LowEndBox - Cheap VPS, Hosting and Dedicated Server Deals

Kazetech – $3.48 256MB OpenVZ VPS in Miami

Tags: , , Date/Time: September 19, 2011 @ 2:06 pm, by LowEndAdmin
Updated February 2012 — Kazetech website has not been working since
20 Jan. Looks like Zulk scammed his customers and did a runner.

Kazetech Zulkhairi from Kazetech emailed me some of their coupon codes for their VPS plans.

  • BIOSHOCK — 70% off for 1st month
  • COSMOPOLIS — 20% off recurring
  • LOWENDBOX — 50% off recurring, 20-only

Combining their LowEndBox exclusive coupon with VPS plan “KZT[01]-OVZ” takes the price to $3.48/month after the discount, and it comes with

  • 256MB guaranteed/512MB burstable memory
  • 10GB storage
  • 1000GB/month data transfer on 1Gbps
  • OpenVZ/Virtualizor

You can pay in either PayPal, Google Checkout or AlertPay. They are running their own servers colocated with CoreSite in Miami FL (test IP: 99.192.244.254). You can also get Xen VPS but at a more expensive price, and KVM is also coming soon. IRC clients are allowed but not server according to their policies. Domain has only been registered in May this year with WHOIS protection turned on, however they did claim that they are “now hosting over 1000 VPS” on their home page. According to Zulkhairi that they were hosting services for corporate before, but have now opened to public.

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.

134 Comments

  1. Gary:

    East coast so decent ping from the UK, ~115ms. Not in the market for another USA VPS though. :)

    September 19, 2011 @ 4:08 pm | Reply
    • Francisco:

      The VPS has excellent latency to South American countries.

      Wild guess: they are using a Quadranet server.

      September 19, 2011 @ 6:44 pm | Reply
      • Nope… we don’t use quadranet server. We own our own hardware. The secret behind the speed is we have a good bandwidth provider/exchange.

        September 19, 2011 @ 8:37 pm | Reply
        • Francisco:

          Yes, Mojohost one of the biggest providers of hosting to adult Web sites. :-)

          September 20, 2011 @ 10:13 pm | Reply
        • So? I host some of the servers for one of the larger content providers. Doesn’t get me laid though.

          September 20, 2011 @ 11:49 pm | Reply
        • Francisco:

          @drmike:

          So that MojoHost has huge installed capacity and you can expect low congestion / good data rates. Moreover as they have a lot of servers at NOTA (NOTA’s biggest client?) and also they provide transit to Coresite facility customers you can expect good support as well.

          September 21, 2011 @ 12:33 am | Reply
        • you can expect low congestion / good data rates

          No, not really. I still hear horror stories about some of my client’s past and current providers. Bandwidth gets used up real fast with their servers. Especially if they get an A list performer for a night.

          I know the provider that they used before me promised them tons of bandwidth (and charged them for it) but they couldn’t deliver.

          September 21, 2011 @ 1:01 am | Reply
    • Daniel:

      115ms who is you’re isp in uk? 115ms is realy good.

      September 19, 2011 @ 11:58 pm | Reply
      • Gary:

        Nah, that’s from a VPS. The ping from home is 139ms. VPS @ Rapidswitch, home net from Be*.

        September 20, 2011 @ 12:05 am | Reply
        • Daniel:

          Ahh. I get 157ms from Virgin Media (100Mbit)

          September 20, 2011 @ 12:13 am | Reply
      • Francisco:

        SolarVPS (Clifton/NJ) UK2 (London) = 67ms

        September 20, 2011 @ 12:15 am | Reply
  2. Joe Merit:

    Looks like Xen and KVM plans are already available for purchase and w/ coupon its $3.50/mth
    for the lowest plan of each. (coupon = LOWENDBOX )

    Really tempting offer ;0

    September 19, 2011 @ 4:27 pm | Reply
    • Francisco:

      These plans are not available yet.

      Im sorry to inform you that your order for KZT[01]-KVM is not yet available. The node for Xen and KVM is still under provisioned and thus we cant deliver your service in time.
      I also would like to mention about price changes on our cart for KVM and Xen and more to be added. We dont expect to get an order for KVM and Xen as soon as this but we will make up something in return to compensate for our mistake …

      September 19, 2011 @ 6:36 pm | Reply
      • Joe Merit:

        Doh sorry ;0 But I guess it works out if you can wait.

        September 19, 2011 @ 7:33 pm | Reply
        • Francisco:

          Sure, but did you notice the “I also would like to mention about price changes on our cart for KVM and Xen”? :-)

          September 19, 2011 @ 7:34 pm | Reply
        • Price changes that I mention in the email refer to plan 03 for both kvm and xen which is previously $15.99 to $12.95 so the price actually will be far more less and not increased.

          September 19, 2011 @ 8:33 pm | Reply
  3. Pinoy:

    You misspelled LOWEDBOX it should be LOWENDBOX :)

    September 19, 2011 @ 4:47 pm | Reply
    • Was wondering that as well. Is the coupon correct or is it a typo?

      September 20, 2011 @ 12:48 pm | Reply
  4. wow they are using mojohost for bandwidth so they have 7 bandwidth providers and that internap speed thing, i am on comcast in idaho and get ping times under 40ms

    September 19, 2011 @ 4:55 pm | Reply
    • make that 30ms, it got even better during prime time.. lol.

      I did a traceroute and they have a direct link to Comcast. I wasnt in the market for a VPS but I just bought one to run a gameserver, got my setup info within 2 minutes… sweet!

      September 20, 2011 @ 12:22 am | Reply
      • Francisco:

        Could you please post the 2 traceroute? Thanks.

        September 20, 2011 @ 12:25 am | Reply
  5. Gary:

    @ zulkhairi – any plans to do smaller VPSes? like 64MB or so?

    September 20, 2011 @ 12:42 am | Reply
    • maybe on xen or kvm but ram is cheaper nowadays, and we always have ongoing offer for LowEndBox so you will always get a nice set of spec with half of the price with coupon code ofc.

      September 20, 2011 @ 12:49 am | Reply
      • Gary:

        True, I wouldn’t mind a fast and super cheap east coast box for an irc bouncer though, and the plans listed there are way overkill. :)

        September 20, 2011 @ 1:11 am | Reply
  6. sf:

    Does the lowendbox code apply to the seedbox plans?

    Also… the first seedbox plan shows up on the homepage, but on the http://www.kazetech.com/vps-plan page there are no seedbox plans listed. When you go to the cart you can add one of three different seedbox plans but can’t see what they include…

    September 20, 2011 @ 1:22 am | Reply
    • We will have another promotion for SeedBox plan. You can always get info about our latest promotion via twitter.

