administration long before Windows 95 hit the shelf and long before most people ever heard of the Interweb. I can spot a deal from a mile away. The offer is great. They are attentive to tickets raised. 2GB for 7/Mo with high-speed throughput. AWESOME! What is there to complain about. When it come to running Java applications one has to know how to set your memory limits. If you are even going to touch Java, 2GB is probably best. Its only $7/mo. with the promo. A WHOLE 1.5 more than the 1GB. Otherwise, better RTM regarding memory allocation. Also, if you are a super noob and dont know how to kill processes, running another Java process will probably throw memory related exceptions because the other instances are hogging memory. So learning to set Java memory restraints, learning to use ps -aux, learning to use the kill command might all be helpful. 🙂

    September 10, 2011 @ 6:26 pm
  9. doughnet's avatar
    doughnet:

    IO just keeps getting worse & worse

    root@chi:~# 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, 23.3001 s, 46.1 MB/s
    

    way oversold

    September 11, 2011 @ 4:14 pm
    • Tom's avatar
      Tom:

      Way undersold.

      September 11, 2011 @ 5:41 pm
    • Yomero's avatar

      46MB is perfectly acceptable

      September 11, 2011 @ 5:50 pm
    • Meester Sneeky's avatar
      Meester Sneeky:

      Here’s what I”m getting today on node 16, minutes after you posted yours…

      
      root@chicago:~# 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, 14.1748 s, 75.7 MB/s
      
      
      September 11, 2011 @ 5:54 pm
  10. dmmcintyre3's avatar
    [root@panther ~]# dd if=/dev/zero of=test bs=16k count=64k conv=fdatasync
    65536+0 records in
    65536+0 records out
    1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB) copied, 22.7517 s, 47.2 MB/s

    While the dd result is decent, small file reads are pretty bad:

    4096 bytes from / (simfs /dev/simfs): request=1 time=71.8 ms
    4096 bytes from / (simfs /dev/simfs): request=2 time=396.9 ms
    4096 bytes from / (simfs /dev/simfs): request=3 time=138.0 ms
    4096 bytes from / (simfs /dev/simfs): request=4 time=14.9 ms
    4096 bytes from / (simfs /dev/simfs): request=5 time=145.5 ms
    4096 bytes from / (simfs /dev/simfs): request=6 time=179.2 ms
    4096 bytes from / (simfs /dev/simfs): request=7 time=101.0 ms
    September 11, 2011 @ 8:01 pm
    • Dave's avatar
      Dave:

      dd isn’t a good benchmark for any application’s performance anyway, unless your application’s main task is reading a large block of data raw from a block device.

      September 11, 2011 @ 9:09 pm
      • Meester Sneeky's avatar
        Meester Sneeky:

        I agree. And I don’t know why I even participate in posting this benchmark…

        The best benchmark is to just test the applications you use, unless the application you’re using a VPS for is to run dd tests 😉

        September 11, 2011 @ 9:16 pm
      • tux's avatar
        tux:

        Your are wrong. It is very good benchmark for dd application performance.

        September 11, 2011 @ 9:58 pm
        • Dave's avatar
          Dave:

          That is covered by “unless your application’s main task is reading a large block of data raw from a block device”…

          September 11, 2011 @ 10:13 pm
  11. Chris Fabozzi's avatar

    Hello,

    Just wanted to let everyone know about our Facebook page, and we pick a random person every month for a free 2GB VPS for one month. This drawing happens once a month, and you can win more than once!

    See you there!

    Regards,

    Chris

    September 13, 2011 @ 3:25 am
  12. Tom's avatar
    Tom:

    So anyone running some java close to 2gb? how’s the I/O right now?

