LowEndBox - Cheap VPS, Hosting and Dedicated Server Deals

fileMEDIA 256 MB KVM (3 Month Review)

Tags: , , , Date/Time: April 28, 2013 @ 10:03 am, by Liam

You can view more reviews at lowendreview.com

Here is a Low End Review for you…

fileMEDIA are a German based hosting provider who were founded in 2008. They operate as a ‘Einzelunternehmer’, which roughly translates as sole trader in English but they’re currently hosting around 5000 VPS. fileMEDIA have appeared once on LowEndBox with a KVM offer and have featured on LowEndTalk a few times.

As well as standard KVM plans,  fileMEDIA also offer SSD and storage servers. In addition to their Jena German location, they also provide services from Lenoir, NC and Frankfurt, Germany.

Disclaimer

I am in no way affiliated with fileMEDIA but I have been a customer of theirs since January 2013 (3 Months). This server was benchmarked and reviewed whilst it was in production. Therefore it should be noted that the below results are of a server currently being used.

Introduction

Back in early January, I published an offer for a €3.49 256MB KVM server in Jena, Germany. At the time, I was interested in finding new LowEndBox ‘hidden gem’ providers as I hadn’t purchased a new VPS in a while. Furthermore, I had not already got a server in Germany. Johannes, the owner, had presented himself well in our email correspondence and his offer looked interesting.

The plan I purchased had 256MB RAM, 15GB Raid 10 Diskspace, 1TB Bandwidth and was IPv6 enabled. As well as a 7 day money back guarantee, they were offering 50% of your first month, bringing the initial cost to €1.75 +vat. I thought I had nothing to lose, so I signed up there and then.

Support & Communication

My server was instantly set up by fileMEDIA. Everything was fine and thus I had no reason to contact support. When I initially signed up their site was only available in German, it’s nice to see they have added an English version. Unfortunately, not every page has been translated yet but it’s a start. Still you can use google translate if you cannot speak German to navigate their site. WHMCS and emails sent from them however are just in German.

After about a month of service with them, I received an email from them informing me about ‘network maintenance’. Some switches needed replacing. fileMEDIA provided me with ample notice but again the email was in German. I suppose most of their clients are German and they’re a German company so I cannot really complain about that. Plus, luckily I can speak high-school German, so does not affect me.  They could however do what EDIS does and send the email in both languages.

Hardware Information

According to their website at the time, their nodes were using a mix of E3 (1230v2, 1270 and 1270v2) and E5 (2620) CPUs, with 32GB and 96GB of RAM respectively and 12 to 24 hard drives in hardware RAID 10. Servers seemed to be owned by them – refreshing, as many German providers use Hetzner.

root@jena:~# cat /proc/cpuinfo
processor	: 0
vendor_id	: GenuineIntel
cpu family	: 6
model		: 13
model name	: QEMU Virtual CPU version (cpu64-rhel6)
stepping	: 3
cpu MHz		: 3392.292
cache size	: 4096 KB
fdiv_bug	: no
hlt_bug		: no
f00f_bug	: no
coma_bug	: no
fpu		: yes
fpu_exception	: yes
cpuid level	: 4
wp		: yes
flags		: fpu de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic mtrr pge mca cmov pse36 clflush mmx fxsr sse sse2 syscall nx lm up pni cx16 hypervisor lahf_lm
bogomips	: 6784.58
clflush size	: 64
cache_alignment	: 64
address sizes	: 36 bits physical, 48 bits virtual
power management:

Meminfo Results

root@jena:~# cat /proc/meminfo
MemTotal:         254836 kB
MemFree:           46200 kB
Buffers:          146412 kB
Cached:            42296 kB
SwapCached:            0 kB
Active:           171028 kB
Inactive:          23396 kB
Active(anon):       2212 kB
Inactive(anon):     3612 kB
Active(file):     168816 kB
Inactive(file):    19784 kB
Unevictable:           0 kB
Mlocked:               0 kB
HighTotal:             0 kB
HighFree:              0 kB
LowTotal:         254836 kB
LowFree:           46200 kB
SwapTotal:        499704 kB
SwapFree:         499704 kB
Dirty:                 4 kB
Writeback:             0 kB
AnonPages:          5736 kB
Mapped:             4404 kB
Shmem:               116 kB
Slab:              11296 kB
SReclaimable:       7820 kB
SUnreclaim:         3476 kB
KernelStack:         488 kB
PageTables:          348 kB
NFS_Unstable:          0 kB
Bounce:                0 kB
WritebackTmp:          0 kB
CommitLimit:      627120 kB
Committed_AS:      38800 kB
VmallocTotal:     765956 kB
VmallocUsed:        5924 kB
VmallocChunk:     750888 kB
HardwareCorrupted:     0 kB
HugePages_Total:       0
HugePages_Free:        0
HugePages_Rsvd:        0
HugePages_Surp:        0
Hugepagesize:       4096 kB
DirectMap4k:       12276 kB
DirectMap4M:      249856 kB

