LowEndBox - Cheap VPS, Hosting and Dedicated Server Deals

CHVPS - $2.98 256MB Virtuozzo VPS in Switzerland

CHVPS Fernando from Panama-based CHVPS/PrivateLayer sent me a LowEndBox-special coupon code last week. Use coupon code LEPUDC to get 25% off recurring discount on their Virtuozzo-based virtual server plans. After the discount “Cirrus 1” under “Normal Cloud Computing” (which we featured last time) becomes $2.98/month. Direct sign up link here.

  • 256MB guaranteed/512MB burstable memory
  • 20GB storage
  • 1TB/month data transfer
  • Virtuozzo

Payments in either PayPal or 2Checkout. Servers with Equinix in Switzerland (test IP: You should be able to find quite a lot of discussion from their previous offer post. Do note that they are currently putting an IO limit on the low end VPS at 10.8MB/sec, which is pretty slow. However I guess it’s not too bad if the performance is consistent. No SSL on the ordering page and some bad DNS configurations.

Latest posts by LEA (see all)


  1. Tom:

    I’d be fucking pissed right now if I would have bought the same plan for a higher price of their last offer.
    Think I’ll wait another month till this plan goes to 2 bucks.

    September 18, 2011 @ 1:13 pm | Reply
    • Antony:

      25% discount is quite usual here on LEB, 50% is a bit less usual…

      You still can try to see how things will evolve next month though :)

      Anybody knows how long this offer will stay?

      September 19, 2011 @ 3:16 pm | Reply
  2. tort:

    no DMCA?

    September 18, 2011 @ 2:07 pm | Reply
    • Tom:

      Come on, its Switzerland not US. Just _use_ you brain *sometimes*.

      September 18, 2011 @ 2:10 pm | Reply
      • tort:


        September 18, 2011 @ 2:58 pm | Reply
        • gsrdgrdghd:

          DMCA is an US law. Why should an US law be applied in switzerland? USA providers don’t enforce chinese or iranian laws, do they?

          September 18, 2011 @ 3:19 pm | Reply
        • USA providers don’t enforce chinese or iranian laws, do they?

          No but a copyright claim would be valid from one of those countries. That was the whole point of the Berne and the other agreements.

          September 18, 2011 @ 3:24 pm | Reply
        • They could send a DMCA letter to the Swiss DC, but they would just probably treat it as a normal copyright claim.

          September 18, 2011 @ 3:28 pm | Reply
        • Antony:

          Yeah, I guess you’d have to remove the infighting content but be allowed a few days for doing so..

          September 19, 2011 @ 3:17 pm | Reply
        • Tom:

          @drmike: So why all the fuzz with youtube and the music videos worldwide?

          September 20, 2011 @ 8:24 am | Reply
        • That’s more of a payment issue than anything else. Most artists sign rights for the country that they’re based in (Where they expect to get the most of their money) and then rights world wide (Where they expect to get less.)

          September 20, 2011 @ 1:02 pm | Reply
        • Tom:

          @drmike: Yes, but not all countries have ratified the whole text only some articles. Germany for examples has only ratified and signed some articles.

          September 20, 2011 @ 8:45 am | Reply
        • Please actually go review the article that I linked to and see what Switzerland’s status is.

          September 20, 2011 @ 1:00 pm | Reply
  3. LowendBoxCritic:

    At their ToS there is a enumeration of what is allowed at their “Shared Web Hosting”-plans. However, because they don’t offer shared web hosting, I assume they mean their VPS-plans with it.

    …or they have to update their ToS…

    September 18, 2011 @ 2:15 pm | Reply
  4. Vipies:

    Cannot say much. Cheap and useless.

    September 18, 2011 @ 3:07 pm | Reply
    • Gary:

      Useless why? It’s cheap, in a less common location and has a decent amount of transfer. Do you really think the 10MB/sec IO will slow down 99% of people in day to day usage?

      September 18, 2011 @ 3:25 pm | Reply
    • 10MB/sec would be fine for basic usage like DNS server or backup hosting etc.

      September 20, 2011 @ 10:02 am | Reply
  5. I just order one from them.
    It’s seem not auto setup.
    Waiting to get the information of the VPS.

    September 18, 2011 @ 3:13 pm | Reply
  6. tort:

    We build the DNS and nginx the agency and, even if it is safe decline we data.

