LowEndBox - Cheap VPS, Hosting and Dedicated Server Deals

InceptionHosting – €3.19 128MB Xen VPS in Netherlands

Tags: , , Date/Time: May 22, 2011 @ 1:24 pm, by LowEndAdmin

InceptionHosting Via this WHT offer. InceptionHosting is currently doing a 20% off recurring discount promotion, when you use the promo code 20offlife. One of their “Economy VPS offers”, “VPS leb”, would be €3.19/month (USD$4.53) after the discount. Here is the sign up link, and here is what you will get

  • 128MB memory/256MB swap
  • 5GB storage
  • 150GB/month data transfer on 100Mbps
  • Xen/SolusVM

Servers with SnelServer in the Netherlands (test IP: 89.207.135.138). Domain registered by Anthony in UK in December 2010, it gets incorporated in January 2011 (company number 07504587 in UK), although the first InceptionHosting offer I can spot on WHT is from earlier this month. Just google “backtogeek” for Anthony’s blog + many his online profiles. The pricing compares well against other Netherlands based offers.

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.

99 Comments

  1. no IPv6?

    May 22, 2011 @ 1:38 pm | Reply
  2. Hi William,

    We will be offering IPv6 by the end of the month.

    @others, sincere apologies to all that have ordered so for from LEB, due to an oversight on our part orders were allowed to go through without selecting an operating system, this has been fixed.

    Only 2 people have had this issue so far you can either let us know and we will get your OS on for you or install it yourself from your SolusVM Panel.

    Once again apologies for this, nothing but human error to blame but the effect is minor and was picked up in less than 2 minutes.

    Anthony.

    May 22, 2011 @ 2:59 pm | Reply
  3. Also an update to the offer above kindly posted by LEA, these servers are not 100mbit they are 1000 mbit. :)

    May 22, 2011 @ 3:02 pm | Reply
  4. PenguinTux:

    That template is used so many times (themeforest theme)… :)

    May 22, 2011 @ 5:38 pm | Reply
    • Quite correct PenguinTux.

      It is the Phenomenon premium theme by Bluz Graphics (also available on theme forest), its very functional and does the job very well, there is a new site being developed and will be up in the near
      future but this one pretty much met the requirements in the first instance and had the overall look we wanted, so we decided to use it in the short term while something more unique is developed.

      May 22, 2011 @ 7:46 pm | Reply
  5. Francisco:

    “Snel IS manages at this time (december 2010) well over 1.700 customers with 150 dedicated and virtual private servers as well as over 1000 gameservers.”

    https://www.snelserver.com/#content/7/About_us

    May 22, 2011 @ 6:27 pm | Reply
    • @Francisco: Don’t really see your point, so basically you are saying the DC is small?

      May 22, 2011 @ 7:55 pm | Reply
  6. Not this template again…

    Francisco

    May 22, 2011 @ 8:13 pm | Reply
    • Anthony Smith:

      It is the Phenomenon premium theme by Bluz Graphics (also available on theme forest), its very functional and does the job very well, there is a new site being developed and will be up in the near
      future but this one pretty much met the requirements in the first instance and had the overall look we wanted, so we decided to use it in the short term while something more unique is developed.

      BTW: there are some people trying to get in contact with your company on WHT t=1041165

      May 22, 2011 @ 8:19 pm | Reply
      • Adam:

        @Anthony Yes It does look like they BuyVM ignores DMCA takedown requests

        http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?t=1041165

        May 23, 2011 @ 11:04 am | Reply
        • Canada doesn’t have a DMCA from what I am aware, so they are well within there right to ignore it. Same here in the UK. My company Ignores DMCA aswell, we will not bow to American laws.

          May 23, 2011 @ 11:09 am | Reply
        • Hi Adam,

          Indeed they are not binding as such however a response is usually made and customer emails are not usually ignored for weeks.

          Guess it boils down to personal preference, we use a responsible DC, even in the Netherlands they demand at least a response to DCMA requests regardless of your decision, which is a stance I agree with, I wont necessarily comply but I wont ignore it outright either.

          May 23, 2011 @ 12:05 pm | Reply
        • Jim:

          Pretty sure the “CA” in Fremont, CA means California, not Canada. If BuyVM servers are located in the USA then they are (obviously) bound by the DMCA and other laws of the USA.

          Or can someone confirm their servers are located in Canada?

          May 24, 2011 @ 12:32 pm | Reply
    • Its a template what do you expect only 1 person to use it?

      May 23, 2011 @ 12:43 am | Reply
      • No, but I’d hope people did research before hand and maybe pick something a little different? :)

        Francisco

        May 23, 2011 @ 2:07 am | Reply
        • Sounds like he was aware of the popularity of this template and choose it as it suited his requirements. Stop trolling around.