Inode Allocation:

root@jena:~# df -i
Filesystem            Inodes   IUsed   IFree IUse% Mounted on
/dev/mapper/jena-root
                      936560   25469  911091    3% /
tmpfs                  31854       5   31849    1% /lib/init/rw
udev                   30632     557   30075    2% /dev
tmpfs                  31854       1   31853    1% /dev/shm
/dev/sda1             124496     222  124274    1% /boot

vmstat:

root@jena:~# vmstat
procs -----------memory---------- ---swap-- -----io---- -system-- ----cpu----
 r  b   swpd   free   buff  cache   si   so    bi    bo   in   cs us sy id wa
 0  0      0  46124 146416  42376    0    0     0     0    1    4  0  0 100  0

The Network
Overall, the network performed well. At times I have noticed speeds to drop off the radar but this seems to be a seldom event. In these tests below, the network was tested three times and the medium result has been posted.

The Cachefly download speedtest result performed well on the shared Gigabit port.

root@jena:~# wget -O /dev/null http://cachefly.cachefly.net/100mb.test
--2013-03-28 13:55:03--  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: `/dev/null'

100%[========================================>] 104,857,600 24.4M/s   in 5.3s

I’ve ran a few download and upload tests from around the world, for a more accurate portrayal of the network.

Hosted by Vodafone UK (London)
Download: 74.44 Mbit/s
Upload: 17.60 Mbit/s

Hosted by Interserver, inc (Secaucus, NJ)
Download: 104.25 Mbit/s
Upload: 5.39 Mbit/s

Hosted by Vodafone DE (Frankfurt)
Download: 197.43 Mbit/s
Upload: 40.61 Mbit/s

Hosted by Vodafone NL (Utrecht)
Download: 98.64 Mbit/s
Upload: 30.60 Mbit/s

Ping to Google was nothing spectacular, but the server is located in a smaller city. Jena is likely being served by Google in Frankfurt which is over 250km away.

root@jena:~/speedtest-cli-master# ping -c 5 google.com
PING google.com (173.194.35.14) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from mil01s16-in-f14.1e100.net (173.194.35.14): icmp_req=1 ttl=60 time=32.7 ms
64 bytes from mil01s16-in-f14.1e100.net (173.194.35.14): icmp_req=2 ttl=60 time=32.7 ms
64 bytes from mil01s16-in-f14.1e100.net (173.194.35.14): icmp_req=3 ttl=60 time=32.9 ms
64 bytes from mil01s16-in-f14.1e100.net (173.194.35.14): icmp_req=4 ttl=60 time=32.7 ms
64 bytes from mil01s16-in-f14.1e100.net (173.194.35.14): icmp_req=5 ttl=60 time=32.9 ms

--- google.com ping statistics ---
5 packets transmitted, 5 received, 0% packet loss, time 4005ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 32.749/32.830/32.929/0.178 ms

Benchmark Tests
In these tests below, they were tested three times and the medium result has been posted. Firstly I ran a disk IO test.

root@jena:~# dd if=/dev/zero of=test bs=64k count=16k conv=fdatasync; rm test
16384+0 records in
16384+0 records out
1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB) copied, 7.32455 s, 147 MB/s

ioping is very slow and not very consistent. In one of the three tests I ran for the above test, I got a result of the 22MB/s. Either at the time an abuser was around or something is up with their storage solution.