    September 15, 2011 @ 8:33 pm
    • stormykins's avatar
      stormykins:

      Only 1GB max, but here’s vzfree for memory usage:

                     Total       Used       Free
      Kernel:     2048.00M      3.91M   2044.09M
      Allocate:   2048.00M    915.50M   1132.50M (2048M Guaranteed)
      Commit:     2048.00M    372.80M   1675.20M (40.3% of Allocated)
      Swap:                     0.00M            (0.0% of Committed)
      

      Maybe I’ll make a 512MB tmpfs partition and see.

      IO seems fine, but I haven’t installed any kind of benchmarking tools. Seems more responsive than the AWS node I’m running with an EBS volume RAID array (yes, you read that right).

      September 15, 2011 @ 10:56 pm
  13. Miles's avatar
    Miles:

    Hmm, I’m running into fork errors already. Only allocated around 300 meg. Not sure if the app has gone haywire of the VM can’t allocate any memory

    September 16, 2011 @ 12:16 pm
    • Dave's avatar
      Dave:

      How much memory and how many file descriptors is each process using? You could be running into a number-of-processes limit rather than a memory allocation one. Is anything in /proc/userbeancounters near to a limit at the time the forks start failing? Also check the process level limits set by ulimit (see http://ss64.com/bash/ulimit.html) – it may be that your process has too many files open (“too many” being defined by the lesser of what OpenVZ has set and what the relevant ulimit is set to) so new file descriptors for stdin/out/err can’t be created for the new process.

      September 16, 2011 @ 3:47 pm
      • Miles's avatar
        Miles:

        Strangely it’s a brand new instance running java. That’s it really. cant actually do anything at the moment due to a fork error.

        September 16, 2011 @ 5:24 pm
    • Tom's avatar
      Tom:

      I was on that train at volumedrive, yeah fork errors will not let you start higher memory apps because node cant’ find any ram at all. Complete overselling beyond openvz limits, thanks guess i’ll be passing thing crap.

      September 17, 2011 @ 7:22 am
      • Miles's avatar
        Miles:

        Yeah I’ve decided to just go for a refund. Fork errors off the bat isn’t worth the hassle. I’ll go back to the dedicateds for now.

        I do get the impression this is more a software/configuration error than a resource error.

        Some of you guys should consider checking out kimsufi and some of their deals. That’s like $20 for a dedicated box a month

        September 17, 2011 @ 12:18 pm
      • Chris Fabozzi's avatar

        Tom,

        We do not offer crap, Miles is completely wrong and did not even really give us a chance to try and fix the problem as the node isn’t oversold really at all.

        In the ticket he opened I explained that I checked the node myself and had more than enough memory to go around so saying we oversold the machine is really wrong and you should not make accusations without actually being a client and testing it out for yourself. If you read the whole thread and reviewed the benchmarks you will see that our service is better than what most $7 offers give you.

        Regards,

        Chris

        September 17, 2011 @ 4:05 pm
        • Miles's avatar
          Miles:

          Woah, easy Chris I wasn’t suggesting your node was oversold at all.

          As I mentioned I suspected it was a configuration error and I really only wanted to try the service [after all the good comments] but I didn’t really want to wait more than a few hours for you guys to fix it. I’m sure you would have sorted it.

          This was nothing more than personal choice. Admittedly if it worked when I received it I wouldn’t have cancelled but my intention was only to have a play.

          September 17, 2011 @ 5:48 pm
  14. dmmcintyre3's avatar
                   Total       Used       Free
    Kernel:     2048.00M      6.95M   2041.05M
    Allocate:   2048.00M   1923.24M    124.76M (2048M Guaranteed)
    Commit:     2048.00M   1385.88M    662.12M (71.7% of Allocated)
    Swap:                    26.05M            (1.9% of Committed)
    

    A little swap usage right now.