          May 23, 2011 @ 3:41 am | Reply
        • Ok, I am ready to buy that Phenomenomenomenomenon template! xD Just 12 USD n_n

          May 23, 2011 @ 3:53 am | Reply
        • Ztc:

          Sounds like someone has a hidden agenda -O_
          You don’t run a hosting company so people can look at it, do you?
          As long as it’s practical and clean it works.

          May 23, 2011 @ 10:21 am | Reply
        • Yep he runs frantech.ca :) thanks Ztc it does work just fine although as I have said in an earlier post its being redesigned :D

          May 23, 2011 @ 10:28 am | Reply
  7. It says here the DC is owned by “We Dare BV”

    May 22, 2011 @ 10:18 pm | Reply
  8. Interestingly people are picking on the template. Yeah it’s just a template, and majority of low end providers here buy templates to quickly bootstrap his/her hosting business. No biggie, as long as it works.

    No one picked on the name though. I know the word “Inception” is never the same after this movie was released. So — to InceptionHosting — how can I be sure that the servers I got are real rather than just a dream? Definitely don’t want to suddenly get a “kick” and lost everything :P

    May 23, 2011 @ 4:26 am | Reply
    • Hahaha lol LEA.

      I need to see that movie u_u.

      May 23, 2011 @ 4:45 am | Reply
    • rm:

      With virtual servers like these, I wonder if you can set up an OpenVZ or Linux-Vservers environment inside Xen, and that way go two levels deep??? :D

      May 23, 2011 @ 5:21 am | Reply
      • rm:

        And then run QEMU inside those for the third level!

        May 23, 2011 @ 5:22 am | Reply
      • One more and you are in… limbo? A kick all the way up from dom0 might not help either.

        May 23, 2011 @ 5:41 am | Reply
    • Haha yes indeed, also surprised the name was available so easy it seems to make sense.. at least to me it did, box inside a box :)

      If anyone wants to take it to the third level and is willing to blog/write about it as a guest writer on backtogeek.com then I may provide the VPS free for a few weeks if you have a good plan :)

      Sadly I just don’t have time to sit and do it, document it and put them through their paces then document the performance.

      May 23, 2011 @ 9:38 am | Reply
      • So the company was named after the movie?

        May 23, 2011 @ 11:29 pm | Reply
        • not so much mike, more after the concept behind it. :)

          May 24, 2011 @ 12:11 am | Reply
        • Isn’t the movie about stealing ideas from people’s heads?

          Haven’t seen it so I’m going off memory here.

          June 2, 2011 @ 10:00 pm | Reply
        • That is an element of the movie yes but the main plot is more around the implanting of an idea in someone’s head to influence an outcome.

          “Haven’t seen it so I’m going off memory here.” pun intended? :)

          June 2, 2011 @ 10:15 pm | Reply
  9. David Vazquez:

    I’ve seen that template before…

    May 23, 2011 @ 12:06 pm | Reply
  10. Hey Anthony,

    Just a head’s up. You need to show your Ltd company number on your website, plus registered address of Ltd company on your website as well. Also, if you are VAT registered, you need to show this as well.

    Get it up there before Companies House sees it.

    Shane

    May 23, 2011 @ 7:12 pm | Reply
  11. Quick update

    More stock added, thank you to everyone who has purchased so far we did not expect such a rush of sales.

    Currently there are:

    5 x VPS leb (128/256/5GB) packages @ €3.19/month
    3 x VPS micro (96/192/5GB) packages @ €2.40/month

    Standard packages on the main site have plenty of availability and the 20% off coupon also works with those.

    Anthony.

    May 25, 2011 @ 7:44 pm | Reply
  12. More stock added, thanks for all the orders.

    Just to verify: the servers are 1000 mbit / 1gbps not 100mbit as posted above :)

    June 1, 2011 @ 7:58 pm | Reply
  13. SwordfishBE:

    Any reviews? :)

    June 2, 2011 @ 9:52 pm | Reply
    • Hi SwordfishBE,

      Inception Hosting Limited is still a fairly new company as per the original post by LEA so (sadly) you will be hard pressed to find many reviews (we haven’t) but on the flip side there are no negative reviews either :)

      About the only bad thing you will find is on an advertising thread in WHT where one user had a melt down because he did not pass the fraud check, and did not comply with the terms of the offer but I guess your always going to get that.

      Trials can be set up by arrangement but are restricted to 100 mbit to avoid abuse unless identification is provided in which case there are no restrictions.

      Anthony.

      June 2, 2011 @ 10:13 pm | Reply
    • SwordfishBE:

      I ordered and I will just try you out.
      Got myself a microVPS, payed for 1 year (only €26.31).