root@jena:~/ioping/ioping# ./ioping -c 10 .
4096 bytes from . (ext3 /dev/mapper/jena-root): request=1 time=7.9 ms
4096 bytes from . (ext3 /dev/mapper/jena-root): request=2 time=8.2 ms
4096 bytes from . (ext3 /dev/mapper/jena-root): request=3 time=5.9 ms
4096 bytes from . (ext3 /dev/mapper/jena-root): request=4 time=8.1 ms
4096 bytes from . (ext3 /dev/mapper/jena-root): request=5 time=0.4 ms
4096 bytes from . (ext3 /dev/mapper/jena-root): request=6 time=18.0 ms
4096 bytes from . (ext3 /dev/mapper/jena-root): request=7 time=0.5 ms
4096 bytes from . (ext3 /dev/mapper/jena-root): request=8 time=0.3 ms
4096 bytes from . (ext3 /dev/mapper/jena-root): request=9 time=0.4 ms
4096 bytes from . (ext3 /dev/mapper/jena-root): request=10 time=0.4 ms

--- . (ext3 /dev/mapper/jena-root) ioping statistics ---
10 requests completed in 9051.5 ms, 200 iops, 0.8 mb/s
min/avg/max/mdev = 0.3/5.0/18.0/5.5 ms

UnixBench results were better than I had predicted. The VPS only has one CPU core, this is one of the better results that I have seen for a 1 core VPS.

  #    #  #    #  #  #    #          #####   ######  #    #   ####   #    #
   #    #  ##   #  #   #  #           #    #  #       ##   #  #    #  #    #
   #    #  # #  #  #    ##            #####   #####   # #  #  #       ######
   #    #  #  # #  #    ##            #    #  #       #  # #  #       #    #
   #    #  #   ##  #   #  #           #    #  #       #   ##  #    #  #    #
    ####   #    #  #  #    #          #####   ######  #    #   ####   #    #

   Version 5.1.3                      Based on the Byte Magazine Unix Benchmark

   Multi-CPU version                  Version 5 revisions by Ian Smith,
                                      Sunnyvale, CA, USA
   January 13, 2011                   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 5.1.3)

   System: jena: GNU/Linux
   OS: GNU/Linux -- 2.6.32-5-686 -- #1 SMP Sun Sep 23 09:49:36 UTC 2012
   Machine: i686 (unknown)
   Language: en_US.utf8 (charmap="ANSI_X3.4-1968", collate="ANSI_X3.4-1968")
   CPU 0: QEMU Virtual CPU version (cpu64-rhel6) (6784.6 bogomips)
          x86-64, MMX, Physical Address Ext, SYSCALL/SYSRET
   00:11:30 up 89 days,  2:51,  1 user,  load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00; runlevel 2

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benchmark Run: Sat Apr 06 2013 00:11:30 - 00:39:46
1 CPU in system; running 1 parallel copy of tests

Dhrystone 2 using register variables       23046099.5 lps   (10.0 s, 7 samples)
Double-Precision Whetstone                     3560.0 MWIPS (10.0 s, 7 samples)
Execl Throughput                               7537.1 lps   (29.9 s, 2 samples)
File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks        813677.1 KBps  (30.0 s, 2 samples)
File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks          225040.0 KBps  (30.0 s, 2 samples)
File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks       1999842.3 KBps  (30.0 s, 2 samples)
Pipe Throughput                             1519688.2 lps   (10.0 s, 7 samples)
Pipe-based Context Switching                 403572.8 lps   (10.0 s, 7 samples)
Process Creation                              25677.1 lps   (30.0 s, 2 samples)
Shell Scripts (1 concurrent)                   9694.2 lpm   (60.1 s, 2 samples)
Shell Scripts (8 concurrent)                   1211.4 lpm   (60.1 s, 2 samples)
System Call Overhead                        1363632.1 lps   (10.0 s, 7 samples)

System Benchmarks Index Values               BASELINE       RESULT    INDEX
Dhrystone 2 using register variables         116700.0   23046099.5   1974.8
Double-Precision Whetstone                       55.0       3560.0    647.3
Execl Throughput                                 43.0       7537.1   1752.8
File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks          3960.0     813677.1   2054.7
File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks            1655.0     225040.0   1359.8
File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks          5800.0    1999842.3   3448.0
Pipe Throughput                               12440.0    1519688.2   1221.6
Pipe-based Context Switching                   4000.0     403572.8   1008.9
Process Creation                                126.0      25677.1   2037.9
Shell Scripts (1 concurrent)                     42.4       9694.2   2286.4
Shell Scripts (8 concurrent)                      6.0       1211.4   2019.0
System Call Overhead                          15000.0    1363632.1    909.1
                                                                   ========
System Benchmarks Index Score                                        1571.9

GeekBench went well as well.

http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/1809767

Conclusion

fileMEDIA provide a reliable and friendly service. My server has performed well, with only a few bumps during my time with them. The only really problem I noticed was the inconsistent diskspeeds but this has not really been an issue for the system I was running on this VPS. Even when they have been fluctuating, in my opinion, they have not reached too low of a level. At first the network had a few issues, but fileMEDIA quickly resolved them according to my testing.