      Please do not place any order for seedbox plan until further notice. We are adding new node for seedbox and it’s our latest product which is still under provisioning.

      September 20, 2011 @ 10:09 am | Reply
  7. jumped into this one :)

    September 20, 2011 @ 3:03 am | Reply
  8. circus:

    Operator location? it’s too anonymous for me.

    September 20, 2011 @ 9:40 am | Reply
    • I bet everyone will make an issue with domain name is protected with whoisguard tho actually it come free with the domain so why don’t we use it. Anyway whoisguard has been disabled and here is the information you need.

      Kaze Technology
      36 NE 2nd Street
      Miami, Florida 33132
      United States

      September 20, 2011 @ 10:13 am | Reply
      • Gary:

        Would you reject a customer for filling in fake information when signing up? Then expecting them to trust you with their cash when your own details are hidden is a bit much, no?

        Why not include the same contact details on your website too?

        September 20, 2011 @ 11:27 am | Reply
        • Nope we don’t reject them. This is common I guess? If you want to hide your identity on the internet you have the right to do it. But I already put the same information on my signature if you see me replying a ticket.

          September 20, 2011 @ 11:46 am | Reply
        • Francisco:

          @Zulkhairi

          From your FAQ:

          Generally, your VPS hosting account will be provisioned and ready to use minutes after you have placed your order in other words it’s an instant setup.

          However if your order is flagged by our fraud prevention system, our billing department will contact you within 24 hours to approve your order and complete the account creation process. Please ensure that your billing information is entered accurately and avoid using e-mail addresses from free e-mail providers to minimize delays.

          September 20, 2011 @ 12:53 pm | Reply
      • circus:

        “it come free with the domain so why don’t we use it”
        Umm.. Because you are selling services.. anyway is that data center location or your office location?

        September 20, 2011 @ 11:30 am | Reply
  9. Vipies:

    If you can host over 1000 vps, why new stock availability very limited? It should at least 1000.
    You don’t have WHMCS license but at least 1000 of your “corporate clients” trust you :P

    September 20, 2011 @ 12:20 pm | Reply
    • Gary:

      Accept orders slowly, provision slowly. Then you can get a feel for how many actual long-term customers you’ll have, so you know exactly how many nodes to provision.

      Open orders with no limit will probably end up in a fair number of customers who cancel after 1 month, or get TOS’d off the service, or whatever else happens to make providers lose/kick customers.

      Better than getting 6 months in, with 10 half-full servers, then pissing off customers because of the downtime (no matter how short) caused by consolidating it all onto 5 servers.

      Also, take on hundreds of customers at a time and they’ll all complain that their dd benchmark results suck. Mainly because they’re all doing them at the same damn time. ;)

      September 20, 2011 @ 12:35 pm | Reply
    • Francisco:

      http://www.google.cf/support/forum/p/Google+Apps/thread?tid=435423b95b8cb98b&hl=en

      Domain Name : KazeTech.com
      Edition : Free Edition
      Affected Username/s : support@kazetech.com
      Issue Description : This user has been suspended for abuse.

      September 20, 2011 @ 12:36 pm | Reply
    • If you can host over 1000 vps, why new stock availability very limited?

      I would think being around BuyVM would answer that one.

      September 20, 2011 @ 1:06 pm | Reply
  10. Vlad C:

    Why are you using a nulled WHMCS?

    September 20, 2011 @ 1:02 pm | Reply
    • Francisco:

      “This domain is authorized to be using WHMCS”

      cp.kazetech.com

      http://www.whmcs.com/members/verifydomain.php

      September 20, 2011 @ 1:08 pm | Reply
    • Vlad C:

      Yeah, now it is. 5 minutes ago they were using a nulled installation. They probably reissued an older license to that domain.
      Also, their license expires yesterday?
      WHMCS license a4a4adc3cf39 for cp.kazetech.com [99.192.245.34] (Internet Gateway of South Beach) is currently active. Type: Monthly Lease, valid from 2008-06-18 to 2011-09-19 (billed monthly)

      September 20, 2011 @ 1:10 pm | Reply
    • it come free … so why don’t we use it.

      ;)

      Have to admit that while the red flags haven’t appeared yet, the yellow ones are at full mast.

      – Whoisguard in an industry that scorns it.

      – Incomplete website with incorrect and incomplete information.

      – The nulled software.

      – The test IP is assigned to Mojohost and appears not to be split off into their own block. Heck doesn’t even have rDNS on it.

      – And it’s Florida. Hurricane Highway to America. :)

      September 20, 2011 @ 1:12 pm | Reply
      • Pardon me for the incomplete website, I’ll make sure it will come as beautiful until I have more idea what to shove in it to complete our professional profile.

        I believe u should check on billing.kazetech.com before to check for that license we just mask it with cp.kazetech.com. So we already fix that issue.

        The test IP is our OpenVZ server IP or you could access it at ovza.kazetech.com:4082 or using ip:port. We already switch rDNS to reflect the hostname.

        About the hurricane, I’m sorry that I can’t fix that for now :)

        Anything else need to be done on my side?

        September 20, 2011 @ 2:50 pm | Reply
      • Your observation about Miami is incorrect. I live in North Florida and the last hurricanes to hit Miami was Hurricane Hugo and Andrew, so stop using stereotypes of hurricane hitting Florida because I’ve only evacuated from my home in Florida twice in almost 30 years.

        September 20, 2011 @ 6:04 pm | Reply
      • the datacenter for coresite is catagory 5 hurricane protected.

        September 20, 2011 @ 9:27 pm | Reply
      • it looks like he fixed all your complaints that were possible. that is good service, i ordered yesterday and opened 2 support tickets and they were already replied to, one within 2 hours, one within 15 minutes.

        and my financial risk (if you can even call it that as you can dispute payments) was under the cost of my lunch at a fast food place.

        rick

        September 20, 2011 @ 9:37 pm | Reply
        • Gary:

          You can dispute payments, but with it being an intangible service, you’ll lose a paypal dispute.

          And while to you or I $3.58 is nothing, to some people that’s a few hours’ wages.

          September 20, 2011 @ 9:52 pm | Reply
        • You are right. I have successfully disputed a VPS company before and won, but it took about 2 – 3 weeks to get my $5 back.

          September 20, 2011 @ 10:13 pm | Reply
        • Gary:

          What were the circumstances? Because like I said, PP offers no guarantees for things like VPSes. You were either lucky or it was obvious that there was something wrong. If the company disputed your claim in any way I doubt PP would’ve found in your favour. :(

          September 20, 2011 @ 10:26 pm | Reply
        • The company didn’t respond and if you want to know the company, it was 2HOST.