      ~# cat /proc/cpuinfo
      processor       : 0
      vendor_id       : GenuineIntel
      cpu family      : 6
      model           : 26
      model name      : Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 CPU         950  @ 3.07GHz
      stepping        : 5
      cpu MHz         : 3066.762
      cache size      : 8192 KB
      fdiv_bug        : no
      hlt_bug         : no
      f00f_bug        : no
      coma_bug        : no
      fpu             : yes
      fpu_exception   : yes
      cpuid level     : 11
      wp              : yes
      flags           : fpu de tsc msr pae cx8 sep cmov pat clflush mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss ht nx constant_tsc aperfmperf pni ssse3 sse4_1 sse4_2 popcnt hypervisor ida
      bogomips        : 6133.52
      clflush size    : 64
      cache_alignment : 64
      address sizes   : 36 bits physical, 48 bits virtual
      power management:
      

      Access to 4 cores/threads.

      ~# dd if=/dev/zero of=test bs=16k count=16k conv=fdatasync
      16384+0 records in
      16384+0 records out
      268435456 bytes (268 MB) copied, 2.90121 s, 92.5 MB/s
      
      ~# wget -O /dev/null http://cachefly.cachefly.net/100mb.test
      --2011-06-03 11:23:32--  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 3.74M/s   in 27s     
      
      2011-06-03 11:23:59 (3.75 MB/s) - `/dev/null' saved [104857600/104857600]
      

      The speedtest seems slow for an 1000mbit port.

      ========================================================================
         BYTE UNIX Benchmarks (Version 5.1.2)
      
         System: ***: GNU/Linux
         OS: GNU/Linux -- 2.6.32-5-686-bigmem -- #1 SMP Wed Jan 12 04:40:25 UTC 2011
         Machine: i686 (unknown)
         Language: en_US.utf8 (charmap="UTF-8", collate="UTF-8")
         CPU 0: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 CPU 950 @ 3.07GHz (6133.5 bogomips)
                Hyper-Threading, MMX, Physical Address Ext, SYSENTER/SYSEXIT
         CPU 1: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 CPU 950 @ 3.07GHz (6133.5 bogomips)
                Hyper-Threading, MMX, Physical Address Ext, SYSENTER/SYSEXIT
         CPU 2: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 CPU 950 @ 3.07GHz (6133.5 bogomips)
                Hyper-Threading, MMX, Physical Address Ext, SYSENTER/SYSEXIT
         CPU 3: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 CPU 950 @ 3.07GHz (6133.5 bogomips)
                Hyper-Threading, MMX, Physical Address Ext, SYSENTER/SYSEXIT
         11:27:39 up 11 min,  1 user,  load average: 0.16, 0.03, 0.01; runlevel 2
      
      ------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Benchmark Run: Fri Jun 03 2011 11:55:53 - 12:24:17
      4 CPUs in system; running 4 parallel copies of tests
      
      Dhrystone 2 using register variables       63070002.8 lps   (10.0 s, 7 samples)
      Double-Precision Whetstone                    12224.1 MWIPS (10.0 s, 7 samples)
      Execl Throughput                               8217.0 lps   (29.9 s, 2 samples)
      File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks        556860.3 KBps  (30.0 s, 2 samples)
      File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks          139410.9 KBps  (30.0 s, 2 samples)
      File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks        549950.3 KBps  (30.0 s, 2 samples)
      Pipe Throughput                             2932097.1 lps   (10.0 s, 7 samples)
      Pipe-based Context Switching                 368934.0 lps   (10.0 s, 7 samples)
      Process Creation                              14087.6 lps   (30.0 s, 2 samples)
      Shell Scripts (1 concurrent)                  15640.0 lpm   (60.0 s, 2 samples)
      Shell Scripts (8 concurrent)                   2078.5 lpm   (60.1 s, 2 samples)
      System Call Overhead                        3113249.4 lps   (10.0 s, 7 samples)
      
      System Benchmarks Index Values               BASELINE       RESULT    INDEX
      Dhrystone 2 using register variables         116700.0   63070002.8   5404.5
      Double-Precision Whetstone                       55.0      12224.1   2222.6
      Execl Throughput                                 43.0       8217.0   1910.9
      File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks          3960.0     556860.3   1406.2
      File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks            1655.0     139410.9    842.4
      File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks          5800.0     549950.3    948.2
      Pipe Throughput                               12440.0    2932097.1   2357.0
      Pipe-based Context Switching                   4000.0     368934.0    922.3
      Process Creation                                126.0      14087.6   1118.1
      Shell Scripts (1 concurrent)                     42.4      15640.0   3688.7
      Shell Scripts (8 concurrent)                      6.0       2078.5   3464.2
      System Call Overhead                          15000.0    3113249.4   2075.5
                                                                         ========
      System Benchmarks Index Score                                        1855.2
      
      June 3, 2011 @ 1:18 pm | Reply
      • Adam:

        Did you not benchmark the disk IO?

