LowEndBox - Cheap VPS, Hosting and Dedicated Server Deals

ClubUptime – $3.98 512MB OpenVZ VPS

Tags: , , Date/Time: December 4, 2010 @ 10:44 am, by LowEndAdmin
Updated August 2011 — ClubUptime is officially in the dead pool. IP has not been resolving since 3 August. Please see discussion thread at LowEndTalk.

ClubUptime Via this WHT offer. ClubUptime is currently running a 50% off life-time discount when you order their VPS products using coupon code 50offlife. Their Budget VPS Level 1 is then just $3.98/month with the following spec:

  • 512MB guaranteed/1024MB burstable memory
  • 10GB storage
  • 100GB/month data transfer
  • OpenVZ/CloudPanel

Order the package here. The test VPS IP given in the WHT discussion topic is hosted with SoftLayer in Dallas TX (1.20ms ping from LowEndBox :) IP block is assigned to “HostTDS” which redirects to ClubUptime, and HostTDS was ran by the same owner (Matt) since 2005. Therefore although the domain for ClubUptime has only been around for a bit more than a year, it does have 5+ years experience from the owner. It’s just the latest incarnation focusing on VPS hosting, according to Matt’s blog post here. It also employs its own include control panel “CloudPanel“, which is pretty cool.

They also offer “Five Nines uptime guarantee on all products and services”, according to the their VPS page. However in their ToS, “Uptime Guarantee” is only 2 nine’s.

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.

44 Comments

  1. Ah, I saw this on WHT and it caught my attention as the owner was/is doing lighting effects for shows. Anyway from the messages posted on WHT he seems knowledgeable.

    December 4, 2010 @ 11:00 am | Reply
  2. Hope they stay for a long time? :)

    December 4, 2010 @ 11:07 am | Reply
  3. Daniel:

    Diskspace is a little low compared to the RAM offered.

    December 4, 2010 @ 11:19 am | Reply
    • I think the RAM is high compared to the disk space offered. ;)

      December 5, 2010 @ 9:41 pm | Reply
  4. dhiet:

    The bandwith is very small mate :(

    December 4, 2010 @ 11:38 am | Reply
  5. rm:

    Looks unbalanced, 512 MB plans typically come with 500-1000 GB of tranfer.
    I wonder if they’re in a datacenter with crappy b/w pricing.

    December 4, 2010 @ 1:36 pm | Reply
    • Yes I think providers tend you cripple you one way or the other :) Like 5TB data on a 128MB VPS for example…

      A SoftLayer box shouldn’t be too limited on monthly data transfer. My tiny VPS from QuickWeb/SoftLayer for example, sits on top of a 100TB.com server. I would think ClubUptme uses one of those as well.

      December 4, 2010 @ 1:45 pm | Reply
      • Daniel:

        So Wait

        Lets say at max they put 100VPSs on a node, even then they would be major over selling. So altogether their maximum bandwidth usage from clients (if hosting 100VPSs per node on a high ram server) would be 10TB, so they have another 90TB spare, not really a great plan.

        December 4, 2010 @ 4:23 pm | Reply
        • We actually don’t use 100tb.com — We have an account direct with Softlayer. We prefer not to oversell as much as possible. In my experience, most users look for the high-bandwidth offerings but never utilize more than a few GB of data. However, the users that do want to use the high-bandwidth offerings tend to ruin the experience for others on the server by attempting to cap out the network connections (Even at gigabit speeds).

          We prefer to offer more realistic plans for our clients. It helps avoid fraud, keeps load down, and keeps everyone happier overall.

          Now to comment on our bandwidth — We’re in the process of starting a competitor brand to a previously named company that is a Softlayer reseller. As such, we have access to high quantities of bandwidth at a highly discounted rate, and that companies name is Rackhero. We’re passing the deals on to our clients — but we still prefer not to offer extraordinarily high quantities of bandwidth :)

          As the poster noted, our Terms of Service had a typo in it. We recently released our current plans with updated guarantees and we simply forgot to update our Terms of Service from what it was last year. It’s been updated to note the 100% Network uptime guarantee and 99.999% Server guarantee.

          Feel free to contact me with any questions you might have — matt@clubuptime.com.