          September 20, 2011 @ 10:29 pm | Reply
        • Gary:

          Yeah, thought as much. I’ve won some disputes as well, but the ones that didn’t go well were with XVPS, the shits. They just lied to paypal, saying I’d had a month’s problem free service from them, which was about as far from the truth as is possible.

          Because they bothered to dispute it (albeit with their standard copy and paste ripping-people-off replay as verified by others on WHT) PP ruled in their favour. Wasn’t much money, but they clearly were just in business to rip people off. The whole Yomura Holdings group is known for it.

          This is exactly why people now scrutinize providers and check their background. Just because there are legit, honourable providers out there doesn’t mean there aren’t some whose whole business plan revolves around ripping people off and taking advantage of PP’s T&C that favour the seller in these situations. :(

          September 20, 2011 @ 10:34 pm | Reply
  11. Well.. I wish I could understand why people want to dig so much about me and KazeTech. 1000 VPS is just a tag line, it doesn’t refer to how many our client is on KazeTech right now. So let it be right there.

    We don’t use nulled but you can host nulled script it doesn’t matter as long as we don’t get any report. I personally fine with this. FAQ or TOS or what ever is just a business requirement where you could see it and use it as your guidelines. I don’t force you to post you true details online. It doesn’t matter if your name are Matt in real but Super Kewl Matt online. But at least use a proper name if you want to register with us unless you want me to call you the name you want me to call you

    @Vipies – About server provisioning, I hope that you do understand that this matter need to be well planned. Even if I own several rack on CoreSite doesn’t mean I just can plug as many server I want. It just doesn’t cost effective. How am I going to provide you with a low cost VPS if I have to pay more than what I use? Perhaps you have your own perfect planning running a public hosted service, so do we. Yet we don’t oversell.

    The OpenVZ node we have all use 8 core server with 24GB RAM and we can push up to 32GB RAM if we see it need it. Having hw raid as our disk raid controller on each server to ensure that you’ll get the best ioping and gbit network connected to 7 tier 1 show that we are not someone who take hosting business like a child play.

    I can’t deny there is a lots of haters out there trying to set you back but in this case I don’t see it fits to post it here at LowEndBox. If you have some issue with us we have facebook account, we have twitter account and we even have WHT account (tho we know WHT attract the haters) so post it there.

    September 20, 2011 @ 1:35 pm | Reply
    • Joe Merit:

      Its not haters. When you get posted on LowEndBox you pretty much open yourself to a full scale investigation because the community here tries to protect themselves and others from scammers.

      So expect people to dig further until we are satisfied that you aren’t a scammer :)

      September 20, 2011 @ 2:41 pm | Reply
      • Yes thank you for your advise. I will make sure everything is perfect from now on.

        September 20, 2011 @ 2:51 pm | Reply
        • XYZ:

          Can you stop using that tag line. That was a deal breaker to me.

          January 4, 2012 @ 7:59 am | Reply
    • If it’s not BuyVM, QuickWeb or Ramhost – they will rip you to shreds because of being blind fanboys. See also VM Port’s offer.

      September 20, 2011 @ 6:05 pm | Reply
      • Gary:

        Don’t start that shit Joseph. Or is it Michael?

        Every provider gets investigated. The providers you’ve mentioned are respected here, but they’re not above criticism. There’s been enough of it, the paranoid assholes who cry fanboy every time we spot something wrong with a provider are just blind to it.

        For every decent provider there are ten crappy ones like Hostrail, XPVS or availableVPS. It’s something we have to live with, being at the lower end of the VPS chain, price-wise. It doesn’t always mean the service has to suck, just mostly.

        When we point things out that are wrong with providers, it’s to make them fix it, and warn others who might not be quite as knowledgeable.

        Is commenting on a provider having whois protection really fanboyism?

        What about pointing out they’re using pirate/nulled software?

        You really think Quickweb would get away with that?

        I *HATE* fanboyism. Most people do, but I hate inverse fanboyism even more. Plenty of providers get praise.

        Look at QualityVPS. They’re new here and there have been quite a few positive comments about them. Securedragon as well. So anyone who actually frequents this site regularly knows it’s not just “the big 3” who are respected, and every other provider gets a bum rap.

        Quit spreading the myth that nobody but BuyVM, QuickWeb or Ramhost get a raw deal here. If that were the case, would providers keep submitting their offers? Don’t be stupid.

        September 20, 2011 @ 6:51 pm | Reply
        • Providers submit, LEB makes a claim the owner is 16 years old and all you WHT rejects rip providers to shreds.

          Also, tl;dr on your blog posting. You mad, bro?

          September 20, 2011 @ 8:01 pm | Reply
        • Gary:

          Then piss off and stop reading LEB, you’re clearly just here to whine, not to participate.

          LEB makes a claim? The guy does research to help the users of the site make informed decisions. If he’s not sure about something he mentions that.

          You are Michael and I claim my five pounds.

          September 20, 2011 @ 8:05 pm | Reply
        • Whine or claim people are others? It wasn’t very informed to accuse the owner of being 16 when he ended up being an intern.

          September 20, 2011 @ 8:44 pm | Reply
      • circus:

        What? whois protection and no clear contact is lame for any providers, that’s all.

        September 20, 2011 @ 6:56 pm | Reply
    • Gary:

      Why doesn’t t fit to post it at LEB? Offers are posted, discussions are then open to all. Doesn’t it make sense to critique it in public, in a place where there’s already discussion about it?

      You don’t use nulled scripts you say, but according to Vlad C, you were until earlier today. I have no inclination either way, but you haven’t technically denied that he’s telling the truth, you just say that you don’t, which is true currently. Am I reading too much into it, or is he correct?

      Your network does seem pretty decent, and it’s good to see that you currently max out at 24GB/node. Some providers will just shove as much ram in as the board can handle, since ram’s the easiest/cheapest thing to upgrade, and while they can fit hundreds of VMs on a box, performance goes to hell.

      Don’t take it as pointless criticism. Plenty of providers have really screwed over hundreds of customers previously. We know that when operating at these kind of margins you need to know what you’re doing or you end up getting booted by the datacentre because you can’t pay your bills. People who have proper business plans don’t tend/need to use nulled scripts, whois protection etc, so if people point these things out and you fix them, that’ll give people more confidence in you.

      September 20, 2011 @ 7:00 pm | Reply
    • 1000 VPS is just a tag line, it doesn’t refer to how many our client is on KazeTech right now.