        June 5, 2011 @ 8:55 am | Reply
        • He did, it is just above the network test
          ~# dd if=/dev/zero of=test bs=16k count=16k conv=fdatasync
          16384+0 records in
          16384+0 records out
          268435456 bytes (268 MB) copied, 2.90121 s, 92.5 MB/s

          June 5, 2011 @ 9:39 am | Reply
      • SwordfishBE:
        ./Run fstime-w fstime-r fstime fsbuffer-w fsbuffer-r fsbuffer fsdisk-w fsdisk-r fsdisk
        ========================================================================
           BYTE UNIX Benchmarks (Version 5.1.2)
        
           System: ***: GNU/Linux
           OS: GNU/Linux -- 2.6.32-5-686-bigmem -- #1 SMP Wed Jan 12 04:40:25 UTC 2011
           Machine: i686 (unknown)
           Language: en_US.utf8 (charmap="UTF-8", collate="UTF-8")
           CPU 0: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 CPU 950 @ 3.07GHz (6133.5 bogomips)
                  Hyper-Threading, MMX, Physical Address Ext, SYSENTER/SYSEXIT
           CPU 1: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 CPU 950 @ 3.07GHz (6133.5 bogomips)
                  Hyper-Threading, MMX, Physical Address Ext, SYSENTER/SYSEXIT
           CPU 2: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 CPU 950 @ 3.07GHz (6133.5 bogomips)
                  Hyper-Threading, MMX, Physical Address Ext, SYSENTER/SYSEXIT
           CPU 3: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 CPU 950 @ 3.07GHz (6133.5 bogomips)
                  Hyper-Threading, MMX, Physical Address Ext, SYSENTER/SYSEXIT
           CPU 4: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 CPU 950 @ 3.07GHz (6133.5 bogomips)
                  Hyper-Threading, MMX, Physical Address Ext, SYSENTER/SYSEXIT
           CPU 5: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 CPU 950 @ 3.07GHz (6133.5 bogomips)
                  Hyper-Threading, MMX, Physical Address Ext, SYSENTER/SYSEXIT
           CPU 6: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 CPU 950 @ 3.07GHz (6133.5 bogomips)
                  Hyper-Threading, MMX, Physical Address Ext, SYSENTER/SYSEXIT
           CPU 7: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 CPU 950 @ 3.07GHz (6133.5 bogomips)
                  Hyper-Threading, MMX, Physical Address Ext, SYSENTER/SYSEXIT
           11:05:44 up 21:11,  1 user,  load average: 0.00, 0.01, 0.00; runlevel 2
        
        ------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Benchmark Run: Sun Jun 05 2011 11:05:44 - 11:25:03
        8 CPUs in system; running 1 parallel copy of tests
        
        File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks        466002.4 KBps  (30.0 s, 2 samples)
        File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks          120348.9 KBps  (30.0 s, 2 samples)
        File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks        284013.2 KBps  (30.0 s, 2 samples)
        File Read 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks       2043981.5 KBps  (30.0 s, 2 samples)
        File Read 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks          547484.8 KBps  (30.0 s, 2 samples)
        File Read 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks       4932366.1 KBps  (30.0 s, 2 samples)
        File Write 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks       640173.1 KBps  (30.0 s, 2 samples)
        File Write 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks         163942.3 KBps  (30.0 s, 2 samples)
        File Write 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks       292002.4 KBps  (30.1 s, 2 samples)
        
        System Benchmarks Partial Index              BASELINE       RESULT    INDEX
        File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks          3960.0     466002.4   1176.8
        File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks            1655.0     120348.9    727.2
        File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks          5800.0     284013.2    489.7
        File Read 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks             ---    2043981.5      ---
        File Read 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks               ---     547484.8      ---
        File Read 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks             ---    4932366.1      ---
        File Write 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks            ---     640173.1      ---
        File Write 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks              ---     163942.3      ---
        File Write 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks            ---     292002.4      ---
                                                                           ========
        System Benchmarks Index Score (Partial Only)                          748.3
        
        ------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Benchmark Run: Sun Jun 05 2011 11:25:03 - 11:44:36
        8 CPUs in system; running 8 parallel copies of tests
        
        File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks        413961.4 KBps  (30.0 s, 2 samples)
        File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks          106418.2 KBps  (30.0 s, 2 samples)
        File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks        566200.3 KBps  (30.0 s, 2 samples)
        File Read 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks      10913605.2 KBps  (30.0 s, 2 samples)
        File Read 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks         2907132.3 KBps  (30.0 s, 2 samples)
        File Read 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks      25918038.6 KBps  (30.0 s, 2 samples)
        File Write 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks       436926.8 KBps  (30.0 s, 2 samples)
        File Write 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks         112183.5 KBps  (30.0 s, 2 samples)
        File Write 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks       587118.8 KBps  (30.2 s, 2 samples)
        
        System Benchmarks Partial Index              BASELINE       RESULT    INDEX
        File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks          3960.0     413961.4   1045.4
        File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks            1655.0     106418.2    643.0
        File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks          5800.0     566200.3    976.2
        File Read 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks             ---   10913605.2      ---
        File Read 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks               ---    2907132.3      ---
        File Read 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks             ---   25918038.6      ---
        File Write 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks            ---     436926.8      ---
        File Write 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks              ---     112183.5      ---
        File Write 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks            ---     587118.8      ---
                                                                           ========
        System Benchmarks Index Score (Partial Only)                          869.0
        

        8 cores! If you like me to run other tests, just tell me.