    September 18, 2011 @ 3:28 pm | Reply
    • Gary:


      September 18, 2011 @ 3:29 pm | Reply
      • tort:

        nginx Proxy

        September 18, 2011 @ 3:33 pm | Reply
        • Antony:

          Yep, that could be a nice box for a Nginx reverse proxy.

          Cool box for OpenVPN too :)

          September 19, 2011 @ 3:18 pm | Reply
    • Paul:

      +1 Yoda, you are

      November 14, 2011 @ 10:23 pm | Reply
  7. Is 10MB/s really that bad?

    September 18, 2011 @ 3:39 pm | Reply
    • Tom:

      10MB LIMIT is COMPLETELY OK! But if it would be 10MB/s on NODE level, then rofl it would be close to being useless.

      I’ll be getting this offer in next month when they drop price yet again.

      September 18, 2011 @ 3:47 pm | Reply
      • It clearly isn’t 10MB/s node level.

        September 18, 2011 @ 3:48 pm | Reply
        • Gary:

          I think people are just used to doing their dd benchmarks and seeing 10x that speed, so think that 10MB/sec dedicated disk IO is useless, assuming it is actually dedicated. In reality, I doubt most VPSes would show any difference in day to day operation if they were limited to 10MB/sec. It’ll slow down your cron’d backups I guess, but I’d rather that stuff was throttled anyway, to stop a few simultaneous backup jobs slowing the node down too much.

          It won’t win any benchmark awards being throttled to 10MB/sec, but then outside of benchmarking, how many VPSes actually use that much disk IO?

          September 18, 2011 @ 3:58 pm | Reply
        • I don’t think it’s dedicated 10MB/sec IO. However it’s the similar argument to throttled CPU vs. burstable fair share — sometimes you just don’t want a neighbour doing multiple tar+gz affecting other people’s disk performance.

          I’ll say 10MB/sec is a bit slow, but it’s fine as long as the provider is able to keep it consistent.

          September 18, 2011 @ 11:08 pm | Reply
        • Gary:

          Yeah, even on a free-for-all vps I don’t think I’ve seen drive IO as low as 10MB/sec, but as long as people know what they’re getting before they get it, and don’t intend to use it for something disk intensive I don’t see why they’d moan. It’d be a good proxy/vpn box with that amount of bandwidth, or a good irc bouncer assuming they allow it (even though it’s way overspecced for that). Less common location, so it’d do as a low-volume CDN node too.

          September 18, 2011 @ 11:16 pm | Reply
        • ab:

          to be fair gary on hostrail i routinely saw i/o in either bytes or kilobytes per second

          September 18, 2011 @ 11:53 pm | Reply
        • Gary:

          Haha true, but hostrail were the exception rather than the rule. :)

          I did actually have a box with them, but I was just using it to access hulu so drive IO didn’t come into play.

          September 18, 2011 @ 11:54 pm | Reply
        • Wouldn’t backups and (re)installs be a pain? That’s why I see IO coming into play.

          November 14, 2011 @ 11:03 pm | Reply
    • Francisco:

      [Is 10MB/s really that bad?]

      If you have a 1Gbps port sure it is as you are limited to 90MB/s disk write throughput to download and record the file.

      September 28, 2011 @ 9:52 am | Reply
      • Francisco:

        Wow! My post was truncated during the submit due html.

        The correct text is:

        If you have a 1Gbps port sure it is as you are limited to under 90Mbps downloads.

        For a good VPS provider offering bit rates like 800Mbps the VPS would require 90MB+/s disk write throughput to download and record the file.

        September 28, 2011 @ 10:00 am | Reply
  8. Mike Cha:

    How come it has better Ping in Germany than actual Swiss?
    the server is not in Swiss but in Germany, I guess.

    September 18, 2011 @ 4:13 pm | Reply
    • Gary:

      That’s not how ping works, it’s about way more than just distance.

      And the servers are definitely in Switzerland, do some research and find that out.

      September 18, 2011 @ 4:16 pm | Reply
      • petras:

        Im leaving in Switzerland (Bern). Ping is higer than pinging an host in US :

        5 packets transmitted, 4 received, 20% packet loss, time 4006ms
        rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 120.595/120.690/120.749/0.061 ms

        I’m also loosing some packets.
        – You have network congestion
        – You host is definitively not located in Switzerland
        – Both may be true.

        Anyway, that’s not really Swiss quality, sorry.

        September 24, 2011 @ 9:46 am | Reply
        • Can you post your box IP here?

          September 24, 2011 @ 12:44 pm | Reply
        • Francisco:

          The VPS are located in Switzerland.

