LowEndBox - Cheap VPS, Hosting and Dedicated Server Deals

Joe’s Datacenter – $6 512MB OpenVZ VPS in Kansas City

Tags: , , Date/Time: December 31, 2011 @ 1:09 pm, by LowEndAdmin

Joe's Datacenter Here is my last post for the year, and this offer is sent to me by Joe from Joe’s Data Center. The same offer is also posted on WHT here. Their “Entry Level” plan is at $6/month, and you can order with this sign up link.

  • 512MB guaranteed/1024MB burstable memory
  • 30GB storage
  • 700GB/month data transfer
  • OpenVZ/SolusVM

Their servers are located in Kansas City MO with, hmm, Joe’s Datacenter, which you can find the test IP and test files on their website. I suspect most Kansas City offers here are either with Wholesale Internet or Joe’s DC. You can google “Joe’s Datacenter” and read all the reviews, although I think the chance of these guys going to the dead pool would be a lot smaller than any other provider which I have listed over the last week simply due to its size.

Well, that’s it! I can hear the fireworks starting in the background so I better get ready welcoming the year twenty-twelve. Happy new year everyone!

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.


  1. Their TOS’s are a bit weird.

    “If an order is above the USD Price of £16.14 then we will not refund it.

    When ordering services on a longer renewal time than monthly, refunds will not be given.”

    December 31, 2011 @ 1:15 pm | Reply
  2. DPFLAP:

    > I suspect most Kansas City offers here are either with Wholesale Internet or Joe’s DC

    it’s the same building

    December 31, 2011 @ 3:28 pm | Reply
    • WhiteLabelHosting is not with either. :) Just for future reference.

      December 31, 2011 @ 6:31 pm | Reply
  3. If someone gets one, please share their specs/performance and so :P

    December 31, 2011 @ 5:10 pm | Reply
    • Luma:

      4 of:

      processor	: 3
      vendor_id	: AuthenticAMD
      cpu family	: 15
      model		: 33
      model name	: Dual Core AMD Opteron(tm) Processor 875
      stepping	: 2
      cpu MHz		: 2194.374
      cache size	: 1024 KB
      physical id	: 1
      siblings	: 2
      core id		: 1
      cpu cores	: 2
      apicid		: 3
      fpu		: yes
      fpu_exception	: yes
      cpuid level	: 1
      wp		: yes
      flags		: fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36 clflush mmx fxsr sse sse2 ht syscall nx mmxext fxsr_opt lm 3dnowext 3dnow pni lahf_lm cmp_legacy
      bogomips	: 1994.68
      TLB size	: 1024 4K pages
      clflush size	: 64
      cache_alignment	: 64
      address sizes	: 40 bits physical, 48 bits virtual
      power management: ts fid vid ttp

      Disk write test:

      root@server:~# 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, 39.7927 s, 27.0 MB/s
      root@server:~/ioping-0.6# ./ioping -c 10 .
      4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=1 time=0.1 ms
      4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=2 time=0.1 ms
      4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=3 time=0.4 ms
      4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=4 time=1383.6 ms
      4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=5 time=73.1 ms
      4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=6 time=18.3 ms
      4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=7 time=238.8 ms
      4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=8 time=93.7 ms
      4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=9 time=50.3 ms
      4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=10 time=57.2 ms
      --- . (simfs /dev/simfs) ioping statistics ---
      10 requests completed in 10925.6 ms, 5 iops, 0.0 mb/s
      min/avg/max/mdev = 0.1/191.6/1383.6/403.1 ms

      Second IO Ping a few seconds later just to see:

      root@server:~/ioping-0.6# ./ioping -c 10 .
      4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=1 time=0.1 ms
      4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=2 time=0.1 ms
      4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=3 time=0.4 ms
      4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=4 time=0.4 ms
      4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=5 time=0.4 ms
      4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=6 time=890.8 ms
      4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=7 time=11.2 ms
      4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=8 time=70.7 ms
      4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=9 time=30.8 ms
      4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=10 time=908.3 ms
      --- . (simfs /dev/simfs) ioping statistics ---
      10 requests completed in 10925.7 ms, 5 iops, 0.0 mb/s
      min/avg/max/mdev = 0.1/191.3/908.3/354.8 ms

      Internet speed:

      root@server:~# wget cachefly.cachefly.net/100mb.test -O /dev/null
      --2011-12-31 21:40:33--  http://cachefly.cachefly.net/100mb.test
      Resolving cachefly.cachefly.net...
      Connecting to cachefly.cachefly.net||:80... connected.
      HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK
      Length: 104857600 (100M) [application/octet-stream]
      Saving to: `/dev/null'
      100%[======================================>] 104,857,600 10.9M/s   in 12s     
      2011-12-31 21:40:45 (8.43 MB/s) - `/dev/null' saved [104857600/104857600]
      December 31, 2011 @ 9:48 pm | Reply
      • Humza:

        I have to say that I don’t like those results, I expected more. DD is good, and Network speed is tollerable but the IOping is terrible.