        June 5, 2011 @ 10:04 am | Reply
    • SwordfishBE:

      Some more speed tests:

      ~$ wget ftp://dl.solcon.nl/pub/test/100mb.bin
      --2011-06-05 12:44:53--  ftp://dl.solcon.nl/pub/test/100mb.bin
                 => `100mb.bin'
      Resolving dl.solcon.nl... 87.195.63.155
      Connecting to dl.solcon.nl|87.195.63.155|:21... connected.
      Logging in as anonymous ... Logged in!
      ==> SYST ... done.    ==> PWD ... done.
      ==> TYPE I ... done.  ==> CWD (1) /pub/test ... done.
      ==> SIZE 100mb.bin ... 104857600
      ==> PASV ... done.    ==> RETR 100mb.bin ... done.
      Length: 104857600 (100M) (unauthoritative)
      
      100%[==================================================>] 104,857,600 4.77M/s   in 20s     
      
      2011-06-05 12:45:15 (5.06 MB/s) - `100mb.bin' saved [104857600]
      
      ~$ wget http://testmeplease-eu.s3.amazonaws.com/100mb.bin 
      --2011-06-05 12:45:17--  http://testmeplease-eu.s3.amazonaws.com/100mb.bin
      Resolving testmeplease-eu.s3.amazonaws.com... 178.236.5.33
      Connecting to testmeplease-eu.s3.amazonaws.com|178.236.5.33|:80... connected.
      HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK
      Length: 104857600 (100M) []
      Saving to: `100mb.bin.1'
      
      100%[==================================================>] 104,857,600 2.55M/s   in 40s     
      
      2011-06-05 12:45:57 (2.53 MB/s) - `100mb.bin.1' saved [104857600/104857600]
      
      ~$ wget ftp://ftp.ovh.net/test.bin  
      --2011-06-05 12:46:50--  ftp://ftp.ovh.net/test.bin
                 => `test.bin'
      Resolving ftp.ovh.net... 213.186.33.9
      Connecting to ftp.ovh.net|213.186.33.9|:21... connected.
      Logging in as anonymous ... Logged in!
      ==> SYST ... done.    ==> PWD ... done.
      ==> TYPE I ... done.  ==> CWD not needed.
      ==> SIZE test.bin ... 104857600
      ==> PASV ... done.    ==> RETR test.bin ... done.
      Length: 104857600 (100M) (unauthoritative)
      
      100%[==================================================>] 104,857,600 3.84M/s   in 29s     
      
      2011-06-05 12:47:19 (3.49 MB/s) - `test.bin' saved [104857600]
      
      ~$ wget ftp://ftp.xs4all.nl/pub/test/100mb.bin
      --2011-06-05 12:49:07--  ftp://ftp.xs4all.nl/pub/test/100mb.bin
                 => `100mb.bin.2'
      Resolving ftp.xs4all.nl... 194.109.21.26
      Connecting to ftp.xs4all.nl|194.109.21.26|:21... connected.
      Logging in as anonymous ... Logged in!
      ==> SYST ... done.    ==> PWD ... done.
      ==> TYPE I ... done.  ==> CWD (1) /pub/test ... done.
      ==> SIZE 100mb.bin ... 104857600
      ==> PASV ... done.    ==> RETR 100mb.bin ... done.
      Length: 104857600 (100M) (unauthoritative)
      
      100%[==================================================>] 104,857,600 2.95M/s   in 34s     
      
      2011-06-05 12:49:42 (2.95 MB/s) - `100mb.bin.2' saved [104857600]
      
      June 5, 2011 @ 10:50 am | Reply
    • SwordfishBE:

      A follow up.
      I’m still happy with my vps with Inception.
      The native ipv6 is finally working (week now).
      Support is still exceptional.
      The network has sometimes suffered from DDoS attacks however I didn’t notice quality loss.