          Try a traceroute. Probably your ISP network and the VPS network are interconnecting in some place far away.

          September 28, 2011 @ 9:31 am | Reply
    • Can depend on how busy the network between yourself and the box is and the actual path it takes.

      September 18, 2011 @ 4:35 pm | Reply
    • Mike, you would be better off relying on traceroute and not ping.

      September 18, 2011 @ 6:56 pm | Reply
  9. Matheusz86:

    Can you send a wget test result (london: http://london1.linode.com/100MB-london.bin)?

    September 18, 2011 @ 5:13 pm | Reply
  10. tort:
    Last login: Thu Sep 15 10:22:49 2011 from
    [root@S04001011301AH ~]# wget http://london1.linode.com/100MB-london.bin
    --2011-09-19 04:44:46--  http://london1.linode.com/100MB-london.bin
    Resolving london1.linode.com...
    Connecting to london1.linode.com||:80... connected.
    HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK
    Length: 104857600 (100M) [application/octet-stream]
    Saving to: `100MB-london.bin'
    100%[======================================>] 104,857,600 15.1M/s   in 6.9s    
    2011-09-19 04:44:57 (14.4 MB/s) - `100MB-london.bin' saved [104857600/104857600]
    September 19, 2011 @ 12:45 am | Reply
  11. poponess:

    till now no 32bit os available.

    September 19, 2011 @ 4:13 am | Reply
    • tort:


      September 19, 2011 @ 4:16 am | Reply
      • LowEndUser:

        You don’t happen by any chance to be a representative of CHVPS?
        I couldn’t decipher your earlier post, either.

        September 19, 2011 @ 10:07 am | Reply
        • tort:

          Yes, I can’t, I just tell you represent, they are now no 32 bit system, because I bought their VPS. I’m using them, and have stable run 3 months.

          September 19, 2011 @ 10:14 am | Reply
    • Just ask support – they can help you with a 32BIT os.

      September 21, 2011 @ 8:28 pm | Reply
  12. Pinoy:

    Ordered last night and I am still waiting for my login details. I even received this email although I paid my invoice right away after ordering

    Dear ,

    Thank you for your order with CHVPS. Please note that we need full payment of the first invoice before we can proceed with the provisioning. As of this moment, we have not received this payment.

    You may view and pay your open invoices by logging into the control panel located at:


    If not paid, this order will be deleted from our system in 2 days time. If you have already paid the invoice, and you feel this message is in error, then please respond to this notice ASAP so that we can remedy the situation.

    Private Layer / CHVPS
    Billing Department

    September 19, 2011 @ 11:22 am | Reply
    • ab:

      perhaps you should respond to that notice ASAP so that they can remedy the situation

      September 19, 2011 @ 11:32 am | Reply
      • Pinoy:

        I already did they said it could be a problem on their end.

        September 19, 2011 @ 4:32 pm | Reply
    • tort:

      They are installed manually.

      September 19, 2011 @ 2:34 pm | Reply
    • Sir,

      I am looking at your account now. It seems we got your Payment, but it did not properly post to your account in Ubersmith.


      September 21, 2011 @ 8:29 pm | Reply
  13. Spirit:

    Does their previously announced native IPv6 work or still not?

    September 19, 2011 @ 2:35 pm | Reply
  14. Spirit:

    Surprisingly there isn’t any IO limit – I hope it stays that way.

    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, 14.1378 s, 75.9 MB/s

    wget -O /dev/null http://cachefly.cachefly.net/100mb.test
    –2011-09-19 17:55:52– http://cachefly.cachefly.net/100mb.test
    Resolving cachefly.cachefly.net…
    Connecting to cachefly.cachefly.net||:80… connected.
    HTTP request sent, awaiting response… 200 OK
    Length: 104857600 (100M) [application/octet-stream]
    Saving to: `/dev/null’

    100%[====================================================================================================================>] 104,857,600 13.2M/s in 28s

    2011-09-19 17:56:22 (3.56 MB/s) – `/dev/null’ saved [104857600/104857600]

    grep ‘cpu MHz’ /proc/cpuinfo
    cpu MHz : 2000.121

    First impression isn’t that bad – I just hope that they are IPv6 capable as they said some time ago.

    September 19, 2011 @ 5:58 pm | Reply
    • Antony:

      A good news that might boost the sales…


      In which range is your ID address?