        I guess for stability and reliability they’re good.

        January 2, 2012 @ 8:14 pm | Reply
        • It smells like RAID1

          January 2, 2012 @ 8:37 pm | Reply
        • Luma:

          Even the DD test is a bit bad I mean 27MB/s is not horrible but it is not that great.

          But as discussed later in the thread I got onto an old server and Joe from Joe’s said that this is an older server and will be replaced this week. Once I am migrated to the new box and things have settled down I will run a new set of tests and paste them.

          I will say it is reliable, I have been connected with SSH and doing little tasks with it and it has not disconnected me or had any issues.

          January 2, 2012 @ 9:19 pm | Reply
      • Thanks Luma. Well, as LEA says, probably they won’t dissappear, but the performance probably won’t be the best, depending on your applicattions.

        January 2, 2012 @ 8:37 pm | Reply
        • Humza:

          Indeed, with this you’ll have piece of mind. I’m sure that the performance can be improved easily too.

          January 2, 2012 @ 9:21 pm | Reply
  4. Luma:

    I am going to guess it will be some cheap desktop grade last decade AMD systems but hey! I could be wrong!

    December 31, 2011 @ 7:34 pm | Reply
    • We use all quad core or better Supermicro server grade rackmount servers. We are filling up the rest of our quad core machines and the new ones are all 8 core servers. We have been selling virtual servers for several years now and have had great reviews thus far. We have plans over the next week to live migrate current customers on older hardware to the new 8 core machines as well. We have a monitor above the techs workbench that scrolls through temperatures in front of the servers, Uptime alerts, Disk io graphs, load/cpu and bandwidth. We get e-mail alerts from our raid arrays directly into the ticket system. I know a drive went bad last night in a virtual machine node and it was hot swapped and the array was rebuilt without a customer even submitting a ticket or knowing anything happened. Looking forward to advertizing here on lowendbox and hope you guys enjoy.

      December 31, 2011 @ 7:52 pm | Reply
      • Luma:

        I purchased one of these.

        a cat on the /proc/cpuinfo file shows an opteron 875 which is a 7 year old cpu now and is not quad core it is a dual core. Sure you can have 2 of them in the server giving a total of 4 cores.

        December 31, 2011 @ 9:38 pm | Reply
        • ch4ch4:

          Well what do you expect, for $6/month? i7?

          January 1, 2012 @ 2:59 am | Reply
        • Yes unfortunately you were put on VM1 which is the oldest hardware we have in use. Luckily it will probably be one of the first ones upgraded later next week.

          January 1, 2012 @ 5:47 am | Reply
        • “7 year old”
          oh, yeah~~

          January 1, 2012 @ 6:58 am | Reply
        • Luma:

          ch4ch4: I was simply stating that the server is not a quadcore or dual quad core. And many other providers offers modern hardware even at this price point. A great example is the Xeon E3 cpu’s Especially for a company that owns the datacenter the E3 is a great choice as its FAST yet very efficient saving you on electrical and cooling costs while not breaking the bank on the hardware itself either and yet providing lots of power for the customer.

          January 1, 2012 @ 7:04 am | Reply
        • earl:


          $6/Month on LEB I would expect alot!! Preferably with Xeon’s as they actually support ECC Ram..

          January 1, 2012 @ 9:34 am | Reply
        • Luma:

          @VN.: The Opteron 875’s came out in Early 2005.
          @earl: Opteron’s support ECC though I agree that being at the higher price mark of this market the performance should be better though from my tests the IO is the problem. I can live with a slower/older but reliable cpu but IO that has bad latency and is slow is a problem.

          January 1, 2012 @ 10:03 am | Reply
        • Luma:

          As per Joe though the server is being replaced next week. I have heard good things about these guys so lets not be too hard on them just yet :)

          January 1, 2012 @ 10:04 am | Reply
        • earl:

          Yeah the Opteron’s are fine.. my comment on the Xeon was directed at ch4ch4 regarding the i7 CPU, actually there are a few providers on LEB that offer i7’s for under $6/month but your right, on average the IO would become more a problem way before the CPU ever does..

          January 1, 2012 @ 11:44 am | Reply
        • Don’t worry about being hard on me I need feedback if I’m going to improve. Granted I don’t want to scare customers off if they hear bad things I still think the feedback will improve my company more than it will hurt it in the long run. I take what we do very serious as its a passion for me and plan to seriously compete in this market. I am starting off doing the best I can but hopefully will be able to constantly improve as my business grows.