      ~$ dd if=/dev/zero of=test bs=16k count=16k conv=fdatasync
      16384+0 records in
      16384+0 records out
      268435456 bytes (268 MB) copied, 3.47649 s, 77.2 MB/s
      
      ~$ wget -O /dev/null http://cachefly.cachefly.net/100mb.test
      --2011-08-01 13:43:55--  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 3.71M/s   in 27s     
      
      2011-08-01 13:44:22 (3.70 MB/s) - `/dev/null' saved [104857600/104857600]
      
      August 1, 2011 @ 11:47 am | Reply
      • Thanks for the update.

        The download speeds seem rather slow though which I know you had an initial concern with.

        This issue seems to affect the VPS’s with <128mb ram I have gone through everything with a fine tooth comb and it frankly defies explanation other than obviously the limited amount of RAM.

        The templates are from Smart Server management which are considered to be the premium ones available right now, so this week I will be creating some new templates and see if they suffer from the same issue as well as trying ones from other sources.

        Even went as far as buying some VPS servers from other providers on LEB and the <128mb ones ave actually had the same 100mbit limit on them even lan lan but on a different S/N which further leads me to point at the resources limiting the connection speed however…hands up… I do not know why.

        If the community has any input it is very welcome.

        Also if you have time it would be good to see some tests from different locations as this is being followed up with soluslabs too.

        August 1, 2011 @ 1:47 pm | Reply
  14. New Package Added, VPS Micro Plus:

    192 MB Dedicated Ram
    256 SWAP
    Share of 8 Cores
    10 GB Raid 10 HDD Storage
    100GB per Month Bandwidth @ 1000 mbit
    Dedicated IP Address
    SolusVM Management Panel
    24×7 Instant setup
    €5.99

    Coupon Codes apply.

    June 4, 2011 @ 8:22 pm | Reply
    • Really. No point to post your offers in comments if it does not fit into our USD$7/month limit…

      June 5, 2011 @ 1:04 pm | Reply
      • Christian:

        I think it just fits in the criteria, because he mentioned that coupon codes apply, so with the 20off coupon you would get it at ~4,79 euros which is ~7,004896 U.S. dollars at current ranges…

        June 5, 2011 @ 1:53 pm | Reply
      • Fair point, I must have done the maths wrong, coupon code ‘microplusleb’ will give 25% off the VPS micro package.

        June 5, 2011 @ 2:22 pm | Reply
        • Spirit:

          ‘microplusleb’ – One Time Discount. They aren’t much popular at LEB.

          June 9, 2011 @ 3:44 am | Reply
        • It is not a 1 time discount.

          June 9, 2011 @ 8:10 am | Reply
  15. IPv6 addresses now available and free on request.

    June 5, 2011 @ 10:14 am | Reply
  16. # wget -O /dev/null http://93.190.137.8/1000mb.bin
    --2011-06-05 14:27:26--  http://93.190.137.8/1000mb.bin
    Connecting to 93.190.137.8:80... connected.
    HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK
    Length: 1048576000 (1000M) [application/octet-stream]
    Saving to: `/dev/null'
    
    100%[=====================================================================================>] 1,048,576,000 39.4M/s   in 24s
    
    2011-06-05 14:27:50 (41.3 MB/s) - `/dev/null' saved [1048576000/1048576000]
    
    
    #wget ftp://dl.solcon.nl/pub/test/100mb.bin
    --2011-06-05 10:48:53--  ftp://dl.solcon.nl/pub/test/100mb.bin
               => `100mb.bin'
    Resolving dl.solcon.nl... 87.195.63.155
    Connecting to dl.solcon.nl|87.195.63.155|:21... connected.
    Logging in as anonymous ... Logged in!
    ==> SYST ... done.    ==> PWD ... done.
    ==> TYPE I ... done.  ==> CWD /pub/test ... done.
    ==> SIZE 100mb.bin ... 104857600
    ==> PASV ... done.    ==> RETR 100mb.bin ... done.
    Length: 104857600 (100M)
    
    100%[=======================================================================================>] 104,857,600 31.1M/s   in 3.4s
    
    2011-06-05 10:48:57 (29.3 MB/s) - `100mb.bin' saved [104857600]
    
    #wget http://testmeplease-eu.s3.amazonaws.com/100mb.bin
    --2011-06-05 10:49:11--  http://testmeplease-eu.s3.amazonaws.com/100mb.bin
    Resolving testmeplease-eu.s3.amazonaws.com... 178.236.6.33
    Connecting to testmeplease-eu.s3.amazonaws.com|178.236.6.33|:80... connected.
    HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK
    Length: 104857600 (100M) []
    Saving to: `100mb.bin.1'
    
    100%[=======================================================================================>] 104,857,600 29.5M/s   in 6.6s
    
    2011-06-05 10:49:27 (15.1 MB/s) - `100mb.bin.1' saved [104857600/104857600]
    