I believe the service is good value for money and can make a nice addition to any budding VPS collection. To improve, I would recommend fileMEDIA take on board my comments regarding the English language, but other than that, keep up what you’re doing!

16 Comments

  1. i will try buy ^_^

    April 28, 2013 @ 10:28 am | Reply
  2. imperio:

    Which script are you using for download and upload test? If you are using speedtest-cli script upload speeds are not accurate.

    April 28, 2013 @ 10:32 am | Reply
  3. On serverbear:

    50% lifetime discount for PowerBoxes and StorageBoxes.

    [b]serverbear2013[/b]

    April 28, 2013 @ 1:17 pm | Reply
  4. Yomero:

    Just a thought
    According to my experiences, AFAIK a single vmstat generally doesn’t show anything relevant. An output of ten lines like “vmstat 1 10” may show better what’s going on with the iowait and cs numbers, which I guess are the most important for us.

    April 28, 2013 @ 4:16 pm | Reply
    • Yomero:

      Another thing.
      The inode allocation part is irrelevant since this is a KVM server and you can reinstall and reformat your disk to your pleasure. Of course, unless the server was autoprovisioned with a template.

      Thanks for this review, I am considering several providers to replace a server at Germany

      April 28, 2013 @ 4:20 pm | Reply
      • Thanks Yomero. I will take your comments onboard for my next review (who said they liked Pizza?).

        April 28, 2013 @ 5:13 pm | Reply
  5. user123:

    Liam, I think there’s a small typo in your disclaimer: “I am in no way affiliated with fileMEDIA but I have been a customer of theirs since January 2012 (3 Months).” If it’s been 3 months, I think you meant “January 2013”.

    April 28, 2013 @ 5:57 pm | Reply
  6. I also bought last month a VPS from FileMEDIA (tariff Powerox START).

    Disk system tests on ServerBear where pretty well and I decided to order a VPS.

    After short testing observed that file system performance was not acceptable for my purposes and asked for moneyback. The answer:

    refund isn´t possible, read our ToS

    But they offered to migrate to another location. Migration was made and where disk speed is a little bit higher:

    dd if=/dev/zero of=sb-io-test bs=1M count=1k conv=fdatasync
    1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB) copied, 7.12834 s, 151 MB/s
    dd if=/dev/zero of=sb-io-test bs=64k count=16k conv=fdatasync
    1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB) copied, 5.38502 s, 199 MB/s
    dd if=/dev/zero of=sb-io-test bs=1M count=1k oflag=dsync
    1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB) copied, 6.38958 s, 168 MB/s
    dd if=/dev/zero of=sb-io-test bs=64k count=16k oflag=dsync
    1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB) copied, 45.1602 s, 23.8 MB/s

    ioping -c 10 /home
    10 requests completed in 9006.9 ms, 2169 iops, 8.5 mb/s
    min/avg/max/mdev = 0.0/0.5/0.6/0.2 ms

    With my tariff I obtained 2 CPUs, but obtained worse results than topic starter with one (results from the first location before migration):

    # # # # # # # ##### ###### # # #### # #
    # # ## # # # # # # # ## # # # # #
    # # # # # # ## ##### ##### # # # # ######
    # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # #
    # # # ## # # # # # # # ## # # # #
    #### # # # # # ##### ###### # # #### # #

    Version 5.1.3 Based on the Byte Magazine Unix Benchmark

    Multi-CPU version Version 5 revisions by Ian Smith,
    Sunnyvale, CA, USA
    January 13, 2011 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

    3 x Dhrystone 2 using register variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

    3 x Double-Precision Whetstone 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

    3 x Execl Throughput 1 2 3

    3 x File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks 1 2 3

    3 x File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks 1 2 3

    3 x File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks 1 2 3

    3 x Pipe Throughput 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

    3 x Pipe-based Context Switching 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

    3 x Process Creation 1 2 3

    3 x System Call Overhead 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

    3 x Shell Scripts (1 concurrent) 1 2 3

    3 x Shell Scripts (8 concurrent) 1 2 3

    ========================================================================
    BYTE UNIX Benchmarks (Version 5.1.3)

