LowEndBox - Cheap VPS, Hosting and Dedicated Server Deals

ErrantWeb – $5.50/month 512MB OpenVZ VPS in Detroit

ErrantWebErrantWeb has a 512mb OpenVZ “LEB Users Special” hosted in Metro-Detroit for $5.50/month. You can also grab a similar, slightly less resourced “LowEndBox Special” off LET for $4.50/month. ErrantWeb is a completely new provider, domain registered in January 2012. However Aldryic from BuyVM notes that he is happy with the services so far provided by ErrantWeb.

  • 512MB of Ram
  • 256MB of vSwap
  • 25GB Raid-10 Storage
  • 75GB Bandwidth
  • 1 CPU Core
  • 1 IPv4 Address
  • OpenVZ/SolusVM
  • Direct Signup Link

ErrantWeb is hosted in Michigan-Colocation operated by Waveform Technology. ErrantWeb makes “sure that your tickets gets a response within 24 hours.” Being a new, small operation this is understandable. Keep cautious on signup, being a new company we suggest only paying month to month until ErrantWeb has developed a solid history.


  1. Hey guys,

    I really appreciate the post. All of the orders will be setup within the next 24 hours. We don’t currently offer any plans except for monthly because we would like to build a reputation with the community first.

    A IP you can ping:


    February 8, 2012 @ 6:25 pm | Reply
  2. 75GB Bandwidth,more bandwith i think that will be better.

    February 9, 2012 @ 1:54 am | Reply
    • We would but we don’t like to oversell bandwidth. Most people buy way to much bandwidth for their LEBs anyway. :)


      February 9, 2012 @ 1:59 am | Reply
  3. Derek:

    Not that I really consider or like newer hosts, but here are some results from testing.

    Disk I/O

    [root@derekharget ~]# 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, 8.79311 s, 122 MB/s

    CPU Information

    processor	: 0
    vendor_id	: GenuineIntel
    cpu family	: 6
    model		: 15
    model name	: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU            5130  @ 2.00GHz
    stepping	: 6
    cpu MHz		: 1994.713
    cache size	: 4096 KB
    physical id	: 0
    siblings	: 2
    core id		: 0
    cpu cores	: 2
    apicid		: 0
    initial apicid	: 0
    fpu		: yes
    fpu_exception	: yes
    cpuid level	: 10
    wp		: yes
    flags		: fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36 clflush dts acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss ht tm pbe syscall nx lm constant_tsc arch_perfmon pebs bts rep_good aperfmperf pni dtes64 monitor ds_cpl vmx tm2 ssse3 cx16 xtpr pdcm dca lahf_lm tpr_shadow
    bogomips	: 3989.42
    clflush size	: 64
    cache_alignment	: 64
    address sizes	: 36 bits physical, 48 bits virtual
    power management:

    wget speed test result:

    2012-02-09 06:12:36 (1.31 MB/s) - “100mb.test” saved [104857600/104857600]

    Speed seems capped at 10mbps

    So good so far, fast and decent latency.

    February 9, 2012 @ 3:11 am | Reply
  4. Mr. DOS:

    Stunningly good latency (from a VPS in Chicago):

    $ ping -c 16 redacted
    PING harriet.seenet.ca (redacted) 56(84) bytes of data.
    64 bytes from redacted: icmp_req=1 ttl=51 time=11.7 ms
    64 bytes from redacted: icmp_req=2 ttl=51 time=9.57 ms
    64 bytes from redacted: icmp_req=3 ttl=51 time=9.62 ms
    64 bytes from redacted: icmp_req=4 ttl=51 time=9.43 ms
    64 bytes from redacted: icmp_req=5 ttl=51 time=9.73 ms
    64 bytes from redacted: icmp_req=6 ttl=51 time=9.93 ms
    64 bytes from redacted: icmp_req=7 ttl=51 time=9.66 ms
    64 bytes from redacted: icmp_req=8 ttl=51 time=9.79 ms
    64 bytes from redacted: icmp_req=9 ttl=51 time=9.50 ms
    64 bytes from redacted: icmp_req=10 ttl=51 time=9.46 ms
    64 bytes from redacted: icmp_req=11 ttl=51 time=9.93 ms
    64 bytes from redacted: icmp_req=12 ttl=51 time=9.57 ms
    64 bytes from redacted: icmp_req=13 ttl=51 time=9.75 ms
    64 bytes from redacted: icmp_req=14 ttl=51 time=9.75 ms
    64 bytes from redacted: icmp_req=15 ttl=51 time=9.53 ms
    64 bytes from redacted: icmp_req=16 ttl=51 time=9.53 ms
    --- redacted ping statistics ---
    16 packets transmitted, 16 received, 0% packet loss, time 14999ms
    rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 9.437/9.784/11.742/0.543 ms