      September 19, 2011 @ 7:34 pm | Reply
    • Antony:

      Well, IP not ID :D

      September 19, 2011 @ 7:34 pm | Reply
      • Spirit:

        I also noticed that there isn’t any tinet/tiscali over europe or atleast with over 30 different traceroute EU locations tests I couldn’t find it. Cogent and HE.

        September 19, 2011 @ 7:52 pm | Reply
        • Antony:

          Ok, thanks.

          Weird for cogent / he… they were supposed to add that peering few weeks ago, isn’t it?

          September 19, 2011 @ 9:09 pm | Reply
        • Spirit:

          They added HE and tinet I think. HE is still here (with cogent) but tinet/tiscali isn’t – atleast wasn’t few hours ago when I checked it.

          September 19, 2011 @ 9:20 pm | Reply
        • Antony:

          We will see if somebody from their staff comes here.

          It is a probability as one of them were on the precedent thread… (& did listen the community regarding the 10 MB/s thing)

          September 19, 2011 @ 9:58 pm | Reply
        • You can easily find it by using the looking glass at:


          Surprisingly, Most traffic prefers HE or Cogent as they are better peered.

          September 21, 2011 @ 8:27 pm | Reply
        • Neighbor V AS MsgRcvd MsgSent TblVer InQ OutQ Up/Down State/PfxRcd
 4 57048 171848 3596172 57341535 0 0 6w5d 10192
 4 52288 76947 75328 57341535 0 0 1d20h 1
 4 34023 201684 10392481 57341535 0 0 20w0d 1
 4 3257 10062038 144478 57341535 0 0 5w6d 365895
 4 174 16905721 201718 57341535 0 0 7w1d 207659
 4 6939 5949989 75175 57341535 0 0 7w1d 367893

          Third line from the bottom – AS3257

          September 21, 2011 @ 8:33 pm | Reply
  15. tort:

    Today they busy offline, I just a few VPS all timing offline.

    September 21, 2011 @ 9:30 am | Reply
  16. I can not pay the order :(

    September 21, 2011 @ 2:20 pm | Reply
  17. David:

    I ordered about 10 hours ago, and still awaiting approval. It would be much better if it was an automatic setup.

    September 21, 2011 @ 10:14 pm | Reply
  18. Spirit:

    @James Prado – IPv6 yes or not yet? :)

    September 21, 2011 @ 10:31 pm | Reply
  19. Jean-Pierre:

    @James: for how long will last the 25% off coupon?

    Thanks :)

    September 24, 2011 @ 7:22 am | Reply
  20. john:

    ordered, no answer for 6 hours now, I wonder anybody got provision, and how long it took.

    September 25, 2011 @ 1:08 am | Reply
  21. us3r:

    me too… ordered yesterday, and to this day I do not have the server

    September 25, 2011 @ 6:52 pm | Reply
  22. Gary:

    You ordered one on a Sunday and it’s still not provisioned! Oh noes!

    Their site says 1-12 hours setup, so if they’re based in South America it’ll be what, 08:30 right now. Don’t be so impatient, one of the reasons companies like this can keep costs down is by not employing so many staff. A few people on this thread have ordered VMs and got them, so hopefully you’ll have yours soon.

    September 26, 2011 @ 1:30 pm | Reply
    • Spirit:

      If I remember correct, they provision vpses only in working days, not weekends. Saturday, Sunday… it doesn’t matter, you will wait till Monday! Oh, noez… it is Monday already!! :P

      September 26, 2011 @ 1:56 pm | Reply
  23. Dan:
    September 26, 2011 @ 8:09 pm | Reply
  24. john:

    I’ve got refund. Get refund….

    September 26, 2011 @ 9:20 pm | Reply
    • Spirit:

      Why? Did you request it?

      September 26, 2011 @ 9:50 pm | Reply
  25. us3r:

    why network is 1.16M/s maximum ?
    1 tb transfer on 10 Mb/s ? -.-‘

    September 27, 2011 @ 5:27 pm | Reply
    • tort:

      They limit broadband

      September 27, 2011 @ 5:32 pm | Reply
  26. Spirit:

    They got new SolusVM platform but results was way better on old virtuozzo platform where I was on my request moved from.

    Network speed on my virtuozzo was around 3.56 MB/s on solusVM is around 1.15 MB/s, IO limit on my virtuozzo was around 75.9 MB/s on solusVM around 30 MB/s.
    Still usable but difference is significant.

    September 28, 2011 @ 10:06 am | Reply
    • Francisco:

      From your previous post:

      2011-09-19 17:55:52
      104,857,600 13.2M/s in 28s
      2011-09-19 17:56:22 (3.56 MB/s) – `/dev/null’ saved

      Interesting this 13.2 vs 3.56 thing.

