LowEndBox - Cheap VPS, Hosting and Dedicated Server Deals

eNS Cloud – $6.95 256MB VMWare VPS in San Jose Exclusive Offer

Tags: , , , Date/Time: October 4, 2010 @ 11:02 pm, by LowEndAdmin
Updated December 2011 — Both eNetSouth.com and eNSCloud.com stopped resolving since 11 November 2011. It has been confirmed that Brandon has done a runner.

eNS Cloud It took them a while, but Brandon from eNetSouth Cloud emailed me that their racks in San Jose California is finally live. Here is a special offer for the LowEndBox readers — $6.95/month for following VMWare ESX-based VPS.

  • 256MB memory
  • 20GB storage
  • 2500GB/month data transfer
  • VMWare vSphere

Use this link to order the above product. Co-lo in San Jose is quite a bit more expensive than Chicago thus it is more expensive than their previous exclusive offer in Chicago. Servers are with 8×8/CentralHost with Level3, Global Crossing and Cogent bandwidth and good connectivity to Asia. Test IP: 98.158.22.163.

Brandon also showed me a sample VPS he has got. It was a different spec CentOS 5 build with access to one single Xeon X3430 core and pretty decent IO performance. I suspect it would be similar with the one above.

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.

34 Comments

  1. jackskin:

    My machine from their last offer at Chicago DC has had reliable up time. The server is very responsive.
    I had trouble with their old CP, but the new vSpere works well for controlling my instance.

    October 5, 2010 @ 12:01 am | Reply
  2. fallred:

    Just ordered one, still waiting IP provision. Seems there’s nothing about west coast VPS service in their website. I’ve never tried VMware-based VPS, hope they are good.

    October 5, 2010 @ 1:23 am | Reply
  3. Good to hear from Brandon on this offer. Would like to know how many host per cluster? Does eNetSouth Cloud use vCenter with HA/DRS for both Chicago and San Jose? Thank you.

    October 5, 2010 @ 1:29 am | Reply
  4. flyah:

    from Manila, Philippines.

    macbuko:~ test$ ping 98.158.22.163
    PING 98.158.22.163 (98.158.22.163): 56 data bytes
    Request timeout for icmp_seq 0
    64 bytes from 98.158.22.163: icmp_seq=1 ttl=54 time=180.545 ms
    64 bytes from 98.158.22.163: icmp_seq=2 ttl=54 time=181.216 ms
    64 bytes from 98.158.22.163: icmp_seq=3 ttl=54 time=180.585 ms
    64 bytes from 98.158.22.163: icmp_seq=4 ttl=54 time=181.086 ms
    Request timeout for icmp_seq 5
    64 bytes from 98.158.22.163: icmp_seq=6 ttl=54 time=180.277 ms
    64 bytes from 98.158.22.163: icmp_seq=7 ttl=54 time=182.555 ms
    Request timeout for icmp_seq 8
    Request timeout for icmp_seq 9
    Request timeout for icmp_seq 10
    64 bytes from 98.158.22.163: icmp_seq=11 ttl=54 time=181.487 ms
    Request timeout for icmp_seq 12
    64 bytes from 98.158.22.163: icmp_seq=13 ttl=54 time=181.729 ms
    64 bytes from 98.158.22.163: icmp_seq=14 ttl=54 time=180.901 ms
    ^C
    --- 98.158.22.163 ping statistics ---
    16 packets transmitted, 9 packets received, 43.8% packet loss
    round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 180.277/181.153/182.555/0.662 ms
    
    October 5, 2010 @ 1:52 am | Reply
  5. Also from the Philippines (north of Manila), I haven’t noticed packet loss so far.

    Pinging 98.158.22.163 with 32 bytes of data:
    Reply from 98.158.22.163: bytes=32 time=186ms TTL=51
    Reply from 98.158.22.163: bytes=32 time=186ms TTL=51
    Reply from 98.158.22.163: bytes=32 time=186ms TTL=51
    Reply from 98.158.22.163: bytes=32 time=186ms TTL=51
    Reply from 98.158.22.163: bytes=32 time=186ms TTL=51
    Reply from 98.158.22.163: bytes=32 time=186ms TTL=51
    Reply from 98.158.22.163: bytes=32 time=183ms TTL=51
    Reply from 98.158.22.163: bytes=32 time=184ms TTL=51
    Reply from 98.158.22.163: bytes=32 time=183ms TTL=51
    Reply from 98.158.22.163: bytes=32 time=185ms TTL=51
    Reply from 98.158.22.163: bytes=32 time=185ms TTL=51
    Reply from 98.158.22.163: bytes=32 time=186ms TTL=51
    Reply from 98.158.22.163: bytes=32 time=185ms TTL=51
    Reply from 98.158.22.163: bytes=32 time=185ms TTL=51
    Reply from 98.158.22.163: bytes=32 time=187ms TTL=51
    