          January 1, 2012 @ 6:49 pm | Reply
        • Well you seem to be doing well joe, regardless of the older CPU’s still running, you have a good attitude, keep up the good work.

          January 3, 2012 @ 6:10 am | Reply
  5. Legendlink:

    Joe’s Datacenter is great, good to see them in the LEB community.

    January 1, 2012 @ 8:48 am | Reply
  6. VPS Management interface doesn’t have SSL support. :(

    I’ve got AMD too with 4 cores.

    Simple stupid test:

    time perl -e 'for (1..100000000) { 999999/5 }'
    real    0m9.005s
    user    0m8.955s
    sys     0m0.046s

    9s is not good, but is not bad also.

    I have the same configurations (OpenVZ and 512/1024 RAM) from Burst.net, QuickWeb, BuyVM/Frantech, ThrustVPS:
    QuickWeb: 7s (Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5620 @ 2.40GHz)
    Burst.net: 5s (Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU X3220 @ 2.40GHz)
    BuyVM/Frantech: 8s (Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU L5520 @ 2.27GHz)
    ThrustVPS: 6s (Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5520 @ 2.27GHz)

    January 2, 2012 @ 8:54 am | Reply
    • I guess that’s because they use AMD cpu’s. Clock per clock the Intel ones are faster

      January 2, 2012 @ 8:40 pm | Reply
    • I have added a ssl cert and configured it so you should be able to change the http to https with no specified ports in the url. I will be setting up url redirection later as well but for now you can manually change it if you want.

      January 3, 2012 @ 4:13 am | Reply
  7. ./ioping -c 10 .
    4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=1 time=31.6 ms
    4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=2 time=0.4 ms
    4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=3 time=0.4 ms
    4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=4 time=0.1 ms
    4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=5 time=0.1 ms
    4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=6 time=31.4 ms
    4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=7 time=15.8 ms
    4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=8 time=6.6 ms
    4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=9 time=0.4 ms
    4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=10 time=0.4 ms
    --- . (simfs /dev/simfs) ioping statistics ---
    10 requests completed in 9102.2 ms, 115 iops, 0.4 mb/s
    min/avg/max/mdev = 0.1/8.7/31.6/12.3 ms
    January 2, 2012 @ 10:31 am | Reply
  8. Doug:

    Wow… apparently my VPS at Joe’s is even slower :-P. I ran the following 4-5 times and it was ALWAYS 17 seconds:

    # time perl -e ‘for (1..100000000) { 999999/5 }’
    real    0m17.072s
    user    0m16.951s
    sys     0m0.068s
    ./ioping -c 10 .
    4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=1 time=7.8 ms
    4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=2 time=8.0 ms
    4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=3 time=7.0 ms
    4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=4 time=4.0 ms
    4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=5 time=0.5 ms
    4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=6 time=0.5 ms
    4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=7 time=3.9 ms
    4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=8 time=7.0 ms
    4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=9 time=0.3 ms
    4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=10 time=2.0 ms
    — . (simfs /dev/simfs) ioping statistics —
    10 requests completed in 9057.1 ms, 243 iops, 1.0 mb/s
    min/avg/max/mdev = 0.3/4.1/8.0/3.0 ms
    January 2, 2012 @ 7:01 pm | Reply
    • Humza:

      I’d say that this IOping is better than the other one’s I saw above.

      January 2, 2012 @ 9:53 pm | Reply
  9. Doug:
    processor       : 0
    vendor_id       : AuthenticAMD
    cpu family      : 16
    model           : 4
    model name      : AMD Processor model unknown
    stepping        : 3
    cpu MHz         : 799.971
    cache size      : 512 KB
    physical id     : 0
    siblings        : 4
    core id         : 0
    cpu cores       : 4
    apicid          : 0
    fpu             : yes
    fpu_exception   : yes
    cpuid level     : 5
    wp              : yes
    flags           : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36 clflush mmx fxsr sse sse2 ht syscall nx mmxext fxsr_opt pdpe1gb rdtscp lm 3dnowext 3dnow constant_tsc nonstop_tsc pni cx16 popcnt lahf_lm cmp_legacy svm extapic cr8_legacy altmovcr8 abm sse4a misalignsse 3dnowprefetch osvw
    bogomips        : 1599.94
    TLB size        : 1024 4K pages
    clflush size    : 64
    cache_alignment : 64
    address sizes   : 48 bits physical, 48 bits virtual
    power management: ts ttp tm stc 100mhzsteps hwpstate [8]
    January 2, 2012 @ 7:15 pm | Reply
  10. DG:

    I think some of you should be cutting Joe some slack around here, Hes a VERY hard working individual who has the best interests of his business at heart, Although you may not be getting provisioned on “2012 enterprise cutting edge nodes” but your dealing direct with a datacenter and owner who has a long standing in this industry, The latter exceeding the price of this VPS in my opinion.