      Anyone else bothered by that statement?

      I’ll let someone else say the four letter word that I’m thinking of.

      September 21, 2011 @ 1:58 pm | Reply
      • circus:

        is it “liar”? :P

        September 21, 2011 @ 2:30 pm | Reply
      • Vipies:

        What a beautiful liar…

        September 30, 2011 @ 3:36 pm | Reply
        • Not the first time around here a provider’s marketing copy has been called into question.

          September 30, 2011 @ 6:18 pm | Reply
      • Aras:

        At least website has physical address.. :) I give that a plus….

        September 30, 2011 @ 6:58 pm | Reply
  12. Bandwidth the reliable but the CPU is 600Mhz

    September 20, 2011 @ 8:03 pm | Reply
    • Francisco:

      Worst Byte benchmark ever.

      September 20, 2011 @ 8:17 pm | Reply
      • I got something around 100 or so on UnixBench. My IBM Thinkpad x41 Pentium-M laptop got something in the mid 200s.

        September 20, 2011 @ 8:47 pm | Reply
        • Francisco:

          I got 90 — I run the Byte benchmark excluding the disk I/O tests.

          September 20, 2011 @ 9:14 pm | Reply
  13. UnixBench

    Benchmark Run: Mon Sep 19 2011 22:49:44 - 00:11:16
    8 CPUs in system; running 8 parallel copies of tests
    
    Dhrystone 2 using register variables        2503310.3 lps   (10.6 s, 7 samples)
    Double-Precision Whetstone                     6939.8 MWIPS (9.9 s, 7 samples)
    Execl Throughput                                221.5 lps   (29.7 s, 2 samples)
    File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks         62044.1 KBps  (30.2 s, 2 samples)
    File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks           20286.1 KBps  (30.2 s, 2 samples)
    File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks        130256.4 KBps  (30.2 s, 2 samples)
    Pipe Throughput                              159172.6 lps   (10.5 s, 7 samples)
    Pipe-based Context Switching                  21835.6 lps   (10.4 s, 7 samples)
    Process Creation                                374.3 lps   (30.3 s, 2 samples)
    Shell Scripts (1 concurrent)                    248.1 lpm   (61.1 s, 2 samples)
    Shell Scripts (8 concurrent)                     28.3 lpm   (66.7 s, 2 samples)
    System Call Overhead                         156950.8 lps   (10.6 s, 7 samples)
    
    System Benchmarks Index Values               BASELINE       RESULT    INDEX
    Dhrystone 2 using register variables         116700.0    2503310.3    214.5
    Double-Precision Whetstone                       55.0       6939.8   1261.8
    Execl Throughput                                 43.0        221.5     51.5
    File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks          3960.0      62044.1    156.7
    File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks            1655.0      20286.1    122.6
    File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks          5800.0     130256.4    224.6
    Pipe Throughput                               12440.0     159172.6    128.0
    Pipe-based Context Switching                   4000.0      21835.6     54.6
    Process Creation                                126.0        374.3     29.7
    Shell Scripts (1 concurrent)                     42.4        248.1     58.5
    Shell Scripts (8 concurrent)                      6.0         28.3     47.2
    System Call Overhead                          15000.0     156950.8    104.6
                                                                       ========
    System Benchmarks Index Score                                         111.3
    

    cat /proc/cpuinfo

    processor	: 0
    vendor_id	: AuthenticAMD
    cpu family	: 16
    model		: 2
    model name	: Quad-Core AMD Opteron(tm) Processor 2350
    stepping	: 1
    cpu MHz		: 74.221
    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	: 4000.16
    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]
    
    processor	: 1
    vendor_id	: AuthenticAMD
    cpu family	: 16
    model		: 2
    model name	: Quad-Core AMD Opteron(tm) Processor 2350
    stepping	: 1
    cpu MHz		: 74.221
    cache size	: 512 KB
    physical id	: 0
    siblings	: 4
    core id		: 1
    cpu cores	: 4
    apicid		: 1
    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	: 4001.63
    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]
    
    processor	: 2
    vendor_id	: AuthenticAMD
    cpu family	: 16
    model		: 2
    model name	: Quad-Core AMD Opteron(tm) Processor 2350
    stepping	: 1
    cpu MHz		: 74.221
    cache size	: 512 KB
    physical id	: 0
    siblings	: 4
    core id		: 2
    cpu cores	: 4
    apicid		: 2
    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	: 4001.51
    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]
    
    processor	: 3
    vendor_id	: AuthenticAMD
    cpu family	: 16
    model		: 2
    model name	: Quad-Core AMD Opteron(tm) Processor 2350
    stepping	: 1
    cpu MHz		: 74.221
    cache size	: 512 KB
    physical id	: 0
    siblings	: 4
    core id		: 3
    cpu cores	: 4
    apicid		: 3
    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	: 4001.57
    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]
    
    processor	: 4
    vendor_id	: AuthenticAMD
    cpu family	: 16
    model		: 2
    model name	: Quad-Core AMD Opteron(tm) Processor 2350
    stepping	: 3
    cpu MHz		: 74.221
    cache size	: 512 KB
    physical id	: 1
    siblings	: 4
    core id		: 0
    cpu cores	: 4
    apicid		: 4
    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	: 4000.86
    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]
    
    processor	: 5
    vendor_id	: AuthenticAMD
    cpu family	: 16
    model		: 2
    model name	: Quad-Core AMD Opteron(tm) Processor 2350
    stepping	: 3
    cpu MHz		: 74.221
    cache size	: 512 KB
    physical id	: 1
    siblings	: 4
    core id		: 1
    cpu cores	: 4
    apicid		: 5
    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	: 4000.97
    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]
    
    processor	: 6
    vendor_id	: AuthenticAMD
    cpu family	: 16
    model		: 2
    model name	: Quad-Core AMD Opteron(tm) Processor 2350
    stepping	: 3
    cpu MHz		: 74.221
    cache size	: 512 KB
    physical id	: 1
    siblings	: 4
    core id		: 2
    cpu cores	: 4
    apicid		: 6
    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	: 4000.95
    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]
    
    processor	: 7
    vendor_id	: AuthenticAMD
    cpu family	: 16
    model		: 2
    model name	: Quad-Core AMD Opteron(tm) Processor 2350
    stepping	: 3
    cpu MHz		: 74.221
    cache size	: 512 KB
    physical id	: 1
    siblings	: 4
    core id		: 3
    cpu cores	: 4
    apicid		: 7
    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	: 4000.90
    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]
    
    September 20, 2011 @ 8:58 pm | Reply
    • Certainly haven’t seen a unix bench result that low for a while. For some applications it’s also probably better to have 1x 600MHz core, than 8x 74.2MHz core.