    System: atata.cc: GNU/Linux
    OS: GNU/Linux — 2.6.32-5-686 — #1 SMP Mon Feb 25 01:04:36 UTC 2013
    Machine: i686 (unknown)
    Language: en_US.utf8 (charmap=”UTF-8″, collate=”UTF-8″)
    CPU 0: QEMU Virtual CPU version (cpu64-rhel6) (7000.0 bogomips)
    x86-64, MMX, Physical Address Ext, SYSCALL/SYSRET
    CPU 1: QEMU Virtual CPU version (cpu64-rhel6) (7000.0 bogomips)
    x86-64, MMX, Physical Address Ext, SYSCALL/SYSRET
    CPU 2: QEMU Virtual CPU version (cpu64-rhel6) (7000.0 bogomips)
    x86-64, MMX, Physical Address Ext, SYSCALL/SYSRET
    01:44:50 up 28 min, 2 users, load average: 0.21, 0.26, 0.17; runlevel 2

    ————————————————————————
    Benchmark Run: Fri Apr 05 2013 01:44:50 – 02:13:18
    3 CPUs in system; running 1 parallel copy of tests

    Dhrystone 2 using register variables 18387797.9 lps (10.0 s, 7 samples)
    Double-Precision Whetstone 3454.3 MWIPS (10.0 s, 7 samples)
    Execl Throughput 722.4 lps (29.7 s, 2 samples)
    File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks 649625.6 KBps (30.0 s, 2 samples)
    File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks 186124.7 KBps (30.0 s, 2 samples)
    File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks 1374004.3 KBps (30.0 s, 2 samples)
    Pipe Throughput 705442.7 lps (10.0 s, 7 samples)
    Pipe-based Context Switching 175376.0 lps (10.0 s, 7 samples)
    Process Creation 1864.6 lps (30.0 s, 2 samples)
    Shell Scripts (1 concurrent) 2172.8 lpm (60.0 s, 2 samples)
    Shell Scripts (8 concurrent) 1111.9 lpm (60.0 s, 2 samples)
    System Call Overhead 1143957.3 lps (10.0 s, 7 samples)

    System Benchmarks Index Values BASELINE RESULT INDEX
    Dhrystone 2 using register variables 116700.0 18387797.9 1575.6
    Double-Precision Whetstone 55.0 3454.3 628.1
    Execl Throughput 43.0 722.4 168.0
    File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks 3960.0 649625.6 1640.5
    File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks 1655.0 186124.7 1124.6
    File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks 5800.0 1374004.3 2369.0
    Pipe Throughput 12440.0 705442.7 567.1
    Pipe-based Context Switching 4000.0 175376.0 438.4
    Process Creation 126.0 1864.6 148.0
    Shell Scripts (1 concurrent) 42.4 2172.8 512.5
    Shell Scripts (8 concurrent) 6.0 1111.9 1853.1
    System Call Overhead 15000.0 1143957.3 762.6
    ========
    System Benchmarks Index Score 719.9

    ————————————————————————
    Benchmark Run: Fri Apr 05 2013 02:13:18 – 02:41:59
    3 CPUs in system; running 3 parallel copies of tests

    Dhrystone 2 using register variables 33560795.9 lps (10.0 s, 7 samples)
    Double-Precision Whetstone 7820.5 MWIPS (9.1 s, 7 samples)
    Execl Throughput 4101.8 lps (29.7 s, 2 samples)
    File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks 431671.9 KBps (30.0 s, 2 samples)
    File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks 118495.6 KBps (30.0 s, 2 samples)
    File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks 1444107.9 KBps (30.0 s, 2 samples)
    Pipe Throughput 1573603.8 lps (10.0 s, 7 samples)
    Pipe-based Context Switching 450421.3 lps (10.0 s, 7 samples)
    Process Creation 8357.7 lps (30.1 s, 2 samples)
    Shell Scripts (1 concurrent) 7548.2 lpm (60.0 s, 2 samples)
    Shell Scripts (8 concurrent) 1447.1 lpm (60.1 s, 2 samples)
    System Call Overhead 2331861.3 lps (10.0 s, 7 samples)

