LowEndBox - Cheap VPS, Hosting and Dedicated Server Deals

DediSRV – £2.50 128MB Xen VPS in UK

Tags: , , Date/Time: June 14, 2011 @ 1:57 am, by LowEndAdmin
Update November 2011: DediSRV.eu has been showing 403 Forbidden since 2 October 2011. Looks like Jake has done a runner. FAIL!

DediSRV Yes I am going to whine again about my flooded inbox with provider sending in their listing request. Some of them aren’t even low end (“Please consider adding us. Our plans start at $19.95.” ARGHH!). Some of them are not VPS hosting related (sorry Igor. Your service might be cool and thanks for the discount, but I’ll probably put it at the end of another post rather than it’s own post). Some just kept on emailing me the same message trying to get the very same offer re-listed again. Some people are persisting, aren’t they?!

DediSRV emailed me 6 times in less than 3 weeks, trying to get exactly the same deal as last time listed. Same thing. £2.50/month (only slightly different converting to USD at $4.09 today). Same ordering link. Same spec:

  • 128MB memory
  • 5GB storage
  • 150GB/month data transfer
  • Xen/Virtualizor

Same data centre in Wolverhampton, UK (test IP: 89.255.133.66). Same blokes running the show there (Matt and Jake). PayPal is the only payment option and they are not registered for VAT.

DediSRV was started in April 2010. NS run on shared hosting with adjacent IP addresses. Maybe they’ll get a better response this time.

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.

28 Comments

  1. Zach Nelson:

    I went ahead and made a purchase. I’ll post back with some benchmarks and information.

    June 14, 2011 @ 2:56 am | Reply
    • Zach Nelson:
      [root@server ~]# free -m
                   total       used       free     shared    buffers     cached
      Mem:           128         64         63          0          3         26
      -/+ buffers/cache:         34         93
      Swap:            3          0          3
      
      June 14, 2011 @ 3:00 am | Reply
  2. Zach Nelson:
    [root@server ~]# cat /proc/cpuinfo
    processor	: 0
    vendor_id	: GenuineIntel
    cpu family	: 6
    model		: 15
    model name	: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU            3040  @ 1.86GHz
    stepping	: 2
    cpu MHz		: 1866.732
    cache size	: 2048 KB
    physical id	: 0
    siblings	: 1
    core id		: 0
    cpu cores	: 1
    fpu		: yes
    fpu_exception	: yes
    cpuid level	: 10
    wp		: yes
    flags		: fpu tsc msr pae cx8 apic cmov pat clflush acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss ht syscall nx lm constant_tsc pni vmx est ssse3 cx16 lahf_lm
    bogomips	: 4669.11
    clflush size	: 64
    cache_alignment	: 64
    address sizes	: 36 bits physical, 48 bits virtual
    power management:
    
    processor	: 1
    vendor_id	: GenuineIntel
    cpu family	: 6
    model		: 15
    model name	: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU            3040  @ 1.86GHz
    stepping	: 2
    cpu MHz		: 1866.732
    cache size	: 2048 KB
    physical id	: 1
    siblings	: 1
    core id		: 0
    cpu cores	: 1
    fpu		: yes
    fpu_exception	: yes
    cpuid level	: 10
    wp		: yes
    flags		: fpu tsc msr pae cx8 apic cmov pat clflush acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss ht syscall nx lm constant_tsc pni vmx est ssse3 cx16 lahf_lm
    bogomips	: 4669.11
    clflush size	: 64
    cache_alignment	: 64
    address sizes	: 36 bits physical, 48 bits virtual
    power management:
    
    June 14, 2011 @ 3:02 am | Reply
    • Zach Nelson:
      [root@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, 54.5387 seconds, 19.7 MB/s
      [root@server ~]# wget http://cachefly.cachefly.net/100mb.test
      --2011-06-13 23:06:54--  http://cachefly.cachefly.net/100mb.test
      Resolving cachefly.cachefly.net... 205.234.175.175
      Connecting to cachefly.cachefly.net|205.234.175.175|:80... connected.
      HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK
      Length: 104857600 (100M) [application/octet-stream]
      Saving to: `100mb.test'
      
      15% [====>                                  ] 16,060,576  1.10M/s  eta 78s
      Solid 1.10MB/sec, no fluctuating.
      