          Thanks!

          December 4, 2010 @ 5:07 pm | Reply
        • Gary:

          Do a base plan, allow people to upgrade the BW usage if they want. Or they mix different plans on the same server. You can’t assume there are 100 identically specced VPSes on the same box.

          December 4, 2010 @ 9:15 pm | Reply
        • Daniel:

          So lets say their servers have 32GB RAM, and they put 100 1GB Servers on it each with 100GB Bandwidth

          I doubt they will get another 32GB RAM Server, and put 100 2GB Servers, each with 200GB of RAM.

          December 5, 2010 @ 8:39 am | Reply
      • bob:

        Matthew Rosenblatt: $00.25/gb USD or $100 per TB Bandwidth (can also be purchased in $25 increments)

        December 5, 2010 @ 4:28 am | Reply
  6. Yomero:

    Looking at their TOS…no proxy, no porn (LOL), and you must have your vps updated? o_O
    This rules are new for me :P

    December 4, 2010 @ 6:03 pm | Reply
    • Keep in mind — Most of those clauses are for our Shared Hosting clients. It’s your VPS — you can do what you want with it (Except for IRC, Eggdrops, botnets, anything illegal under US Law, etc…). Adult content is allowed on our VPS and Dedicated server networks – we just don’t allow it on our shared servers as it tends to attract DDoS attacks.

      December 4, 2010 @ 6:29 pm | Reply
    • What’s it supposed to mean when they say, “you must have your vps updated?”. What exactly is that all about?

      December 4, 2010 @ 6:41 pm | Reply
      • We request that everyone keeps their software up-to-date. Doing so helps prevent scripts such as WordPress and Joomla from being hacked and utilized to send unsolicited emails.

        It’s simply an extra layer of protection to help everyone on our network. Do we track it? Not actively. However, if we receive reports of spam, phishing, or anything else malicious, we are required to handle the situation accordingly. It’s best to keep everything up to date to avoid any potential conflicts :)

        December 5, 2010 @ 3:29 pm | Reply
  7. Just bought one with them, hopefully it will be good. Had some problems with fraud thingy but it got sorted.

    December 4, 2010 @ 7:50 pm | Reply
  8. Nic:

    But I believe chicagovps.net is best because of their best server performance. But no one tell about them anything, chicagovps.net owner is the admin of colocrossing and velocity-servers which are popular now a days.

    December 4, 2010 @ 9:07 pm | Reply
  9. brettco:

    I picked up one last night and so far it is great.
    The bonus is Matt has been very easy to deal with.
    I second the hope they are here for a long time

    December 5, 2010 @ 12:07 am | Reply
  10. John:

    I bought two vps, one in dallas and the other in Seattle.
    they are fast, and stable so far. A great bargain, 1G memory for $4.00?
    that’s unheard of…

    December 5, 2010 @ 3:15 am | Reply
  11. I picked up the $20 one with 4GB ram in Dallas and I am pleased with it so far.

    December 5, 2010 @ 6:05 am | Reply
    • Here’s some unixbench 5.1.2 results for the above mentioned VPS.

      ========================================================================
         BYTE UNIX Benchmarks (Version 5.1.2)
      
         System: server1: GNU/Linux
         OS: GNU/Linux -- 2.6.18-194.26.1.el5.028stab070.14 -- #1 SMP Thu Nov 18 16:34:01 MSK 2010
         Machine: x86_64 (unknown)
         Language: en_US.utf8 (charmap="UTF-8", collate="UTF-8")
         CPU 0: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU X3470 @ 2.93GHz (5866.9 bogomips)
                Hyper-Threading, x86-64, MMX, Physical Address Ext, SYSENTER/SYSEXIT, SYSCALL/SYSRET, Intel virtualization
         CPU 1: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU X3470 @ 2.93GHz (5866.6 bogomips)
                Hyper-Threading, x86-64, MMX, Physical Address Ext, SYSENTER/SYSEXIT, SYSCALL/SYSRET, Intel virtualization
         CPU 2: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU X3470 @ 2.93GHz (5866.6 bogomips)
                Hyper-Threading, x86-64, MMX, Physical Address Ext, SYSENTER/SYSEXIT, SYSCALL/SYSRET, Intel virtualization
         CPU 3: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU X3470 @ 2.93GHz (5866.7 bogomips)
                Hyper-Threading, x86-64, MMX, Physical Address Ext, SYSENTER/SYSEXIT, SYSCALL/SYSRET, Intel virtualization
         19:20:14 up 20:32,  2 users,  load average: 0.08, 0.83, 1.27; runlevel 2
      
