LowEndBox - Cheap VPS, Hosting and Dedicated Server Deals

Enotch Networks – $5.95 512MB OpenVZ VPS

Tags: , , Date/Time: January 12, 2010 @ 1:29 am, by LowEndAdmin

eNotch Networks Via this offer from WHT. Enotch Networks, part of NY based Enotch Technologies, has now introduced a few cheap OpenVZ based virtual servers. Starting from $5.95/month you get

  • 512MB guaranteed/1024MB burstable memory
  • 20GB storage
  • 2000GB/month data transfer
  • OpenVZ

Servers are in New York. Very cheap (Cogent) traffic. The cheapest plan is actually not listed on their plan page, but once you head down to the cart you’ll see it there.

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.

36 Comments

  1. This is a really good offer, I’m looking for a 512 MB VPS to run tomcat lately. Are Enotch Networks any good? They reliable?
    Nodes oversold?

    January 12, 2010 @ 9:16 am | Reply
  2. Uncle Bob:

    Does they have only monthly prepaid? I didnt find more

    January 12, 2010 @ 1:23 pm | Reply
  3. Philip:

    It says “Get our Hades plan with 512 Dedicated Ram burstable to 1GB for 5.95 – First Month Only. Use coupon code ‘Take5Off’.” — So, I assume this is one month only.

    January 14, 2010 @ 6:29 pm | Reply
  4. anonymous:

    The price is tempting, but the attitude of their customer service rep and their level of tech knowledge seem a bit scary…
    http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?t=887375

    January 15, 2010 @ 2:06 pm | Reply
  5. Trying this service out and it seems to be a good deal. However one day after setting things up, it rebooted on me… my other VPS on Slicehost has been up for 614 days. Also the admin page for the VPS is really slow sometimes.

    A great pipe for people on the East Coast, though.

    January 17, 2010 @ 4:08 am | Reply
  6. Re: The WHT thread. I’m not going to read through all 21 pages but with comments like “I’ve lost $500 in 24 hours!” it really sounds like the “clients” (and I have to wonder if many of them were actually clients) are the ones who don’t have a clue. On page 10 of that thread, the tech explains what the procedure is and they were updating on twitter as they went.

    And who the heck makes $500 a day on a website but doesn’t keep a backup?

    LEB, how about an article on making backups with a low end VPS without a control panel?

    January 17, 2010 @ 2:54 pm | Reply
  7. Yeah, I would second drmike.

    Seems like they had a serious meltdown, which equals pissed off customers. After a shaky start a few days ago (slow account admin site, early server reboot, choppy terminal connection) everything seems to be coming together. For the price, I really can’t complain, getting 512/1024 burstable for $6 a month. Plus, as I mentioned before, you can’t beat the speed if you’re on the East Coast.

    January 18, 2010 @ 3:59 am | Reply
  8. Of course they may have had their backup servers on publicly accessible IP addresses. I know I did when I first started out.

    And I have to admit that I reboot my servers once a month. *shrug* Personal preference and rules of the datacenter. Should be checking for kernel updates anyway.

    I’m glad it’s working out for you, Colin.

    January 18, 2010 @ 9:05 pm | Reply
  9. Uncle Bob:

    they have added annually pay – $50,95
    less then bust.net – $59,5 for similar plan

    January 25, 2010 @ 9:15 pm | Reply
  10. The performance of Burst.net is pretty poor. It seems that Enotch is much faster.

    January 25, 2010 @ 9:31 pm | Reply
  11. Personally I’ll take the ‘reviews’ (or most of the time, ‘whinges’) on WHT with a grain of salt. If you are looking out for a NY based VPS it’s certainly at a very good price. After the boxvps incident though I am very hesitant to prepay for an entire year unless it has out standing reviews.

    January 26, 2010 @ 4:29 am | Reply
  12. I have already made one month payment to give Enotch a try.

    January 26, 2010 @ 9:00 am | Reply
  13. Uncle Bob:

    gomobi, have you more comments about Enotch?

    January 29, 2010 @ 6:23 am | Reply
  14. I am a little bit disappointed about the UnixBench score of Enotch (around 40 for Hades VPS).
    But it’s not a big surprise for this kind low price VPS.

    January 29, 2010 @ 8:46 am | Reply
  15. scotty:

    gomobi can you post the bench? ive ordered one, only going to be using it for backups & a vpn so not that concerned but would still be nice to see where the bottlenecks are

    January 30, 2010 @ 2:22 am | Reply
  16. scotty:

    Actually, I got my box so… my results [hades]

    BYTE UNIX Benchmarks (Version 4.1-wht.2)
    System -- Linux *.*.* 2.6.18-128.2.1.el5.028stab064.8 #1 SMP Fri Nov 6 12:26:59 MSK 2009 i686 GNU/Linux
    /dev/simfs            20480000   1534564  18945436   8% /
    
    Start Benchmark Run: Sat Jan 30 08:28:26 MSK 2010
     08:28:26 up  1:14,  1 user,  load average: 0.07, 0.02, 0.13
    