      
      [root@server ~]# ping lowendbox.com PING lowendbox.com (173.192.35.70) 56(84) bytes of data. 64 bytes from quickweb.lowendbox.com (173.192.35.70): icmp_seq=1 ttl=51 time=116 ms 64 bytes from quickweb.lowendbox.com (173.192.35.70): icmp_seq=2 ttl=51 time=120 ms 64 bytes from quickweb.lowendbox.com (173.192.35.70): icmp_seq=3 ttl=51 time=119 ms 64 bytes from quickweb.lowendbox.com (173.192.35.70): icmp_seq=4 ttl=51 time=116 ms --- lowendbox.com ping statistics --- 4 packets transmitted, 4 received, 0% packet loss, time 3002ms rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 116.049/118.228/120.238/1.794 ms
      [root@server ~]# traceroute google.com
      traceroute to google.com (74.125.39.104), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets
       1  core-wolv.veloxserv.net (213.190.161.33)  0.914 ms  1.146 ms  1.386 ms
       2  gi2.wolv-cb.core.veloxserv.net (213.190.160.101)  0.948 ms  3.225 ms  3.380 ms
       3  gi4-43.wolv.core.enta.net (195.74.104.41)  1.080 ms  1.153 ms  1.285 ms
       4  gi2-1.wolv-te.core.enta.net (87.127.236.146)  1.421 ms  1.560 ms  1.698 ms
       5  te4-4.stoke.core.enta.net (87.127.236.190)  2.055 ms  2.191 ms  2.326 ms
       6  te4-3.man.core.enta.net (87.127.236.193)  3.629 ms  2.649 ms  3.637 ms
       7  te5-1.telehouse-north0.core.enta.net (87.127.236.109)  9.260 ms  9.352 ms  9.396 ms
       8  72.14.198.46 (72.14.198.46)  9.441 ms  9.484 ms  9.517 ms
       9  209.85.252.76 (209.85.252.76)  9.735 ms 209.85.255.175 (209.85.255.175)  9.832 ms  9.891 ms
      10  209.85.248.80 (209.85.248.80)  17.108 ms  17.248 ms 72.14.233.63 (72.14.233.63)  16.698 ms
      11  209.85.250.141 (209.85.250.141)  24.054 ms 209.85.248.183 (209.85.248.183)  25.217 ms  23.784 ms
      12  209.85.254.116 (209.85.254.116)  22.679 ms 209.85.254.114 (209.85.254.114)  23.012 ms  22.898 ms
      13  209.85.249.166 (209.85.249.166)  23.185 ms  23.857 ms 209.85.249.162 (209.85.249.162)  33.758 ms
      14  fx-in-f104.1e100.net (74.125.39.104)  23.279 ms  23.176 ms  23.049 ms
      June 14, 2011 @ 3:08 am | Reply
  3. LEA, you need to do up a crap list of providers who don’t have a clue. Like Pirate Bay does for all those who don’t understand the copyright law. That way we can all point at them and laugh. :)

    Either that or figure out some way of offloading your workload.

    June 14, 2011 @ 11:30 am | Reply
  4. Adam:

    @Zach Thanks for exposing the bad I/O and network speed :)

    June 14, 2011 @ 11:37 am | Reply
  5. Dekken:

    LEA should just request an account on the VPS before posting it.
    And making some automated system that will run all the benchmarks, and if they meet the requirements, good to go.

    June 14, 2011 @ 12:44 pm | Reply
    • Then they would give him an VPS on an empty box to make us believe the specs were better.

      June 14, 2011 @ 1:21 pm | Reply
      • He’s said a couple of times now many providers offer him a free VPS but he doesn’t take them.

        And making some automated system that will run all the benchmarks

        We’ve talked about a set standard of specs a couple of times now over at LET but we couldn’t get an agreement on what folks liked. For example some people wanted how much space is available while others, including myself, didn’t see that as important. I’m on battery so I can;t go digging for the link. Maybe someone else can.

        June 14, 2011 @ 3:32 pm | Reply
      • It would probably give inaccurate results anyway.
        Stick LEA account on a brand new node while he tests and approves, then assign all new signups to that box. Before you know it you are getting nowhere near the test results (especially disk IO)

        June 14, 2011 @ 3:36 pm | Reply
        • apcyberax:

          Write a script that checks downlaod speed. disk IO and other info and sends it to a database soemwhere here. Then offer the script to run as a cron to anyone that want to run it. Run the test every 24 hours and all LEB users can be the testers :)

          June 18, 2011 @ 3:33 pm | Reply
    • So when you get a $1 offer, you expect to get a good solid 100mbps and 160mbps IO?