      ------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Benchmark Run: Sun Dec 05 2010 19:20:14 - 19:48:07
      4 CPUs in system; running 1 parallel copy of tests
      
      Dhrystone 2 using register variables       22098639.6 lps   (10.0 s, 7 samples)
      Double-Precision Whetstone                     3592.9 MWIPS (7.1 s, 7 samples)
      Execl Throughput                               3666.7 lps   (29.7 s, 2 samples)
      File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks        597158.0 KBps  (30.0 s, 2 samples)
      File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks          168087.9 KBps  (30.0 s, 2 samples)
      File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks       1288367.4 KBps  (30.0 s, 2 samples)
      Pipe Throughput                             1157605.2 lps   (10.0 s, 7 samples)
      Pipe-based Context Switching                  11075.4 lps   (10.0 s, 7 samples)
      Process Creation                              11344.7 lps   (30.0 s, 2 samples)
      Shell Scripts (1 concurrent)                   5471.1 lpm   (60.0 s, 2 samples)
      Shell Scripts (8 concurrent)                   1931.9 lpm   (60.0 s, 2 samples)
      System Call Overhead                         956560.2 lps   (10.0 s, 7 samples)
      
      System Benchmarks Index Values               BASELINE       RESULT    INDEX
      Dhrystone 2 using register variables         116700.0   22098639.6   1893.6
      Double-Precision Whetstone                       55.0       3592.9    653.3
      Execl Throughput                                 43.0       3666.7    852.7
      File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks          3960.0     597158.0   1508.0
      File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks            1655.0     168087.9   1015.6
      File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks          5800.0    1288367.4   2221.3
      Pipe Throughput                               12440.0    1157605.2    930.6
      Pipe-based Context Switching                   4000.0      11075.4     27.7
      Process Creation                                126.0      11344.7    900.4
      Shell Scripts (1 concurrent)                     42.4       5471.1   1290.4
      Shell Scripts (8 concurrent)                      6.0       1931.9   3219.9
      System Call Overhead                          15000.0     956560.2    637.7
                                                                         ========
      System Benchmarks Index Score                                         881.7
      
      ------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Benchmark Run: Sun Dec 05 2010 19:48:07 - 20:16:18
      4 CPUs in system; running 4 parallel copies of tests
      
      Dhrystone 2 using register variables       65456754.2 lps   (10.0 s, 7 samples)
      Double-Precision Whetstone                    13662.7 MWIPS (9.8 s, 7 samples)
      Execl Throughput                              14226.1 lps   (30.0 s, 2 samples)
      File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks        617164.5 KBps  (30.0 s, 2 samples)
      File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks          161749.7 KBps  (30.0 s, 2 samples)
      File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks       1501626.3 KBps  (30.0 s, 2 samples)
      Pipe Throughput                             3834371.7 lps   (10.0 s, 7 samples)
      Pipe-based Context Switching                1138427.0 lps   (10.0 s, 7 samples)
      Process Creation                              42423.2 lps   (30.0 s, 2 samples)
      Shell Scripts (1 concurrent)                  22063.7 lpm   (60.0 s, 2 samples)
      Shell Scripts (8 concurrent)                   3016.2 lpm   (60.0 s, 2 samples)
      System Call Overhead                        3655304.5 lps   (10.0 s, 7 samples)
      