    System Benchmarks Index Values BASELINE RESULT INDEX
    Dhrystone 2 using register variables 116700.0 33560795.9 2875.8
    Double-Precision Whetstone 55.0 7820.5 1421.9
    Execl Throughput 43.0 4101.8 953.9
    File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks 3960.0 431671.9 1090.1
    File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks 1655.0 118495.6 716.0
    File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks 5800.0 1444107.9 2489.8
    Pipe Throughput 12440.0 1573603.8 1265.0
    Pipe-based Context Switching 4000.0 450421.3 1126.1
    Process Creation 126.0 8357.7 663.3
    Shell Scripts (1 concurrent) 42.4 7548.2 1780.2
    Shell Scripts (8 concurrent) 6.0 1447.1 2411.8
    System Call Overhead 15000.0 2331861.3 1554.6
    ========
    System Benchmarks Index Score 1380.2

    50% lifetime discount for PowerBoxes and StorageBoxes.

    serverbear2013

    I used this code and for the first month obtained discount. For the next month I received bill for the full summ without discount.

    April 29, 2013 @ 2:13 pm | Reply
    • Sorry to hear. Yes, as mentioned above, the disk speeds were a little unstable. I’m not sure if they’re using RAID. Did it affect what you were using the VPS for? Apart from making benchmarks look a little ugly, it shouldn’t affect most things people use their vps for.

      April 29, 2013 @ 2:31 pm | Reply
      • I imported one of the websites for a test and was not satisfied with page generation time and decided to abandon migration.

        April 29, 2013 @ 3:00 pm | Reply
  7. HSN:

    Hi,
    I have been a customer of theirs since they was featured in LEB(KVM micro), I’m pretty satisfied, Their ping to my local connection is lowest compared to another hosts, through Rostelecom i get around 130-170ms (Jena->Tehran) which is the best for me.

    I did several I/O tests and the result was between 104 to 253MB/s!

    [root@de1 ~]# wget -O /dev/null http://cachefly.cachefly.net/100mb.test
    –2013-04-29 14:39:58– 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: â/dev/nullâ

    100%[======================================>] 104,857,600 24.2M/s in 4.4s

    2013-04-29 14:40:03 (22.6 MB/s) – â/dev/nullâ

    April 29, 2013 @ 6:41 pm | Reply
  8. salakis:

    Nice review!
    Just a little hint – the ping to Google is rather high as it routes to Google servers in Milano. The hostname mostly contains the 3-letter airport code (in this case “mil”).

    April 30, 2013 @ 11:03 pm | Reply
  9. Hello,

    yes we using Hardware Raid cards for our nodes. Few nodes using lsi, another ones areca or adaptec. I think the lsi nodes are the best. We using only lsi cards in our new location in Frankfurt, Germany (global switch) now. The performance should be better.

    The old promotion is expired. But we having a new discout promotion too. Use LET-YEARLY-2013 as promotion code to get 50% lifetime discount for all annually, biennially and triennially orders.

    Our new location offers now a direct connection to DE-CIX, google,..:

    ping -c 5 google.com
    PING google.com (173.194.112.165) 56(84) bytes of data.
    64 bytes from fra07s32-in-f5.1e100.net (173.194.112.165): icmp_seq=1 ttl=60 time=1.75 ms
    64 bytes from fra07s32-in-f5.1e100.net (173.194.112.165): icmp_seq=2 ttl=60 time=2.14 ms
    64 bytes from fra07s32-in-f5.1e100.net (173.194.112.165): icmp_seq=3 ttl=60 time=1.77 ms
    64 bytes from fra07s32-in-f5.1e100.net (173.194.112.165): icmp_seq=4 ttl=60 time=1.86 ms
    64 bytes from fra07s32-in-f5.1e100.net (173.194.112.165): icmp_seq=5 ttl=60 time=2.07 ms

    — google.com ping statistics —
    5 packets transmitted, 5 received, 0% packet loss, time 4007ms
    rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 1.750/1.919/2.140/0.160 ms

    traceroute google.com
    traceroute to google.com (173.194.112.165), 30 hops max, 60 byte packets
    1 gateway.ipv4.fra.filemedia.net (62.113.241.1) 0.158 ms 0.181 ms 0.181 ms
    2 de-cix10.net.google.com (80.81.192.108) 1.534 ms 1.513 ms 1.524 ms
    3 209.85.241.110 (209.85.241.110) 2.818 ms 2.297 ms 2.801 ms
    4 72.14.238.57 (72.14.238.57) 2.981 ms 2.963 ms 2.939 ms
    5 fra07s32-in-f5.1e100.net (173.194.112.165) 2.758 ms 1.807 ms 2.040 ms

    May 24, 2013 @ 12:09 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 *