    January 2, 2012 @ 9:51 pm | Reply
    • Doug:

      If its fast enough to keep things humming, I don’t really care that much. I’m sticking with Joe’s anyway due to his reputation, which does count for a lot in my book.

      With that said… if the a quick CPU test is more than twice the average of what “Check Server” posted from his results at 4-5 different companies, I imagine that is exactly the type of feedback Joe would like to know/see.

      The fact that my results are actually slower for the perl script, *hopefully* is a good thing for me, since this might mean I’m on the slower hardware that will be soon moved to the even faster machine :-D.

      January 2, 2012 @ 10:11 pm | Reply
      • Humza:

        Indeed you pretty much summed it up Doug. I’d trust him over the majority of VPSs hosts out there, and this performance is more than enough to have your stuff running fine. It would just be nice to have it improved.

        January 2, 2012 @ 10:13 pm | Reply
  11. Michael:

    “IRC websites/servers are not allowed.”
    IRC clients?

    January 3, 2012 @ 1:25 am | Reply
  12. Matt:

    I want to like Joe’s, but I think I’m going to pass. I have sent 2-3 simple sales inquiries in the past and never got a response. My email address wasn’t the problem, because I once got an ad from their system for “contacting them in the past”.

    January 3, 2012 @ 2:39 am | Reply
    • Matt I am sorry you did not get a reply. To be honest the biggest complaint I have had against my company has been that we do not answer sales/or answer sales fast. But it is hard to find a complaint that we don’t answer support tickets which is the opposite of most companies. I know that it gives a bad first impression but I would much rather make sure I can 110% support the customers I have than just pack more on. There are lots of companies today that seem to just sell sell sell and forgot about the existing customers. I will say that we have increased staff and are now answering sales tickets on a regular basis. Also We have some more equipment on order and should be migrating most customers shortly.

      January 3, 2012 @ 3:23 am | Reply
  13. Probably Check Server will impose a new trend with his Simple Stupid Test

    time perl -e 'for (1..100000000) { 999999/5 }'

    4.8s. in my home server :P

    January 3, 2012 @ 3:35 am | Reply
    • He-he, may be. One perl hacker provided this SST for me :)

      In other way, for example Burst.net VPS has only 1 core, but Joe’s – 4 cores. :)

      5.019s for my home i3 notebook.

      January 3, 2012 @ 9:46 am | Reply
      • Hehe, is so funny xD
        The Joe’s one will outperform Burst in heavy loads I guess

        Btw, got 51s in a capped E6600 @ 200Mhz :P

        January 3, 2012 @ 10:11 pm | Reply
    • Jamie:

      6.0 on my Kiloserve VPS
      17.6 on a Sempron 2800+ :P

      January 3, 2012 @ 9:50 am | Reply
    • ab:

      real 0m1.881s
      user 0m1.880s
      sys 0m0.000s

      on AWS, lol

      January 3, 2012 @ 10:19 pm | Reply
  14. Arthur:

    Probably a bit off topic. Wondering if Joe will put those old nodes on offer once all the clients migrate off it.
    My friend have a $99 Phenom server from Joe’s and he is eager to upgrade to better hardware.

    January 3, 2012 @ 3:48 pm | Reply
  15. Christopher Easton:

    Just to test this stupid perl test out.. My Dual intel Hex’s did this…

    [root@h31-3-255-2 ~]# time perl -e ‘for (1..100000000) { 999999/5 }’

    real 0m4.343s
    user 0m4.330s
    sys 0m0.001s
    [root@h31-3-255-2 ~]#

    January 3, 2012 @ 5:22 pm | Reply
    • What’s the point on presume that is a dual Intel hex? lol

      January 3, 2012 @ 10:08 pm | Reply
  16. Danyell Quickley:

    Just ordered one and waiting for it.

    January 14, 2012 @ 12:24 am | Reply
  17. Has anyone seen the nodes being updated yet? I would like to get one, but I don’t want to get on an old node!

    January 17, 2012 @ 9:00 pm | Reply
  18. Not updated yet.

    February 1, 2012 @ 5:18 am | Reply
  19. zeng:

    hm… how long does it takes for joe to make the VPS available? it’s been 4 hours now and no email about the login information. the only email i got was from paypal telling me that money has been deducted since i made the payment.

    February 7, 2012 @ 1:06 pm | Reply
  20. Just upgraded my dedicated Server with Joes Data Center.
    i am with them from last 3years.

    July 7, 2014 @ 4:30 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 *