    September 16, 2011 @ 6:11 pm
    • Dan's avatar
      Dan:

      me too as well

                     Total       Used       Free
      Kernel:     2048.00M      2.01M   2045.99M
      Allocate:   2048.00M     17.52M   2030.48M (2048M Guaranteed)
      Commit:     2048.00M     12.23M   2035.77M (58.3% of Allocated)
      Swap:                     2.70M            (26.4% of Committed)
      
      September 19, 2011 @ 1:45 pm
  15. dmmcintyre3's avatar
    ioping /
    4096 bytes from / (simfs /dev/simfs): request=1 time=189.5 ms
    4096 bytes from / (simfs /dev/simfs): request=2 time=268.0 ms
    4096 bytes from / (simfs /dev/simfs): request=3 time=488.6 ms
    4096 bytes from / (simfs /dev/simfs): request=4 time=564.6 ms
    4096 bytes from / (simfs /dev/simfs): request=5 time=93.9 ms
    4096 bytes from / (simfs /dev/simfs): request=6 time=127.9 ms
    4096 bytes from / (simfs /dev/simfs): request=7 time=139.0 ms
    4096 bytes from / (simfs /dev/simfs): request=8 time=196.7 ms
    4096 bytes from / (simfs /dev/simfs): request=9 time=45.9 ms
    4096 bytes from / (simfs /dev/simfs): request=10 time=87.4 ms
    
    --- / (simfs /dev/simfs) ioping statistics ---
    10 requests completed in 11818.3 ms, 5 iops, 0.0 mb/s
    min/avg/max/mdev = 45.9/220.2/564.6/165.4 ms
    September 19, 2011 @ 4:01 am
    • Dan's avatar
      Dan:

      damn, that latency is pretty bad. 🙁

      Heres mine, although not as bad as yours, its still pretty erratic.

      4096 bytes from / (simfs /dev/simfs): request=1 time=19.9 ms
      4096 bytes from / (simfs /dev/simfs): request=2 time=20.1 ms
      4096 bytes from / (simfs /dev/simfs): request=3 time=62.0 ms
      4096 bytes from / (simfs /dev/simfs): request=4 time=316.9 ms
      4096 bytes from / (simfs /dev/simfs): request=5 time=600.7 ms
      4096 bytes from / (simfs /dev/simfs): request=6 time=145.5 ms
      4096 bytes from / (simfs /dev/simfs): request=7 time=122.0 ms
      4096 bytes from / (simfs /dev/simfs): request=8 time=59.9 ms
      4096 bytes from / (simfs /dev/simfs): request=9 time=11.9 ms
      4096 bytes from / (simfs /dev/simfs): request=10 time=369.4 ms
      4096 bytes from / (simfs /dev/simfs): request=11 time=80.9 ms
      4096 bytes from / (simfs /dev/simfs): request=12 time=19.9 ms
      September 19, 2011 @ 1:44 pm
      • Yomero's avatar

        The mine is starting to degrade too.

        About 50MB/s in dd, but ioping is very bad.

        September 22, 2011 @ 12:43 am
        • Ricky's avatar
          Ricky:

          Same here, mediocre sequential IO speed and not-so-good random seek response.

          But, for a $7/month VPS with the 2GB you got, it is not crap service already. When you match this up with Directspace $7/month which you got half the RAM and more than double of down time, this price sounds reasonable.

          September 22, 2011 @ 7:40 am
        • Dan's avatar
          Dan:

          its getting better, ioping is getting fast again. Definitely a great vps 🙂

          September 27, 2011 @ 2:04 am
        • Yomero's avatar

          Just to inform, after almost one month…

          $ ./ioping-0.6/ioping -c10 .
          4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=1 time=46.1 ms
          4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=2 time=137.8 ms
          4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=3 time=125.9 ms
          4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=4 time=339.0 ms
          4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=5 time=155.7 ms
          4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=6 time=283.9 ms
          4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=7 time=23.2 ms
          4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=8 time=350.5 ms
          4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=9 time=179.6 ms
          4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=10 time=231.8 ms
          
          --- . (simfs /dev/simfs) ioping statistics ---
          10 requests completed in 10881.6 ms, 5 iops, 0.0 mb/s
          min/avg/max/mdev = 23.2/187.4/350.5/107.3 ms
          $ dd if=/dev/zero of=test bs=64k conv=fdatasync count=10k; rm test
          10240+0 records in
          10240+0 records out
          671088640 bytes (671 MB) copied, 18.9916 s, 35.3 MB/s
          

          Getting sluggish again u_u

          October 3, 2011 @ 11:57 pm
        • Jeremiah Shinkle's avatar

          You can keep posting these, and i hate to tell you, the more you do, the less i almost care. It also does not help with node abusers that i am personally working on removing.