    #ftp://ftp.ovh.net/test.bin
    -bash: ftp://ftp.ovh.net/test.bin: No such file or directory
    #wget ftp://ftp.ovh.net/test.bin
    --2011-06-05 10:49:45--  ftp://ftp.ovh.net/test.bin
               => `test.bin'
    Resolving ftp.ovh.net... 213.186.33.9
    Connecting to ftp.ovh.net|213.186.33.9|:21... connected.
    Logging in as anonymous ... Logged in!
    ==> SYST ... done.    ==> PWD ... done.
    ==> TYPE I ... done.  ==> CWD not needed.
    ==> SIZE test.bin ... 104857600
    ==> PASV ... done.    ==> RETR test.bin ... done.
    Length: 104857600 (100M)
    
    100%[=======================================================================================>] 104,857,600 4.26M/s   in 18s
    
    2011-06-05 10:50:12 (5.50 MB/s) - `test.bin' saved [104857600]
    
    #wget ftp://ftp.xs4all.nl/pub/test/100mb.bin
    --2011-06-05 10:50:20--  ftp://ftp.xs4all.nl/pub/test/100mb.bin
               => `100mb.bin.2'
    Resolving ftp.xs4all.nl... 194.109.21.26
    Connecting to ftp.xs4all.nl|194.109.21.26|:21... connected.
    Logging in as anonymous ... Logged in!
    ==> SYST ... done.    ==> PWD ... done.
    ==> TYPE I ... done.  ==> CWD /pub/test ... done.
    ==> SIZE 100mb.bin ... 104857600
    ==> PASV ... done.    ==> RETR 100mb.bin ... done.
    Length: 104857600 (100M)
    
    100%[=======================================================================================>] 104,857,600 2.72M/s   in 35s
    
    2011-06-05 10:50:55 (2.87 MB/s) - `100mb.bin.2' saved [104857600]
    
    #wget http://213.163.76.200/tools/1000mb.bin
    --2011-06-05 10:51:34--  http://213.163.76.200/tools/1000mb.bin
    Connecting to 213.163.76.200:80... connected.
    HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK
    Length: 1025048576 (978M) [application/octet-stream]
    Saving to: `1000mb.bin'
    
    100%[=====================================================================================>] 1,025,048,576 6.55M/s   in 2m 7s
    
    2011-06-05 10:53:42 (7.67 MB/s) - `1000mb.bin' saved [1025048576/1025048576]
    
    June 5, 2011 @ 2:59 pm | Reply
    • Just re ran some tests, the DC has been getting hit with multiple DDOS which will obviously have an effect.

      June 5, 2011 @ 3:00 pm | Reply
  17. If in case anyone is interested, here is a fresh VPS review I have just written about them, pretty good VPS they have: http://bit.ly/ij2iHp

    June 9, 2011 @ 1:17 am | Reply
    • I like your reviewsw, very detailed. Just some points

      That are not 8 cores, are 8 Hyperthreades cores AFAIK.
      Your stack is so big, and you use a lot of diskpace xD
      Bonus: unixbench sucks xD

      June 9, 2011 @ 2:14 am | Reply
      • Adam:

        Yeah very nice site with good detailed reviews

        @Yomero Why does unixbench suck?

        June 9, 2011 @ 2:49 am | Reply
        • @Adam: thanks a lot :)

          June 9, 2011 @ 3:12 am | Reply
        • @Adam @96MB This is the seond time that I am misunderstanded about this.
          I mean, Unixbench, that software piece of crap sucks xD No the score, because I don’t know how much is good and how much is bad. I mean, is a software that loads the node like hell for about one hour aprox, just to get an score :| Because that, I promote just a Geekbench plus some quick dd tests to get a better idea about the performance in 2 or 3 minutes.

          June 9, 2011 @ 4:16 am | Reply
        • I wrote about that here

          http://www.lowendtalk.com/questions/8524/geekbench-over-unixbench

          But nobody likes me xD

          June 9, 2011 @ 4:19 am | Reply
        • Adam:

          @Yomero Alright yeah thats true, unixbench does “abuse” the CPU :)

          Why don’t you write a quick tutorial on how to use geekbench and post it on LET?

          June 9, 2011 @ 8:56 am | Reply
        • Unixbench is simply abusive in a shared environment. geekbench spikes CPU but for at most a minute for the total test and gives you a good idea of how things handle.

          I’m really liking the speed of geekbench, my only gripe is that the 64bit version is paid but I guess they have to make their bread/butter somehow :)

          Francisco

          June 9, 2011 @ 9:49 pm | Reply
        • Adam:

          @Yomero Excellent. Thanks for the article. ^^

          June 9, 2011 @ 10:51 pm | Reply
        • @Yomero: what do you think on the GeekBench score I posted below? Are these consider good?