      System Benchmarks Index Values               BASELINE       RESULT    INDEX
      Dhrystone 2 using register variables         116700.0   65456754.2   5609.0
      Double-Precision Whetstone                       55.0      13662.7   2484.1
      Execl Throughput                                 43.0      14226.1   3308.4
      File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks          3960.0     617164.5   1558.5
      File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks            1655.0     161749.7    977.3
      File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks          5800.0    1501626.3   2589.0
      Pipe Throughput                               12440.0    3834371.7   3082.3
      Pipe-based Context Switching                   4000.0    1138427.0   2846.1
      Process Creation                                126.0      42423.2   3366.9
      Shell Scripts (1 concurrent)                     42.4      22063.7   5203.7
      Shell Scripts (8 concurrent)                      6.0       3016.2   5027.0
      System Call Overhead                          15000.0    3655304.5   2436.9
                                                                         ========
      System Benchmarks Index Score                                        2892.0
      

      I understand this isn’t technically a “low end” box, but I think it’s clear that ClubUptime offers a lot of bang for the buck.

      December 5, 2010 @ 8:40 pm | Reply
      • LEB, could you edit my previous post to format it so it looks decent. I don’t think the ‘code’ tags I used worked out too well.

        December 5, 2010 @ 8:42 pm | Reply
  12. I would watch for payment. Their TOS says “All payment to Club Uptime are non-refundable” That means they do not offer a 7-14 day money back guarantee.

    December 5, 2010 @ 5:48 pm | Reply
    • If you feel that our services were unacceptable or for any reason we were unable to provide your expected service, we will gladly provide a refund on your current pay period.

      What we won’t refund are software license costs such as those for cPanel/Plesk/DirectAdmin/Fantastico once the license has been issued.

      December 5, 2010 @ 5:50 pm | Reply
  13. @Matthew Rosenblatt: would you allow same discount to be applied when I want to upgrade like few months down the road?

    December 5, 2010 @ 9:02 pm | Reply
    • We’ll be glad to allow the current coupon code (50offlife) to extend into upgrades in the future.

      December 6, 2010 @ 7:22 am | Reply
  14. @ Matt with that said.

    I ordered one after a few questions to Andy in live chat. I hope you give me more reliability then RethinkVPS which is currently down.

    December 5, 2010 @ 10:45 pm | Reply
  15. How long will this offer last?

    December 6, 2010 @ 1:18 am | Reply
    • We’ve extended it to 12/31/2010 OR 250 uses. Currently, at the time of writing, it’s been used 106 times since about Noon Friday, EST. We’ve already had to tack on four more servers because of this coupon code!

      December 6, 2010 @ 7:24 am | Reply
  16. Nate:

    I ordered this package and it was set up before I could even check my email. Everything seems to be great as of now.

    December 6, 2010 @ 5:50 pm | Reply
  17. Daniel:

    I ordered one, got the details. They don’t use CloudPanel, they use SolusVM. Turns out their cloudpanel is in private beta and is only for Xen VPSs.

    December 6, 2010 @ 6:51 pm | Reply
    • CloudPanel is only currently functioning with Xen based VPS’s in beta. Once RackHero.com is launched, we will be integrating ALL clients into CloudPanel, icluding those that are currently on the SolusVM platform.

      December 18, 2010 @ 6:30 pm | Reply
  18. Khai:

    Try the coupon code 50offlife,
    •The promotion code entered has expired

    Hmm… :( just miss the promotion , will they be back again?

    December 11, 2010 @ 4:13 pm | Reply
    • We won’t be offering another 50% off coupon… except for the last week of December. We might even offer a better sale then ;)

      However, after December 31st, you won’t see any sales greater than 30% off or so until this time next year most likely.

      December 18, 2010 @ 6:31 pm | Reply
      • circus:

        “except for the last week of December. We might even offer a better sale then ;)”

        …. for Xen? (wishful….) :D

        December 18, 2010 @ 7:47 pm | Reply
        • Amyt:

          COOL :)
          I am searching something, so that I can dump my current VPS provider.

          December 18, 2010 @ 7:57 pm | Reply
      • Amyt:

        Any update? I am waiting with my fingers crossed.

        December 21, 2010 @ 5:06 am | Reply
      • Miles:

        Looking forward to a coupon revival ;)

        December 31, 2010 @ 12:00 am | Reply
  19. They’re offering 25% off for life right now (25offwinter).
    The last week has just started so let’s keep our fingers crossed!

    December 27, 2010 @ 1:45 pm | Reply

Leave a Reply

Some notes on commenting on LowEndBox:

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

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