      September 20, 2011 @ 11:17 pm | Reply
      • /proc/cpuinfo displayed a 600 Mhz single core and hours later, it changed to 8 47 Mhz cores

        September 20, 2011 @ 11:38 pm | Reply
        • Francisco:

          Exactly. I did the tests with 1 core @ 600MHz.

          
          (UTC)
          
          fl12:~# uptime
           22:11:13 up 28 min,  1 user,  load average: 0.01, 0.00, 0.00
          
          fl12:~# cat /proc/cpuinfo
          processor       : 0
          vendor_id       : AuthenticAMD
          cpu family      : 16
          model           : 2
          model name      : Quad-Core AMD Opteron(tm) Processor 2350
          stepping        : 1
          cpu MHz         : 599.633
          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 mm
          x 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 3dnowp
          refetch osvw
          bogomips        : 4000.16
          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]
          
          
          Byte benchmark excluding file copy tests.
          
          
             BYTE UNIX Benchmarks (Version 5.1.2)
          
             System: fl12: GNU/Linux
             OS: GNU/Linux -- 2.6.18-274.el5.028stab093.2 -- #1 SMP Tue Aug 23 16:46:17 MSD 2011
             Machine: x86_64 (unknown)
             Language: en_US.utf8 (charmap="ANSI_X3.4-1968", collate="ANSI_X3.4-1968")
             CPU 0: Quad-Core AMD Opteron(tm) Processor 2350 (4000.2 bogomips)
                    Hyper-Threading, x86-64, MMX, AMD MMX, Physical Address Ext, SYSENTER/SYSEXIT, AMD virtual
          ization, SYSCALL/SYSRET
             19:12:41 up  1:30,  1 user,  load average: 0.28, 0.06, 0.06; runlevel 2
          
          ------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Benchmark Run: Mon Sep 19 2011 19:12:41 - 19:41:26
          1 CPU in system; running 1 parallel copy of tests
          
          Dhrystone 2 using register variables        1732790.9 lps   (10.0 s, 7 samples)
          Double-Precision Whetstone                      852.2 MWIPS (9.9 s, 7 samples)
          Execl Throughput                                243.9 lps   (29.8 s, 2 samples)
          Pipe Throughput                              169188.3 lps   (10.0 s, 7 samples)
          Pipe-based Context Switching                  24447.8 lps   (10.0 s, 7 samples)
          Process Creation                                663.2 lps   (30.0 s, 2 samples)
          Shell Scripts (1 concurrent)                    358.3 lpm   (60.1 s, 2 samples)
          Shell Scripts (16 concurrent)                    24.8 lpm   (60.5 s, 2 samples)
          Shell Scripts (8 concurrent)                     50.7 lpm   (60.9 s, 2 samples)
          System Call Overhead                         163797.4 lps   (10.0 s, 7 samples)
          
          System Benchmarks Partial Index              BASELINE       RESULT    INDEX
          Dhrystone 2 using register variables         116700.0    1732790.9    148.5
          Double-Precision Whetstone                       55.0        852.2    154.9
          Execl Throughput                                 43.0        243.9     56.7
          Pipe Throughput                               12440.0     169188.3    136.0
          Pipe-based Context Switching                   4000.0      24447.8     61.1
          Process Creation                                126.0        663.2     52.6
          Shell Scripts (1 concurrent)                     42.4        358.3     84.5
          Shell Scripts (16 concurrent)                     ---         24.8      ---
          Shell Scripts (8 concurrent)                      6.0         50.7     84.6
          System Call Overhead                          15000.0     163797.4    109.2
                                                                             ========
          System Benchmarks Index Score (Partial Only)                           91.4
          
          September 20, 2011 @ 11:49 pm | Reply
        • Francisco:

          91,4 is almost 1/20 of the 1646.5 Unixbench index I got with the VMstorm’s $6 VMware VPS

          September 20, 2011 @ 11:58 pm | Reply
        • the reason for this is because of amd’s powernow technology not because of anything

          if the server is not busy, it will lower the power consumption and it will “step” the speed of the CPU down to a lower level.

          i am so happy with my account i wish i had signed up earlier, i hear they are increasing disk space now?

          October 2, 2011 @ 6:28 pm | Reply
        • Nah, I don’t think so, changing cores on the fly just because the cpu is throttling? false

          And 90 points in unixbench is a crap! :S

          October 2, 2011 @ 6:40 pm | Reply
  14. I ll do some tests in a while. As a first impression I can say network kicks ass big time ( both in latency to where I need it and speed).
    Installing applications make the VM get kind of stalled sometimes though.

    I like the CP they use :)

    September 20, 2011 @ 9:00 pm | Reply
  15. Joe Merit:

    74Mhz per core? thats ridiculous.

    September 20, 2011 @ 10:53 pm | Reply
  16. I received an email about they increased the CPU core

    
    Benchmark Run: Tue Sep 20 2011 19:12:28 - 19:52:52
    8 CPUs in system; running 8 parallel copies of tests
    
    Dhrystone 2 using register variables        2542872.2 lps   (10.5 s, 7 samples)
    Double-Precision Whetstone                     9209.4 MWIPS (9.7 s, 7 samples)
    Execl Throughput                               3041.1 lps   (29.8 s, 2 samples)
    File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks        140538.8 KBps  (30.0 s, 2 samples)
    File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks           47757.7 KBps  (30.0 s, 2 samples)
    File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks        304339.7 KBps  (30.0 s, 2 samples)
    Pipe Throughput                             2864832.4 lps   (10.0 s, 7 samples)
    Pipe-based Context Switching                 329667.6 lps   (10.0 s, 7 samples)
    Process Creation                               4972.4 lps   (30.0 s, 2 samples)
    Shell Scripts (1 concurrent)                   3651.2 lpm   (60.1 s, 2 samples)
    Shell Scripts (8 concurrent)                    509.2 lpm   (60.3 s, 2 samples)
    System Call Overhead                        1593744.7 lps   (10.0 s, 7 samples)
    