    Ping statistics for 98.158.22.163:
        Packets: Sent = 15, Received = 15, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
    Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
        Minimum = 183ms, Maximum = 187ms, Average = 185ms
    

    It’s getting routed through Cogent.

     4    27 ms    16 ms    15 ms  58.71.0.96
     5   193 ms   194 ms   194 ms  ix-10-1-0-0.tcore1.LVW-LosAngeles.as6453.net [216.6.84.25]
     6   195 ms   194 ms   194 ms  ix-2-2.tcore2.LVW-LosAngeles.as6453.net [66.110.59.2]
     7   195 ms   194 ms   197 ms  Vlan28.icore1.EQL-LosAngeles.as6453.net [216.6.84.54]
     8   172 ms   173 ms   172 ms  te7-1.ccr02.lax05.atlas.cogentco.com [154.54.12.37]
     9   172 ms   172 ms   173 ms  te0-1-0-1.ccr21.lax01.atlas.cogentco.com [154.54.3.9]
    10   266 ms   186 ms   186 ms  te9-3.ccr02.sjc01.atlas.cogentco.com [154.54.25.186]
    11   187 ms   186 ms   186 ms  te4-1.ccr01.sjc07.atlas.cogentco.com [154.54.26.150]
    12   187 ms   186 ms   186 ms  centralhost-10-gbit-ethernet.demarc.cogentco.com [38.104.134.18]
    13   188 ms   186 ms   185 ms  98.158.22.163
    
    October 5, 2010 @ 2:15 am | Reply
  6. @Everyone — Provisions are incoming. I just finished the first round.

    @Jackskin — Thank you! We appreciate your business as much you appreciate being online.. (Just a little insight Jackskin was one of my first customers from the very first time LEB picked up one of my offers from WHT. I must admit he gave me a run for my money for the first two weeks and I think one night he wanted to fly out the monitor and fight me but I finally won him over. :) :) )

    @fallred — Let me know what you think. You should be ready to roll.

    @Wing Loon — Nice to hear from you as well. Number of hosts of course is a minimum of two. As customer demand grows so will pair density. Yes, both clusters at each DC is managed by vCenter.

    @Flyah — I would tend to believe that loss might be coming from the service provider where that machine is located. I don’t have a way to test from Asia but I have been monitoring since last Friday from our testbox in Chicago @ ColoCrossing and I have yet to miss a packet. Not even 1 in almost 4 days.

    @David — Thats more like it. Do you want to change locations tomorrow?

    Thanks
    Brandon

    October 5, 2010 @ 3:44 am | Reply
  7. Adri:

    Is payment by PayPal still subscription type, or one time checkout this time? so I don’t have to link it to credit card.

    October 5, 2010 @ 4:09 am | Reply
  8. It is still with PayPal subscription. I wish there was a way around it or either I need to get a canned off the shelf software that invoices PayPal automatically but right now it is either PayPal or a card through our merchant account.

    October 5, 2010 @ 4:14 am | Reply
  9. @Brandon, a move to the San Jose server would be great, whenever you’ve got time. No rush since the VPS in Chicago is working great, too.

    October 5, 2010 @ 4:34 am | Reply
  10. @David — Just letting you know its here for you when you want it. Anytime is ok with me.

    And I have always been impressed with our servers out of Chicago. ColoCrossing is a super great group of people .. They are adding even more connectivity on Friday AM so looks like it will continue to get even better.