      September 28, 2011 @ 10:32 am | Reply
      • Spirit:

        I have no clue what this would be but I can’t try it again as I am not on virtuozzo vps platform anymore. This is solusVM result now:

        wget -O /dev/null http://cachefly.cachefly.net/100mb.test
        --2011-09-28 17:15:44--  http://cachefly.cachefly.net/100mb.test
        Resolving cachefly.cachefly.net...
        Connecting to cachefly.cachefly.net||:80... connected.
        HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK
        Length: 104857600 (100M) [application/octet-stream]
        Saving to: `/dev/null'
        100%[===============================>] 104,857,600 1.15M/s   in 89s
        2011-09-28 17:17:13 (1.12 MB/s) - `/dev/null' saved [104857600/104857600]
        root@S04001011702BO:~# 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, 31.7952 s, 33.8 MB/s
        September 28, 2011 @ 1:19 pm | Reply
      • 13.2 is the speed it was downloading at when the file completed download. 3.56 is the average download speed throughout the download.

        September 28, 2011 @ 3:35 pm | Reply
        • Francisco:

          Of course, the interesting thing is the huge difference in the bit rates suggesting lots of packet loss during the download.

          September 28, 2011 @ 3:51 pm | Reply
        • Gary:

          I wouldn’t say it was necessarily due to packet loss. In my experience, most speed tests get faster towards the end of the test.

          It could be due to caching at the source, load at the source, congestion in between, or any of a dozen things.

          September 28, 2011 @ 4:12 pm | Reply
        • Francisco:


          “It could be due to caching at the source, load at the source, congestion in between, or any of a dozen things.”

          Any of a dozen things cause packet loss when trying to increase/keep the TCP window size so usually the bit rate decreases to adjust to a smaller window and start again to increase the window (and bit rate) while there is no packet loss and so on.

          September 28, 2011 @ 4:23 pm | Reply
        • Gary:

          Yeah, but to narrow it down to a network problem just from a wget result seems crazy.

          September 28, 2011 @ 4:42 pm | Reply
        • Francisco:


          Packet loss is not caused only by “network problems”. When the sender doesn’t receive an expected acknowledgment from the receiver TCP assumes there is a congestion somewhere and executes for a while a strategy to mitigate the issue, e.g. reducing the TCP window by half causing bit rate decrease (window size / RTT ).

          September 28, 2011 @ 5:04 pm | Reply
        • Gary:

          Still network related though, and surely not receiving the ack is cased by a network problem?

          September 28, 2011 @ 5:07 pm | Reply
  27. Francisco:


    I guess you are thinking packet loss as something occurring only due issues with circuits and network equipments, excluding the sender and receiver servers issues which cause packet loss too.

    September 28, 2011 @ 5:41 pm | Reply
  28. Bob:

    @James : any plan to offer Xen of KVM VPS in a close future?

    October 7, 2011 @ 6:53 pm | Reply
  29. Dennis:

    Ouch, privatelayer.ch down, chvps.xom down, everything down – another dead horse, pretty sad :-(

    October 14, 2011 @ 12:18 am | Reply
    • Bob:


      Everything is up and running for me, and so does my VPS with them :)

      October 14, 2011 @ 8:53 pm | Reply
  30. Dennis:

    Well, it is up again now, their website that is.

    But my VPS is still down.

    Support-Tickets on “Emergency” are not answered for Hours. (so far for 24h Support, yeah right..)

    If you ask questions, you can be sure, you won’t get answers. (at least that’s my experience, not only in one occasion)

    It’s one of the worst experiences with a VPS provider I ever had. And I use a lot. Their claims of being in business forever and everything is not worth a single penny.

    From my perspective, their technical knowledge is far from being sufficient to run a stable service (or they just like to ignore customers, either way it’s not okay).

    Anyways, another bad apple in a fruit-basket (VPS-Provider basket lol) of questionable quality.

    October 14, 2011 @ 10:55 pm | Reply
    • Bob:

      Well, I had no problem with them, VPS pretty stable, reinstall done in a few hours after that I sumbmited the ticket, tun/tap added few minutes after I submited the ticket…

      Sure, not technically perfect (no ssl for signup, no automated reinstall..) but quite good for the price imho

      October 15, 2011 @ 8:38 am | Reply
  31. I’ve had a sponsored VPS with them for almost 3 months now and I have to say, this company is very professional.. May I also say that this VPS site is ran by PrivateLayer, which is a datacenter company in Switzerland, so this host owns it’s own datacenter which is pretty amazing. My VPS doesn’t have unexpected downtime and the support is just great. I wrote to them earlier that they should make a Solus Server and about 30 days later they emailed me telling that they just installed some more server racks and they have SolusVM nodes available, they moved my VPS to that node within 24 hours, no data was lost. Great host!!!