          Thanks,

          Jeremiah

          October 4, 2011 @ 12:01 am
  16. Craig's avatar
    Craig:

    it’s a great offer tho…

    keep on with it,

    i just hope there are not too much oversell or something…

    September 26, 2011 @ 8:49 pm
  17. steven's avatar
    steven:

    seems that they are out of stock.. can you please put up more 2gb servers ?

    September 27, 2011 @ 12:21 pm
  18. Aree's avatar

    Supposing I start with the 1Gb plan to try out the service first. Then when I am confident, can I upgrade to the 2Gb plan for 7usd?

    September 27, 2011 @ 2:20 pm
    • Dave's avatar
      Dave:

      Offers like this are generally “new services only”, so I would suggest going for the 2Gb if you might need it and dropping the service altogether if you are not happy with the performance. If it takes you two months to get it tested and end up canceling you are only out an extra $3.

      September 28, 2011 @ 8:43 am
  19. Wayne's avatar
    Wayne:

    Any chance of adding more stock to this offer? Tried to order, but it shows out of stock.

    September 28, 2011 @ 1:51 pm
  20. mike's avatar
    mike:

    Any idea when you will be back in stock?

    September 28, 2011 @ 2:50 pm
  21. Chris Fabozzi's avatar

    Everyone, please take 30 seconds out of your life to watch this 30 second clip that “Team 3” made for a class project. We host some of the classes stuff and would really like to help them out. Their grade depends on how many views they get! Thank you!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4QUy5PTbv0

    Regards,

    Chris

    September 30, 2011 @ 1:54 am
  22. JTR's avatar
    JTR:

    Out of stock? Damn! I *just* went to finally buy this, and it’s out of stock :(.

    October 1, 2011 @ 2:27 am
  23. Adam's avatar
    Adam:

    Back in stock just as the promo code expires… sneaky sneaky.

    October 3, 2011 @ 5:31 am
  24. Aree's avatar

    Good thing I didn’t manage to buy anything from them. If this is the way they do their business, it does not augur well for a serious long-term relationship.

    October 3, 2011 @ 9:57 am
    • Chris Fabozzi's avatar

      Agree,

      Why would this in anyway make you think we are a bad business? Our sales run for one month. We were posted on the first, and then the coupon expired on the first, as we have sent another sale to be posted. There is nothing sneaky we are trying to do its just how it works. If in some way you think otherwise please explain so I can maybe make it betters o others do not think this.

      Regards,

      CHris

      October 3, 2011 @ 3:57 pm
      • Adam's avatar
        Adam:

        Running a special for a month is totally meaningless and arbitrary if you are ‘out of stock’ for most of it.

        If you run a special for a month, you should at least make an effort to let people buy it for that month, otherwise what is the point.

        October 4, 2011 @ 10:21 am
        • LEA's avatar

          I would assume “while stocks last” is always the assumption on sales, no? If so, I can’t see why you should demand a provider to always honour the price.

          October 4, 2011 @ 10:26 am
        • Chris Fabozzi's avatar

          Adam,

          The sale was up the whole month minus 4 days at the end of the month. Based on the amount of orders, I think its pretty impressive the efforts we gave to make sure the sale was up as long as possible. A lot had to be done to make sure it worked out that way and to say we did not give it any effort to have it up for a full month is false.