          June 10, 2011 @ 12:26 am | Reply
      • @Yomero: Ya, not physical but “virtual” cores…and yes, I did not clean up the PHP-FPM because this is a test server which I was just going to destroy later (or they will once I return the server to them) so I did not bother to do any optimization, everything was default…
        And is it actually suck? I thought 2400 is a pretty good score, no?
        Thanks for the compliment, by the way :)

        June 9, 2011 @ 3:12 am | Reply
      • @Yomero: Please allow me to apologies for my ignorance, but I actually thought GeekBench only support Windows until today :)
        I’ll try to run some GeekBench test on the box and let you know how it goes :)
        By the way, I am not trying to advertise for them nor my own website, but you should go see how Anthony replied my review, I think it is one really good part I like about them: instead of trying to say “we have to do this because of blah blah blah”, he was very frank in admitting “the bad” and provide solutions as quickly as possible, I think this is very different from many other providers that I have encountered.
        Here is the direct link to the comments if in case anyone does not want to go through the entire review:
        http://www.96mb.com/96mb-low-end-vps-review-part-viii-inception-hosting/#comment-109

        June 9, 2011 @ 9:16 pm | Reply
    • Thanks for the review 96mb :)

      Yes the site itself needs some work and I am still stunned about the 2400 score, impressive.

      June 9, 2011 @ 8:13 am | Reply
    • SwordfishBE:

      I can verify everything you say.
      Little note, the support is one of the best I ever had.

      June 9, 2011 @ 9:17 am | Reply
      • I know this reply is a little late but thanks for the kind words.

        Sorry about the IPv6 saga the solution is still in progress :)

        June 27, 2011 @ 10:31 am | Reply
  18. More stock added on the qualifying LEB products. :)

    June 18, 2011 @ 10:14 pm | Reply
  19. I just want to say a big thanks to Anthony for his quick responses and sorting me out with a new vps following the hostfail rip off.

    June 27, 2011 @ 9:35 am | Reply
    • Thanks Andy.

      I have been watching (And even participating in) the HostRail soap opera over the last few days, it makes me sick to see how badly they are treating people and how little credit the CEO gives his customers level of intelligence.

      Anyway that Constantinos (Forgive spelling) guy has me so angry I set up a voucher code for current customers that are being left to hang out to dry.

      I am thinking of this one more as a refugee code: use code ‘hostrail’ for 99% discount on your first month. (I would like to make it 100% but past experience shows it opens the flood gates to abusers)

      TERMS OF OFFER:
      1) Only 10 uses available (Sorry we cant swallow up HostRails customers over night)
      2) Please open a sales ticket and attach your last HostRail invoice before signing up
      3) There is no requirement or expectation that you stay with Inception Hosting after your first month but at least it buys people some time to get sorted, I know NL does not fit everyone’s needs.
      4) If you do decide to stay then great your billing will be fixed at what ever package you selected with the usual 20% discount applied for life.

      June 27, 2011 @ 9:55 am | Reply
  20. Hello folks,

    For those who have not seen it on WHT there is currently a 50% Off for life offer valid until the 15th July on all standard packages (2nd & 3rd row on home page) which includes the VPS Lite package.

    As it makes the VPS Lite package under $7 thought I would post it here too:

    after coupon ‘50%offlife’ you get:

    256MB RAM (or 320MB with offer below)
    256MB SWAP
    15 GB Raid 10 Storage
    150 GB of bandwidth (or 300GB with offer below)
    1 IP
    Access to 8 cores (4 virtual)

    After the discount is applied this works out at 4.50 Euros or $6.51 p/month (Source XE.com)

    There is also a double bandwidth or an extra 25% RAM offer that can be used in conjunction meaning you either get 300GB Bandwidth or 320MB RAM just open a ticket with your choice and it will be applied within 24 hours.

    July 5, 2011 @ 5:00 pm | Reply
    • Brandon:

      I am trying to order the 256MB VPS with the 50%offlife coupon code and it is not letting me use the code

      July 5, 2011 @ 7:09 pm | Reply
      • Hi Brandon,

        My apologies, I typed the code wrong, the correct code is ’50offlife’

        Anthony.

        July 6, 2011 @ 9:27 am | Reply
  21. I missed a chance to try with their promo ’50offlife’ too. Euros is more expensive than US$ although.

    July 17, 2011 @ 3:41 pm | Reply
  22. The offer has been extended until 20th for a limited amount of uses, this is the only place I will be posting this.

    July 17, 2011 @ 11:29 pm | Reply
    • Spirit:

      50offlife

      “The promotion code entered has already been used”

      Just in case you don’t know..

      July 18, 2011 @ 1:28 am | Reply
      • Hi Spirit,

        It was only enabled for another 2 uses which were taken up almost as soon as I posted that, I have added 2 more uses on but that will be it :)

        July 18, 2011 @ 9:58 am | Reply
  23. Quick update.

    As existing customers are aware there were some issues with IPv6 due to vlan tagging, this issue has been resolved so IPv6 addresses are now available and free.

    Thanks.

    July 24, 2011 @ 5:41 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 *