    System Benchmarks Index Values               BASELINE       RESULT    INDEX
    Dhrystone 2 using register variables         116700.0    2542872.2    217.9
    Double-Precision Whetstone                       55.0       9209.4   1674.4
    Execl Throughput                                 43.0       3041.1    707.2
    File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks          3960.0     140538.8    354.9
    File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks            1655.0      47757.7    288.6
    File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks          5800.0     304339.7    524.7
    Pipe Throughput                               12440.0    2864832.4   2302.9
    Pipe-based Context Switching                   4000.0     329667.6    824.2
    Process Creation                                126.0       4972.4    394.6
    Shell Scripts (1 concurrent)                     42.4       3651.2    861.1
    Shell Scripts (8 concurrent)                      6.0        509.2    848.7
    System Call Overhead                          15000.0    1593744.7   1062.5
                                                                       ========
    System Benchmarks Index Score                                         669.2
    

    Not too shabby, now

    September 20, 2011 @ 11:53 pm | Reply
    • Francisco:

      For your post looks like you still have 8 cores. I just received the e-mail and the adjust doesn’t to be the same than yours:

      After looking on some client benchmark test we realize that the setting for CPU % “The CPU time in percent the corresponding VPS is not allowed to exceed. Recommended Value : 10” is wrong. At first we plan to limit the number of cpu per vps but at a second thought we switch everybody to use 8 core without realizing that the cpu time setting is low. Manual edit has been made and the result should look like this if you run command:

      # cat /proc/cpuinfo
      processor : 0
      vendor_id : AuthenticAMD
      cpu family : 16
      model : 2
      model name : Quad-Core AMD Opteron(tm) Processor 2350
      stepping : 3
      cpu MHz : 1000.041
      cache size : 512 KB

      September 21, 2011 @ 12:08 am | Reply
      • What is your unixbench test result now after the correction made?

        September 21, 2011 @ 12:11 am | Reply
      • Well since they griped about 3 benchmarks at the same time, I’m going to wait about 4 hours and rerun it.

        # cat /proc/cpuinfo 
        processor	: 0
        vendor_id	: AuthenticAMD
        cpu family	: 16
        model		: 2
        model name	: Quad-Core AMD Opteron(tm) Processor 2350
        stepping	: 1
        cpu MHz		: 1000.041
        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	: 4000.16
        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]
        
        processor	: 1
        vendor_id	: AuthenticAMD
        cpu family	: 16
        model		: 2
        model name	: Quad-Core AMD Opteron(tm) Processor 2350
        stepping	: 1
        cpu MHz		: 1000.041
        cache size	: 512 KB
        physical id	: 0
        siblings	: 4
        core id		: 1
        cpu cores	: 4
        apicid		: 1
        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	: 4001.63
        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]
        
        processor	: 2
        vendor_id	: AuthenticAMD
        cpu family	: 16
        model		: 2
        model name	: Quad-Core AMD Opteron(tm) Processor 2350
        stepping	: 1
        cpu MHz		: 1000.041
        cache size	: 512 KB
        physical id	: 0
        siblings	: 4
        core id		: 2
        cpu cores	: 4
        apicid		: 2
        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	: 4001.51
        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]
        
        processor	: 3
        vendor_id	: AuthenticAMD
        cpu family	: 16
        model		: 2
        model name	: Quad-Core AMD Opteron(tm) Processor 2350
        stepping	: 1
        cpu MHz		: 1000.041
        cache size	: 512 KB
        physical id	: 0
        siblings	: 4
        core id		: 3
        cpu cores	: 4
        apicid		: 3
        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	: 4001.57
        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]
        
        processor	: 4
        vendor_id	: AuthenticAMD
        cpu family	: 16
        model		: 2
        model name	: Quad-Core AMD Opteron(tm) Processor 2350
        stepping	: 3
        cpu MHz		: 1000.041
        cache size	: 512 KB
        physical id	: 1
        siblings	: 4
        core id		: 0
        cpu cores	: 4
        apicid		: 4
        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	: 4000.86
        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]
        
        processor	: 5
        vendor_id	: AuthenticAMD
        cpu family	: 16
        model		: 2
        model name	: Quad-Core AMD Opteron(tm) Processor 2350
        stepping	: 3
        cpu MHz		: 1000.041
        cache size	: 512 KB
        physical id	: 1
        siblings	: 4
        core id		: 1
        cpu cores	: 4
        apicid		: 5
        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	: 4000.97
        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]
        
        processor	: 6
        vendor_id	: AuthenticAMD
        cpu family	: 16
        model		: 2
        model name	: Quad-Core AMD Opteron(tm) Processor 2350
        stepping	: 3
        cpu MHz		: 1000.041
        cache size	: 512 KB
        physical id	: 1
        siblings	: 4
        core id		: 2
        cpu cores	: 4
        apicid		: 6
        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	: 4000.95
        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]
        
        processor	: 7
        vendor_id	: AuthenticAMD
        cpu family	: 16
        model		: 2
        model name	: Quad-Core AMD Opteron(tm) Processor 2350
        stepping	: 3
        cpu MHz		: 1000.041
        cache size	: 512 KB
        physical id	: 1
        siblings	: 4
        core id		: 3
        cpu cores	: 4
        apicid		: 7
        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	: 4000.90
        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]
        
        
        September 21, 2011 @ 12:14 am | Reply
      • Francisco:

        Update: cat /proc/cpuinfo now lists 8 cores @ 1GHz

        I will rerun the Byte benchmark tomorrow morning to not impact the node during the US prime time.

        September 21, 2011 @ 12:15 am | Reply
        • Francisco:

          New results (index doesn’t includes file copy tests)

          1 core: 397.8
          8 cores: 1096.6

          Benchmark Run: Wed Sep 21 2011 09:29:40 - 09:53:33
          8 CPUs in system; running 1 parallel copy of tests
          
          Dhrystone 2 using register variables       10705435.2 lps   (10.0 s, 7 samples)
          Double-Precision Whetstone                     1735.5 MWIPS (9.9 s, 7 samples)
          Execl Throughput                                970.1 lps   (29.9 s, 2 samples)
          Pipe Throughput                             1038894.9 lps   (10.0 s, 7 samples)
          Pipe-based Context Switching                  70759.9 lps   (10.0 s, 7 samples)
          Process Creation                               1366.5 lps   (30.0 s, 2 samples)
          Shell Scripts (1 concurrent)                   1489.8 lpm   (60.0 s, 2 samples)
          Shell Scripts (16 concurrent)                   291.3 lpm   (60.0 s, 2 samples)
          Shell Scripts (8 concurrent)                    585.9 lpm   (60.1 s, 2 samples)
          System Call Overhead                        1041606.7 lps   (10.0 s, 7 samples)
          