    October 5, 2010 @ 6:35 am | Reply
  11. @Everyone:

    Second round of provisions just went out about 5 minutes ago. Now back to work. :)

    October 5, 2010 @ 6:37 am | Reply
  12. fallred:

    San Jose DC unix benchmark results, BEST score for single cpu I have ever seen, even higher than most multi-cpu lowendboxes.
    Keep it up, Brandon :)

       #    #  #    #  #  #    #          #####   ######  #    #   ####   #    #
       #    #  ##   #  #   #  #           #    #  #       ##   #  #    #  #    #
       #    #  # #  #  #    ##            #####   #####   # #  #  #       ######
       #    #  #  # #  #    ##            #    #  #       #  # #  #       #    #
       #    #  #   ##  #   #  #           #    #  #       #   ##  #    #  #    #
        ####   #    #  #  #    #          #####   ######  #    #   ####   #    #
    
       Version 5.1.2                      Based on the Byte Magazine Unix Benchmark
    
       Multi-CPU version                  Version 5 revisions by Ian Smith,
                                          Sunnyvale, CA, USA
       December 22, 2007                  johantheghost at yahoo period com
    
    
    1 x Dhrystone 2 using register variables  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
    
    1 x Double-Precision Whetstone  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
    
    1 x Execl Throughput  1 2 3
    
    1 x File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks  1 2 3
    
    1 x File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks  1 2 3
    
    1 x File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks  1 2 3
    
    1 x Pipe Throughput  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
    
    1 x Pipe-based Context Switching  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
    
    1 x Process Creation  1 2 3
    
    1 x System Call Overhead  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
    
    1 x Shell Scripts (1 concurrent)  1 2 3
    
    1 x Shell Scripts (8 concurrent)  1 2 3
    
    ========================================================================
       BYTE UNIX Benchmarks (Version 5.1.2)
    
       System: localhost: GNU/Linux
       OS: GNU/Linux -- 2.6.18-194.el5 -- #1 SMP Fri Apr 2 14:58:35 EDT 2010
       Machine: i686 (i386)
       Language: en_US.utf8 (charmap="UTF-8", collate="UTF-8")
       CPU 0: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU X3430 @ 2.40GHz (4800.0 bogomips)
              x86-64, MMX, Physical Address Ext
       15:21:30 up  2:20,  2 users,  load average: 0.01, 1.03, 1.57; runlevel 3
    
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Benchmark Run: Mon Oct 04 2010 15:21:30 - 15:49:23
    1 CPU in system; running 1 parallel copy of tests
    
    Dhrystone 2 using register variables       11171892.3 lps   (10.0 s, 7 samples)
    Double-Precision Whetstone                     2294.4 MWIPS (10.2 s, 7 samples)
    Execl Throughput                               4319.1 lps   (29.9 s, 2 samples)
    File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks        495550.3 KBps  (30.0 s, 2 samples)
    File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks          136527.4 KBps  (30.0 s, 2 samples)
    File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks       1406562.0 KBps  (30.0 s, 2 samples)
    Pipe Throughput                              778941.8 lps   (10.0 s, 7 samples)
    Pipe-based Context Switching                 265800.3 lps   (10.0 s, 7 samples)
    Process Creation                              20617.7 lps   (30.0 s, 2 samples)
    Shell Scripts (1 concurrent)                   6248.1 lpm   (60.0 s, 2 samples)
    Shell Scripts (8 concurrent)                    866.7 lpm   (60.0 s, 2 samples)
    System Call Overhead                         833178.0 lps   (10.0 s, 7 samples)
    
    System Benchmarks Index Values               BASELINE       RESULT    INDEX
    Dhrystone 2 using register variables         116700.0   11171892.3    957.3
    Double-Precision Whetstone                       55.0       2294.4    417.2
    Execl Throughput                                 43.0       4319.1   1004.5
    File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks          3960.0     495550.3   1251.4
    File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks            1655.0     136527.4    824.9
    File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks          5800.0    1406562.0   2425.1
    Pipe Throughput                               12440.0     778941.8    626.2
    Pipe-based Context Switching                   4000.0     265800.3    664.5
    Process Creation                                126.0      20617.7   1636.3
    Shell Scripts (1 concurrent)                     42.4       6248.1   1473.6
    Shell Scripts (8 concurrent)                      6.0        866.7   1444.6
    System Call Overhead                          15000.0     833178.0    555.5
                                                                       ========
    System Benchmarks Index Score                                         982.4
    
    October 5, 2010 @ 6:44 am | Reply
  13. @Brandon, tomorrow is good.

    October 5, 2010 @ 7:04 am | Reply
  14. @fallred – Thank you for posting your performance results.

    @David – You got it!