      June 14, 2011 @ 1:23 pm | Reply
      • Dekken:

        Nope, but I also don’t expect to get 20I/O and 1mbps speeds =\

        June 14, 2011 @ 3:57 pm | Reply
        • fanovpn:

          1.1MB/s is nearly the full capacity of a 10mbps port, and don’t forget there’s extra overhead that’s not being counted by wget. 1MB/s = 8mbps.

          But anyway, this is a $4 offer, not a $1 offer :)

          June 14, 2011 @ 4:10 pm | Reply
  6. Jordan:

    Anyone else notice they’re using the same logo icon from the ‘cluster solutions’ theme on ThemeForest? http://themeforest.net/item/cluster-solutions/135062

    June 14, 2011 @ 1:48 pm | Reply
    • LOL, didn’t noticed that … good catch!

      June 14, 2011 @ 2:14 pm | Reply
    • By the way, most LEBs (with the exception of few) are using templates and its common so I dont think its that much of a deal

      June 14, 2011 @ 2:17 pm | Reply
      • Jordan:

        I don’t have a problem with hosts using templates. But when you can’t even develop your own brand and identity, such that you have to use the template’s default logo, then it’s a bit lame.

        June 14, 2011 @ 2:22 pm | Reply
      • like me? gedit+gimp. :p but yeah, nice catch jordan, i didn’t notice that.

        June 14, 2011 @ 3:05 pm | Reply
  7. Jake:

    Hi,

    We use the old theme before we had a new site designed. The new site didn’t come with a logo so we used that default logo, If you guys feel that’s bad then fair enough we can remove it and have something put in place.

    As for any other feedback please drop a ticket we do listen and try improve our service. I haven’t had much feedback from current customers so i wasn’t aware of the issues you guys seem to have with the site and areas of our nodes.

    We are upgrading our services slowly as for the port speed i’ll have to show our provider and see if they can comment on this as i wasn’t aware this was as low as shown. Thank you zach for taking your time to benchmark our product and give some feedback atleast it’s something we can work on resolving.

    June 14, 2011 @ 4:40 pm | Reply
  8. Zach Nelson:

    Although the internal disk i/o was poor, it is important to note that I tested the download from a US server. Speeds may be higher in the UK.

    June 14, 2011 @ 4:42 pm | Reply
  9. Jake:

    Hi guys,

    We’ve changed the logo just so those who brought it up are a little bit happier. Thanks for bringing it to our attention.

    Anymore stuff please submit a ticket

    June 14, 2011 @ 5:02 pm | Reply
  10. Jake:

    Hi,

    The network port has been addressed. We’ve tested this below:

    [root@IRC ~]# wget http://download.thinkbroadband.com/100MB.zip
    --2011-06-14 13:42:47--  http://download.thinkbroadband.com/100MB.zip
    Resolving download.thinkbroadband.com... 80.249.99.148
    Connecting to download.thinkbroadband.com|80.249.99.148|:80... connected.
    HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK
    Length: 104857600 (100M) [application/zip]
    Saving to: `100MB.zip'
    
    100%[=======================================>] 104,857,600 9.48M/s   in 15s
    
    2011-06-14 13:43:10 (6.59 MB/s) - `100MB.zip' saved [104857600/104857600]
    
    June 14, 2011 @ 5:45 pm | Reply
  11. Spirit:

    Fixed IP – 1
    Available IPs – 2

    Can you explain this more clearer, please?

    a) one by default, second free of charge on request
    b) one by default, second (and nothing more than that) can be ordered with additional payment

    (just curiosity)

    June 14, 2011 @ 7:49 pm | Reply
    • Jake:

      Hi Spirit,

      A) second one is free as long as you have a good reason (RIPE guidelines) so you know second for eg. SSL

      Thanks.

      June 14, 2011 @ 8:01 pm | Reply
  12. Biggles:

    Just a side point, but in the UK you don’t need to be VAT registered unless your turnover is greater than £73,000 a year. My accountant always told me “avoid it as long as you can, the VAT man always wins”.

    So I don’t particularly hold that against them.

    June 21, 2011 @ 11:44 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 *