          System Benchmarks Partial Index              BASELINE       RESULT    INDEX
          Dhrystone 2 using register variables         116700.0   10705435.2    917.3
          Double-Precision Whetstone                       55.0       1735.5    315.5
          Execl Throughput                                 43.0        970.1    225.6
          Pipe Throughput                               12440.0    1038894.9    835.1
          Pipe-based Context Switching                   4000.0      70759.9    176.9
          Process Creation                                126.0       1366.5    108.5
          Shell Scripts (1 concurrent)                     42.4       1489.8    351.4
          Shell Scripts (16 concurrent)                     ---        291.3      ---
          Shell Scripts (8 concurrent)                      6.0        585.9    976.5
          System Call Overhead                          15000.0    1041606.7    694.4
                                                                             ========
          System Benchmarks Index Score (Partial Only)                          397.8
          
          ------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Benchmark Run: Wed Sep 21 2011 09:53:33 - 10:19:25
          8 CPUs in system; running 8 parallel copies of tests
          
          Dhrystone 2 using register variables       28251180.1 lps   (10.0 s, 7 samples)
          Double-Precision Whetstone                     9289.9 MWIPS (9.4 s, 7 samples)
          Execl Throughput                               2883.2 lps   (29.8 s, 2 samples)
          Pipe Throughput                             2816506.0 lps   (10.0 s, 7 samples)
          Pipe-based Context Switching                 333830.0 lps   (10.0 s, 7 samples)
          Process Creation                               5441.4 lps   (30.0 s, 2 samples)
          Shell Scripts (1 concurrent)                   4146.6 lpm   (60.1 s, 2 samples)
          Shell Scripts (16 concurrent)                   290.4 lpm   (60.5 s, 2 samples)
          Shell Scripts (8 concurrent)                    587.0 lpm   (60.2 s, 2 samples)
          System Call Overhead                        1606324.3 lps   (10.0 s, 7 samples)
          
          System Benchmarks Partial Index              BASELINE       RESULT    INDEX
          Dhrystone 2 using register variables         116700.0   28251180.1   2420.8
          Double-Precision Whetstone                       55.0       9289.9   1689.1
          Execl Throughput                                 43.0       2883.2    670.5
          Pipe Throughput                               12440.0    2816506.0   2264.1
          Pipe-based Context Switching                   4000.0     333830.0    834.6
          Process Creation                                126.0       5441.4    431.9
          Shell Scripts (1 concurrent)                     42.4       4146.6    978.0
          Shell Scripts (16 concurrent)                     ---        290.4      ---
          Shell Scripts (8 concurrent)                      6.0        587.0    978.4
          System Call Overhead                          15000.0    1606324.3   1070.9
                                                                             ========
          System Benchmarks Index Score (Partial Only)                         1096.6
          
          September 21, 2011 @ 10:33 am | Reply
  17. Bernardo Andrade:

    This 74Mhz per core makes me remember hostrail *hint*

    September 21, 2011 @ 12:12 am | Reply
    • Francisco:

      HostRail were all about promises while KazeTech is fixing everything people here is pointing as wrong/not that good. :-)

      September 21, 2011 @ 12:18 am | Reply
    • I would give them the benefit of the doubt because they fixed it very quickly. Maybe a misconfiguration?

      September 21, 2011 @ 1:23 am | Reply
  18. George:

    How about someone running the following performance test and posting results?

    dd if=/dev/zero of=test bs=64k count=16k conv=fdatasync

    September 21, 2011 @ 11:55 am | Reply
  19. Gary:

    So, Kazetech: Was Vlad correct in saying that (at the time of him checking, at least) you were using a nulled WHMCS?

    I’ve asked but didn’t get a reply. I appreciate you’ve changed a lot of mistakes you’ve made, and if this was just a mistake them fair enough I guess. You just seem to have sidestepped the question, which doesn’t look good…

    September 21, 2011 @ 2:56 pm | Reply
    • Please refer to the reply that I’ve made before. It’s a mistake on checking it cp.kazetech.com. The license was for billing.kazetech.com and this has been corrected.

      September 21, 2011 @ 3:02 pm | Reply
      • Gary:

        Gotcha, it wasn’t nulled, just on the wrong domain.

        September 21, 2011 @ 3:11 pm | Reply
  20. Joe Merit:

    So I was too tempted by this offer to let it go. My vps was setup instantly and has been up for a few days and have noticed nothing but good performance out of it so far.

    September 23, 2011 @ 7:54 pm | Reply
  21. Our promotion coupon code “LOWENDBOX” has finally max out. Look forward for our next promo!!

    Thank you for your support (^v^)v

    September 24, 2011 @ 4:18 pm | Reply
    • Francisco:

      A XEN and/or KVM VPS promo would be welcome I think :-)

      September 24, 2011 @ 6:00 pm | Reply
  22. Aras:

    :(….just read all the comments and kinda leaning of getting couple vpses.. hopefully the promotion will be here soon..:) for openvps..lol..
    I hope that this 3rd try with vpses will be final..:)..
    got burned with hostrail…. now hosting on volt-vps.. .. my servers still up but the main page is suspended… probably they will pull the plug soon..

    September 28, 2011 @ 2:02 am | Reply
    • Maybe I should make a promotion for Hostrail refugee or maybe volt-vps if they run out of business.

      Leasing from dedicated server provider = high cost less freedom

      This is what most VPS provider do. Ending up they can’t keep up with the cost.

      Collocate your own hardware (get your own rack)= more freedom low cost

      We do it like that :) so at least for about 10 years we don’t have a plan to close down.

      *freedom referring to type of hardware

      On the other note we have 14U at Terremark DC for collocation. You guys know hard it is to get a space in there (but we did). Collocation price starting from $75.95 USD (I know this is not the right place to advertise this but let just say I’m offering LEB user with 50% discount for 1st month).

      Collocation come with 10TB/mo on GigE uplink. /29 IP address allocation (subject to change). APC remote reboot port and if you have ipmi-kvm with your hardware then it would be easier.

      Contact us via our toll free number or local number if you interested in collocating your hardware with us. We will discuss more in details about this.

      T: +1 (888) 591 0238
      P: +1 (305) 647 0111

      September 28, 2011 @ 7:37 am | Reply
  23. latency kick s butts ( to where I am).
    service is great so far!

    September 28, 2011 @ 4:23 am | Reply
  24. Aras:

    Any ways of getting reoccurring discount on couple of KZT[05]-OVZ ?

    I am not planing anything huge so using max or overloading server won’t be an issue. Apache.. mysql tomcat and couple WP…Joomla and some java websites.. :)

    thanks.. :)

    September 28, 2011 @ 5:19 pm | Reply
    • Aras:

      or even two KZT[04]-OVZ and one KZT[03]-OVZ :)

      September 28, 2011 @ 5:22 pm | Reply
    • Contact me via support ticket. You can shoot an email to info [at] our domain [dot] com.