    End Benchmark Run: Sat Jan 30 08:44:36 MSK 2010
     08:44:36 up  1:30,  1 user,  load average: 16.74, 6.45, 3.06
    
    
                         INDEX VALUES            
    TEST                                        BASELINE     RESULT      INDEX
    
    Dhrystone 2 using register variables        376783.7 14876615.5      394.8
    Double-Precision Whetstone                      83.1     1004.9      120.9
    Execl Throughput                               188.3     5288.9      280.9
    File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks         2672.0   130055.0      486.7
    File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks           1077.0    50262.0      466.7
    File Read 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks        15382.0   999172.0      649.6
    Pipe-based Context Switching                 15448.6   329769.3      213.5
    Pipe Throughput                             111814.6  2182333.6      195.2
    Process Creation                               569.3    14766.9      259.4
    Shell Scripts (8 concurrent)                    44.8     1311.6      292.8
    System Call Overhead                        114433.5  1797335.3      157.1
                                                                     =========
         FINAL SCORE                                                     284.4
    

    Not too shabby, especially at that price.

    January 30, 2010 @ 5:56 am | Reply
  17. Strange… I don’t understand why my score is much much lower than yours.

    BYTE UNIX Benchmarks (Version 4.1-wht.2)
    System -- Linux server.zebrababe.com 2.6.18-128.2.1.el5.028stab064.8 #1 SMP Fri Nov 6 12:26:59 MSK 2009 i686 GNU/Linux
    /dev/simfs            20480000    554200  19925800   3% /
    
    Start Benchmark Run: Sat Jan 30 11:17:00 MSK 2010
     11:17:00 up 1 day, 11:36,  1 user,  load average: 0.27, 0.06, 0.02
    
    End Benchmark Run: Sat Jan 30 11:37:40 MSK 2010
     11:37:40 up 1 day, 11:57,  1 user,  load average: 16.71, 6.68, 3.27
    
    
                         INDEX VALUES
    TEST                                        BASELINE     RESULT      INDEX
    
    Dhrystone 2 using register variables        376783.7  2395081.8       63.6
    Double-Precision Whetstone                      83.1      481.9       58.0
    Execl Throughput                               188.3      712.4       37.8
    File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks         2672.0    54692.0      204.7
    File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks           1077.0    13181.0      122.4
    File Read 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks        15382.0   264968.0      172.3
    Pipe Throughput                             111814.6   433504.3       38.8
    Pipe-based Context Switching                 15448.6    73475.7       47.6
    Process Creation                               569.3     1662.2       29.2
    Shell Scripts (8 concurrent)                    44.8      174.9       39.0
    System Call Overhead                        114433.5   357032.4       31.2
                                                                     =========
         FINAL SCORE                                                      60.5
    
    January 30, 2010 @ 8:48 am | Reply
  18. If I had a UnixBench score as Scotty, I would be very happy to stay with Enotch. But now I prefer Virpus with 1$/m higher price for a double score

    BYTE UNIX Benchmarks (Version 4.1-wht.2)
    System -- Linux vsxvps 2.6.18-128.2.1.el5.028stab064.7 #1 SMP Wed Aug 26 15:47:1                                                                             7 MSD 2009 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
    /dev/simfs            26214400   4450524  21763876  17% /
    
    Start Benchmark Run: Sat Jan 30 12:01:28 MSK 2010
     12:01:28 up 1 day, 12:51,  1 user,  load average: 0.05, 0.01, 0.00
    
    End Benchmark Run: Sat Jan 30 12:13:44 MSK 2010
     12:13:44 up 1 day, 13:03,  1 user,  load average: 15.56, 6.28, 2.81
    
    
                         INDEX VALUES
    TEST                                        BASELINE     RESULT      INDEX
    
    Dhrystone 2 using register variables        376783.7  5214621.9      138.4
    Double-Precision Whetstone                      83.1     1007.0      121.2
    Execl Throughput                               188.3     2681.1      142.4
    File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks         2672.0    62963.0      235.6
    File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks           1077.0    22432.0      208.3
    File Read 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks        15382.0   476827.0      310.0
    Pipe-based Context Switching                 15448.6   192459.3      124.6
    Pipe Throughput                             111814.6   695744.3       62.2
    Process Creation                               569.3     6703.9      117.8
    Shell Scripts (8 concurrent)                    44.8      392.9       87.7
    System Call Overhead                        114433.5  1031036.1       90.1
                                                                     =========
         FINAL SCORE                                                     134.6
    
    January 30, 2010 @ 9:24 am | Reply
  19. scotty:

    Strange indeed; some variation sure, that much…

    Not overly impressed with the ticket support, opened one 8 hours ago to get tun enabled, response in 3 tun not actually enabled and no further response from support.

    Can’t control the vps via the cp either, it’s teh borked (was working).

    January 30, 2010 @ 11:42 am | Reply
  20. Z:

    Unfortunately, this is only for the first month, it’s 10.95 monthly after that….

    January 30, 2010 @ 12:46 pm | Reply
  21. scotty:

    Z – actually it’s not, read the wht thread; price is going up 1st of March though (to 10.95).