    October 5, 2010 @ 7:14 am | Reply
  15. Jamie:

    Sent you an email and haven’t heard back. :(

    October 5, 2010 @ 7:19 am | Reply
  16. flyah:

    Brandon, do you allow shoutcast?

    October 5, 2010 @ 7:23 am | Reply
  17. I replied.

    I thought.

    It helps when I hit send. The reply was still open on the taskbar. Too many windows open.

    October 5, 2010 @ 7:26 am | Reply
  18. @Flyah: Sure, as long as it is legal you are free to use your server as intended. Just make sure you stay in your BW limits.

    October 5, 2010 @ 7:27 am | Reply
  19. Jamie:

    I’ve done that many times before Brandon. You’re forgiven. :)

    October 5, 2010 @ 7:32 am | Reply
  20. @Jamie — Thank you.

    October 5, 2010 @ 7:35 am | Reply
  21. moo:

    Is it a real traffic flatrate? So is it only limited by the physical interface provided?

    October 5, 2010 @ 10:53 am | Reply
  22. flyah:

    was planning to use it as a relay server. btw, is it on 10mbps or 100mbps?

    October 5, 2010 @ 1:21 pm | Reply
  23. @Moo – Correct. These particular plans are not capped except by what your port speed is on the instance.

    @flyah – 100Mbps.

    October 5, 2010 @ 2:48 pm | Reply
  24. 3rd month using enscloud VPS.
    Uptime is very good. They always send email about their planned downtime.

    I hope they keep their quality

    October 5, 2010 @ 2:55 pm | Reply
  25. innya:

    I have been using it since I got the great earlier offer from enscloud. I am also doing radio blogging. Enscloud is pretty good. I have been moving my files to from 2host to Enscloud.

    October 5, 2010 @ 4:29 pm | Reply
  26. Greg:

    I just signed up for this with the idea that I will upgrade to a 512 or 768 in the near future depending on the first month. I am also going to be moving away from 2host since their uptime and network quality has been on a downward trajectory for the last 2-3 months.

    October 5, 2010 @ 7:42 pm | Reply
  27. Jamie:

    Got the details, and the server seems to be flying along.

    [root@ens ~]# dd if=/dev/zero of=test bs=64k count=16k; sync
    16384+0 records in
    16384+0 records out
    1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB) copied, 6.85898 seconds, 157 MB/s

    Support is fast and friendly. Hopefully it stays something similar to this. :)

    October 5, 2010 @ 11:38 pm | Reply
  28. @bekanosky, innya, Greg, Jamie: Thank you for the comments/reviews.

    We will be here and everything will stay the same. If it is not then please me know or contact support@enscloud.com. I can also be reached personally by emailing brandonc@enetsouth.com.

    #1 is keeping the customer happy and #2 is not ticking off the LowEndBox community :) .. I would say that more than 75% of my business has originated from here and I’m very grateful. So thank you all and we will keep making improvements and growing into the future.

    Brandon

    October 6, 2010 @ 7:10 am | Reply
  29. Arthur:

    Stupid question, how do you apply when you already have an account?

    And how much are the upgrades like ram and hdd?

    October 12, 2010 @ 7:03 pm | Reply
  30. @Arthur: If a upgrade to ram/hdd is needed you can do go up to the next plan size. We can also mix and match something custom for a customer if they need it. Just have to open a ticket and let us know what you want.

    Brandon

    October 13, 2010 @ 4:46 am | Reply
  31. Is TUN/TAP enabled by default on VMVare VPS? Else do they enable on request?

    cheers
    JP

    October 27, 2010 @ 5:29 am | Reply
  32. eNSCLOUD is response slowly indeed…
    I ordered a LEB special 3month package,
    and 22 hour has gone, havn’t receive the notice email,
    and the support ticket is not answering…
    :(

    January 13, 2011 @ 1:39 pm | Reply
  33. You do see in the email that is sent to everyone that provisioning can take up to 24 hours correct? If you do not agree to the terms then why wait and then complain publicly? I am refunding your PayPal and removing your account. I can already see where this is going. Thank you.

    January 13, 2011 @ 1:52 pm | Reply
  34. As stated above I have refunded your PayPal. I’m sorry this did not work out for you but I refuse to do business with a customer who will not allow me to service them in a timely matter. It will be your task to cancel your subscription with PayPal. Good luck with your project in the future.

    January 13, 2011 @ 2:23 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 *