    October 26, 2011 @ 9:59 pm | Reply
  32. tort:

    Now many VPS down?

    October 28, 2011 @ 4:33 am | Reply
  33. Bob:

    Problem with bandwidth… it’s pretty slow :/

    November 6, 2011 @ 11:35 pm | Reply
    • Spirit:

      Aren’t they always slow? :)

      November 6, 2011 @ 11:38 pm | Reply
  34. florin:

    a lot of downtime lately, not long, 3-5 minutes per incident, now it has been down 30 minutes (my VPS).

    November 12, 2011 @ 1:27 pm | Reply
    • What Node are you on?

      November 13, 2011 @ 2:58 pm | Reply
      • florin:

        Node is: 04001011808

        The VPS eventually came up after some time, I did not check back but after some hours, but recently there has been some connectivity issues, because I was checking traceroutes from different places and the network was not accessible (maybe DDOS, I do not know), anyway, they seem to have went away.

        They are OK with speed, etc, and the boxes are stable, as the box did not reboot but was offline from the Internet.

        November 14, 2011 @ 8:52 pm | Reply
  35. tort:

    My VPS were they deleted.

    November 15, 2011 @ 3:09 am | Reply
  36. Mate:

    I have a Cirrus 1 VPS by CHVPS, and I am very pleased.

    I have a “real” server in Hungary (University Network), so I have 100Mbit/s in Hungary. With my hungarian server is the download:

    server2009:~# wget chvps.holcam.hu/100m.bin
    --2012-01-05 17:43:26--  http://chvps.holcam.hu/100m.bin
    Resolving chvps.holcam.hu...
    Connecting to chvps.holcam.hu||:80... connected.
    HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK
    Length: 104857600 (100M) [application/octet-stream]
    Saving to: `100m.bin.1'
    100%[======================================>] 104,857,600 5.08M/s   in 14s
    2012-01-05 17:43:39 (7.26 MB/s) - `100m.bin.1' saved [104857600/104857600]

    And my CHVPS’s download speed from Hungary (so I have just 100Mbit/s upload in Hungary):

    TTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK
    Length: 104857600 (100M) [application/octet-stream]
    Saving to: `100m.bin'
    100%[======================================>] 104,857,600 11.2M/s   in 9.1s
    2012-01-05 19:31:43 (10.9 MB/s) - `100m.bin' saved [104857600/104857600]

    Wget with linode servers (http://www.linode.com/speedtest/):

    S04001011820MATE:~# wget http://london1.linode.com/100MB-london.bin
    --2012-01-05 19:33:42--  http://london1.linode.com/100MB-london.bin
    Resolving london1.linode.com...
    Connecting to london1.linode.com||:80... connected.
    HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK
    Length: 104857600 (100M) [application/octet-stream]
    Saving to: `100MB-london.bin'
    100%[======================================>] 104,857,600 32.0M/s   in 3.1s
    2012-01-05 19:33:46 (32.0 MB/s) - `100MB-london.bin' saved [104857600/104857600]
    S04001011820MATE:~# wget http://dallas1.linode.com/100MB-dallas.bin
    --2012-01-05 19:34:24--  http://dallas1.linode.com/100MB-dallas.bin
    Resolving dallas1.linode.com...
    Connecting to dallas1.linode.com||:80... connected.
    HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK
    Length: 104857600 (100M) [application/octet-stream]
    Saving to: `100MB-dallas.bin'
    100%[======================================>] 104,857,600  389K/s   in 91s
    2012-01-05 19:35:55 (1.10 MB/s) - `100MB-dallas.bin' saved [104857600/104857600]

    My result: the speed and the ping are in Europe very-very good.
    The speed is between US and Europe slower (10Mbit/s) but accordingly I need a server in Europe.

    You can test the download speed and the ping too.

    VPS was in 5 hours activated. I don’t have any rebuild information in SolusVM so you can ask for rebuild your VPS.

    January 5, 2012 @ 4:42 pm | Reply
  37. safefaek:

    They have offline for several hours.

    January 12, 2012 @ 11:28 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 *