    January 30, 2010 @ 12:53 pm | Reply
  22. Z:

    Yeah just saw it, guess their cart wasn’t clear enough.

    January 30, 2010 @ 2:41 pm | Reply
  23. In fact, I also submitted support ticket to enable TUN and the my problem was solved in a few hours.
    Maybe it was slower for Scotty because of weekend

    January 30, 2010 @ 7:36 pm | Reply
  24. scotty:

    Well in all honesty it was enabled I just wasn’t advised I’d have to create the device myself; every other vps I have has done this for me, I just assumed (oops!) wrongly that I COULDN’T create it; I’m new to this openvz thing (xen background).

    Could have been more clearly communicated, possibly just bad timing. Anyway, network speeds rock, box itself feels quite snappy, only other disappointment was lack of a debian 5 minimal template but I can live with a bit of housekeeping.

    January 31, 2010 @ 2:37 am | Reply
  25. Uncle Bob:

    My Enotch-[hades]

    BYTE UNIX Benchmarks (Version 4.1-wht.2)
    System -- Linux 2.6.18-128.2.1.el5.028stab064.8 #1 SMP Fri Nov 6 12:26:59 MSK 2009 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
    /dev/simfs            20480000    606228  19873772   3% /
    
    Start Benchmark Run: Tue Feb  2 11:06:18 
     11:06:18 up  7:36,  2 users,  load average: 0.72, 0.55, 0.25
    
    End Benchmark Run: Tue Feb  2 11:41:49
     11:41:49 up  8:11,  1 user,  load average: 17.88, 6.23, 3.20
    
    
                         INDEX VALUES            
    TEST                                        BASELINE     RESULT      INDEX
    
    Dhrystone 2 using register variables        376783.7 15616633.7      414.5
    Double-Precision Whetstone                      83.1     1266.4      152.4
    Execl Throughput                               188.3     4343.2      230.7
    File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks         2672.0   190246.0      712.0
    File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks           1077.0    65488.0      608.1
    File Read 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks        15382.0  1112855.0      723.5
    Pipe-based Context Switching                 15448.6   243444.8      157.6
    Pipe Throughput                             111814.6  2461296.6      220.1
    Process Creation                               569.3    12340.4      216.8
    Shell Scripts (8 concurrent)                    44.8      784.7      175.2
    System Call Overhead                        114433.5  2052008.7      179.3
                                                                     =========
         FINAL SCORE                                                     286.7
    
    February 2, 2010 @ 8:48 am | Reply
  26. It seems I had a bad luck to get much lower UnixBench score than Scotty and Bob.
    Maybe there is someone using too much resources on the server that host my VPS.
    As the burstable RAM I can use decreases from 1GB to 600M now…

    February 2, 2010 @ 11:48 am | Reply
  27. Uncle Bob:

    Just for fun.
    I run UnixBench 4.1 on notebook with Intel Celeron 2.16 GHz, 1GB mem, SATA 2.5″ disk
    Got 150
    ( GNOME was runnning, I guess it’s not typical for web server :-) )

    February 5, 2010 @ 6:54 pm | Reply
  28. Rasmus badstue:

    Hmm.. is it just me or are they extremely slow most of the time ?

    When I do a yum update (in centos) its goes into “sleep” mode.. its soooooooooo slow. Weird.

    But their support is somehow fast and friendly (if you get Matt that is.. )

    February 7, 2010 @ 11:36 pm | Reply
  29. scotty:

    Gomobi – I had the same issue with the burst, raise a ticket; I didn’t get an explanation but they did fix it.

    February 8, 2010 @ 8:00 am | Reply
  30. badstue:

    And they suffer from really bad disk performance / low priority.. But I knew there would be a catch with that pricetag :)

    February 14, 2010 @ 7:53 pm | Reply
  31. david:

    plan on cancelling mines. I just notice my ram went to 512mb so there’s no burst again.

    February 15, 2010 @ 4:48 am | Reply
  32. innya:

    david did you open the support ticket with them?
    I did open the support ticket and they reset the memory limit for me.

    February 17, 2010 @ 4:56 pm | Reply
  33. i’m very happy to use Enotch VPS. Hope in future they give us good service.

    June 23, 2010 @ 2:25 pm | Reply
  34. jim:

    hello

    orderd the hades vps 2 days ago payed it instantly

    but still Pending….

    i wonder whats wrong

    July 30, 2010 @ 8:28 pm | Reply
  35. Omio:

    Hi, there.

    Just see this post before buy from Enotch : http://www.lowendbox.com/blog/enotch-networks-4-47-512mb-openvz-vps/#comment-6910

    Because you should first know the truth, then buy the service from them.

    August 1, 2010 @ 9:52 pm | Reply
  36. I can not recommend Enotch to anyone.

    The quality of the VPS is total crap compared to Slicehost, Linode and yisp.nl. Adding support tickets is cumbersome (root password required? a CAPTCHA?), support is slow in replying.

    February 28, 2011 @ 1:44 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 *