    This versus Google:

    $ ping -c 4 google.com
    PING google.com ( 56(84) bytes of data.
    64 bytes from dfw06s07-in-f20.1e100.net ( icmp_req=1 ttl=55 time=34.3 ms
    64 bytes from dfw06s07-in-f20.1e100.net ( icmp_req=2 ttl=55 time=34.0 ms
    64 bytes from dfw06s07-in-f20.1e100.net ( icmp_req=3 ttl=55 time=34.2 ms
    64 bytes from dfw06s07-in-f20.1e100.net ( icmp_req=4 ttl=55 time=34.2 ms
    --- google.com ping statistics ---
    4 packets transmitted, 4 received, 0% packet loss, time 3000ms
    rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 34.072/34.225/34.354/0.165 ms

    The bandwidth may not be very wide, but it’s fast.

    February 9, 2012 @ 4:12 pm | Reply
    • We can upgrade your network speed usually free of charge, it is to prevent abuse from new sign-ups mainly. Thanks for that post, I really think it is great we can get fast pings from Chicago like that.

      February 9, 2012 @ 10:39 pm | Reply
  5. Derek:
    PING blah.blah (ip) 56(84) bytes of data.
    64 bytes from ip: icmp_req=1 ttl=50 time=25.7 ms
    64 bytes from ip: icmp_req=2 ttl=50 time=27.8 ms
    64 bytes from ip: icmp_req=3 ttl=50 time=24.9 ms
    64 bytes from ip: icmp_req=4 ttl=50 time=42.8 ms
    64 bytes from ip: icmp_req=5 ttl=50 time=18.8 ms
    64 bytes from ip: icmp_req=6 ttl=50 time=29.7 ms
    64 bytes from ip: icmp_req=7 ttl=50 time=436 ms
    64 bytes from ip: icmp_req=8 ttl=50 time=26.9 ms
    64 bytes from ip: icmp_req=9 ttl=50 time=18.6 ms
    64 bytes from ip: icmp_req=10 ttl=50 time=18.1 ms
    ^C64 bytes from ip: icmp_req=11 ttl=50 time=57.9 ms
    --- blah.blah.blah ping statistics ---
    11 packets transmitted, 11 received, 0% packet loss, time 51437ms
    rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 18.112/66.166/436.091/117.519 ms

    This is from my house. The next best thing was a local DC that I had 13ms too. But it’s Tier 4 and way to expensive.

    February 10, 2012 @ 2:43 am | Reply
  6. Aramis:

    Signed up with ErrantWeb a few days ago and I have to say: I’m really impressed with the staff’s commitment to customer service.

    This is my first VPS (thanks to Errant’s incredibly affordable packages) and Travis went out of his way to help me set everything up – even after I broke it a few times. And this is with an unmanaged VPS.

    Not only that, but as the previous posts say above, the hardware performs exceptionally well.

    Given the price factor, there’s really no reason not to try ErrantWeb, whether you’re considering a new webhost or looking to expand.

    The only real downside you might notice is that being a new host, they don’t have 24/7 support or much of a user knowledge base setup yet. That could sway those who haven’t ever used a VPS before. However, given the support you get when they’re available (even Sunday mornings with my experience), it’s hard to do better. They literally setup my VPS to my preferred specs for me at no extra cost.

    All things considered, if you’re skeptical about them being new, keep your current host and try them out for a month.
    As there’s no contract, you really have nothing to lose if you find for some reason you’re not completely happy with them.

    Ultimately though, if your experience is anything like mine, you’ll find yourself sitting happily with a nice new webhost that provides phenomenal customer service, and end up saving a little money in the process.

    February 12, 2012 @ 8:51 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 *