          Regards,

          Chris

          October 4, 2011 @ 10:54 am
        • Ricky's avatar
          Ricky:

          Honestly, I found nothing wrong with this sales and actually the stocks DO last very long already, viewing the insane price of this plan. Stock still last at the tenth day of this campaign so I doubted if there is anything “sneaky”.
          It is only unfortunately for you to find out this offer at a very late time.

          October 5, 2011 @ 4:56 pm
  25. mike's avatar
    mike:

    @Aree you can’t blame them for raising the prices. I’m sure they filled the machines they wanted to fill.

    October 3, 2011 @ 3:17 pm
    • Dave's avatar
      Dave:

      They aren’t even raising prices, just ending the special offer.

      Most special offers are on a “while stocks last” basis so this is hardly unusual.

      October 3, 2011 @ 4:05 pm
      • Spirit's avatar
        Spirit:

        Beside that they said (read above posts from 1st and 2nd September) that this is promo which they will run around one month. I don’t see anything “sneaky” here.

        October 3, 2011 @ 4:35 pm
  26. Aree's avatar

    My sincere apologies. Now I see what I have misunderstood. I wish Chicagovps all the best and may your business be good for a long time to come.

    October 3, 2011 @ 5:23 pm
  27. Chris Fabozzi's avatar

    Anyone interested in DirectAdmin we now support it 🙂

    Thanks,

    Chris

    October 12, 2011 @ 1:56 am
    • tinyray's avatar

      Chris,
      When will this plan be restocked?

      January 2, 2012 @ 8:20 am
      • Dave's avatar
        Dave:

        This specific offer won’t restart. IIRC they’ve had other, slightly different, offers on since.

        January 2, 2012 @ 12:14 pm
  28. FX2's avatar
    FX2:

    Is this offer expired ? 🙁

    October 28, 2011 @ 10:32 am
  29. tinyray's avatar

    Does anyone check this offer. I mean the promo code 2048 works again. The enterprise plan 2G is just $7/month.

    Please check,

    January 7, 2012 @ 6:16 am
    • LEA's avatar

      Yes Jeremiah has just reactivated this offer again. Will re-post this later today…

      January 7, 2012 @ 7:00 am
      • Tom's avatar
        Tom:

        Finally, was waiting for this offer to be back.

        January 7, 2012 @ 10:32 am
  30. Jeetu's avatar
    Jeetu:

    Whats the port speed? Cannot find in the offer or on any other offer page on the website.

    regards,
    JP

    January 9, 2012 @ 8:10 am
  31. JP's avatar
    JP:

    Earlier comment went into moderation.

    Q: Whats the port speed? Cannot find in the offer or on any other offer page on the website.

    regards,
    JP

    January 9, 2012 @ 8:30 am
  32. Stephen's avatar
    Stephen:

    Is there any way to set up the server without having to supply a domain? I don’t have one in mind to use for it and will just access it by IP, but there doesn’t seem to be an option for that.

    January 11, 2012 @ 4:42 pm
    • Stephen's avatar
      Stephen:

      bleh, replied in the wrong thread.

      January 11, 2012 @ 4:59 pm
  33. Paul Kennedy's avatar
    Paul Kennedy:

    Jeremiah and Chris have been nothing but fantastic for their servers. Great product and very friendly people to work with! I’ve been using their Enterprise Box for the last three months and have had zero issues. ChicagoVPS is definitely my first stop when getting a new VPS server…about to get me a second one, just for the fun of it. Highly recommended products and company.

    April 27, 2012 @ 8:29 am
  34. Alex's avatar
    Alex:

    So.. Is the $7 forever or just the first month?

    April 28, 2012 @ 3:47 pm
  35. Marathi Lekh! arathi Kavita,!arathi vinod's avatar

    I have learn a few excellent stuff here. Definitely value bookmarking for revisiting. I surprise how so much attempt you place to make this sort of wonderful informative web site.

    January 31, 2013 @ 12:38 pm

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.