      September 28, 2011 @ 5:34 pm | Reply
  25. Cookman:

    KazeTech talking about Instant Delivery but after 48hrs. any contact.

    October 4, 2011 @ 5:42 pm | Reply
    • Cookman:

      Just a issue on stock with billing system, support talk with me after this. Ill get access data and i must say the performance is very good.

      October 6, 2011 @ 2:55 am | Reply
  26. iceman:

    vps out of stock ….

    October 7, 2011 @ 1:42 pm | Reply
  27. hey when are you guys going to offer some KVM systems? i am still really happy with my VPS with you as I have never seen such good latency, but want to try out KVM and dont wanna get a new provider. :(

    October 12, 2011 @ 3:49 pm | Reply
    • Aras:

      looks like they posted on their twitter that kvm coming….

      October 18, 2011 @ 7:18 pm | Reply
  28. Ar:

    would be nice to know when the site is comming back up….. No issues with vpses just main site is down…

    November 5, 2011 @ 4:07 am | Reply
    • Thank you for your concern,

      I’ll update about this via email when I finish updating everything. If you have pending invoice, don’t worry about it. We wont terminate any account and of course I’ll mail out all client before we start the cron again to remove inactive account.

      November 5, 2011 @ 11:12 am | Reply
  29. zidit:

    Network problem at this time? I cannot access to my VPS and their vitualizer control panel.

    November 15, 2011 @ 8:53 am | Reply
  30. a1:

    same thing here..:(….

    November 15, 2011 @ 7:35 pm | Reply
  31. a1:

    working now/….

    November 16, 2011 @ 5:01 pm | Reply
  32. Looks to be quite the fustercluck about these guys on WHT.

    http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?t=1100206

    It looks like the owner ditched and is actually fully affiliated with breathost, which was deadpooled in June. Kazetech looks to be dead now and breathost has returned on WHT posting new offers with the same site.

    DON’T YOU JUST LOVE THE LEB MARKET?

    Francisco

    November 20, 2011 @ 2:06 pm | Reply
    • I did get an email from “Daniel Serjey” of the “new Breathost” a few days ago explaining their resuscitation. Anyway, the blame goes to their previous owner Sebastian, and they like to offer LowEndBox community some discount code…

      Haven’t bothered to post that yet :P

      November 22, 2011 @ 5:27 am | Reply
    • We (KazeTech) are not affiliated with breathost as we don’t really try to push away any our service reseller. Our client have the right to resell our service under their label and we are not dead as you think we are.

      We experience some issue with the control panel that we use cause a random downtime and freeze and after the upgrade everything seem to be working fine again although there is a chance things like this happen again.

      ———-

      I could see more client reselling our service so there is a chance that anybody could use our service as their product. Roughly about 50% of our client is a reseller eg a client who order multiple VPS in large amount. 10% goes to sponsorship and only 40% is our direct client.

      If there is a different label that I will use (in fact there is a few name we already registered but not yet released to public) it will have this on every single site, (A sister company of KazeTech) or anything similar to that. So if you don’t see anything similar like that on those site or (if there is any but I don’t know about it) thats mean they are our reseller.

      @Francisco Dias: Thank you for using our service. I do regret that you are not satisfied with our service but thats is good. That means we have a lot more to improved but that doesn’t mean that we are going to give up.

      November 27, 2011 @ 2:18 am | Reply
      • Biplab:

        Do you care to explain why is my server down? I have raised a support ticket (#567810) on 22/Nov/2011.

        On 23/Nov/2011 your support team replied that-

        This has been resolved, there was a brief outage due to a flapping interface on one of our upstream
        providers.
        I apologize for the delay in replying to this ticket, as it was mistakenly put in the wrong queue. If there is
        anything else we can do for you or if you are still experiencing any issues, please do not hesitate to
        contact us.

        I replied on the same day-

        No. The issue has not been resolved. I can't access my servers.
        
        Your VPS Control Panel is also down. That makes the whole situation more complex. Can you calrify why
        is VPS Control Panel down??

        On 25/Nov/2011, your system closed that ticket. So I reopened on the same day.

        On 27/Nov/2011, your system has again closed that ticket. I have reopened ticket again.

        Since 23/Nov/2011 reply, I didn’t receive any update from your side. Only my ticket was closed.

        Contrary to your following claim-

        We experience some issue with the control panel that we use cause a random downtime and freeze and after the upgrade everything seem to be working fine again although there is a chance things like this happen again.

        Your Control Panel is still down. This is what Firefox returns.

        The connection has timed out
        The server at kvma.kazetech.com is taking too long to respond.

        This is not the first time your server is down. Your server went down during 1st-2nd week of November. My server was also affected by that downtime. My ticket (#130380) was raised on 09/Nov/2011 and subsequently the issue was resolved on 12/Nov/2011.

        November 27, 2011 @ 3:27 am | Reply
      • Hardly your client, I don’t buy from other LEB’s, I simply don’t have a need :) I’m much more of a colocation kinda person.

        What I will spend my time doing is pointing out when hosts are being less than truthful of their things.

        If they’re reselling you, then you’re affiliated.

        Francisco

        November 27, 2011 @ 3:46 am | Reply
        • As you can see we don’t offer any reseller account or anything similar to that. Does anything beyond your control also call affiliated? If that how it work, then we are affiliated.

          FYI – We are actually trying to get into Terremark and we might offer a limited number collocation at low price (at least lower than other would offer for colo in such datacenter) either with Global Crossing or MojoHost as upstream.

          November 27, 2011 @ 4:00 am | Reply
        • Is this what you was on about on my offer? fustercluck

          November 27, 2011 @ 4:20 am | Reply
  33. Ar:

    control panel down again?.. with some vpses:(.. cmon guys….

    December 2, 2011 @ 12:25 am | Reply
  34. zidit:

    Server have good performance but they start to not reply any ticker lately. What happen with Kazetech?

    December 25, 2011 @ 8:03 am | Reply
  35. zidit:

    Deadpool now. Please be aware because their server down and not reply any ticket for a week now

    January 11, 2012 @ 8:49 am | Reply
  36. ar:

    was fine.. replied to tickets … and so but today i see everything is down…Cmon guys… if you having issues and if gona close down just let us know to backup data,,,, I was expecting to use you for production systems… but if things keep being like this… hmm… SOS…

    January 25, 2012 @ 9:29 pm | Reply
  37. ar:

    cmon guys.. this is really frustrating….

    January 26, 2012 @ 4:33 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 *