LowEndBox

Hosting Websites on Bare Minimum VPS/Dedicated Servers

LeaseWeb – $7 512MB KVM in Manassas, Virginia & €29 Dedicated Server in Netherlands

Tags: , , , , , Date/Time: March 12, 2013 @ 5:04 pm, by Liam

LeaseWeb have sent us several more offers for LowEndBox readers! Unlike their previous offer, after much demand, they’ve included a Dedicated Server offer. Their KVM servers are hosted on a fully redundant platform which is built with CloudStack technology at the core.

Virtual Server – S US

  • 1 CPU Core
  • 512MB RAM
  • 40GB Diskspace
  • 500GB Bandwidth
  • 1000Mbit Port Speed
  • 1 IPv4 Address
  • IPv6 on Request
  • KVM Virtulization
  • $7/Month – Order Link
  • Location: Manassas, Virginia
HP DL120G5/Intel E2160

  • HP ProLiant DL120
  • Intel Dual-Core E2160
  • 2GB DDR2 RAM
  • 2x250GB SATA2
  • 100Mbit Port Speed
  • 1 IPv4 Address
  • €29/Month (38 USD)
  • 5000GB Bandwidth – Order Link
  • 100Mbps Unmetered – Order Link
  • Location: Haarlem, Netherlands

LeaseWeb B.V. have been featured on LowEndBox once before. Their previous offer seems to have been well received, with the vast majority of the comments being very positive. Asim posted a benchmark of his Virginian server here. LeaseWeb were founded in 1997 and are a subsidary of OCOM, who also own EvoSwitch. Whilst ordering, all of their servers can be upgraded. Virtual Servers are setup within 24 hours but they’re usually deployed instantly. Dedicated Servers, on the other hand, will take 1-5 business days. If you purchased one of their servers back in January, do leave your review below!

LeaseWeb accepts payments via Credit card, PayPal, Bank Transfer and iDeal (Dutch Paypal). VAT will be charged if you reside in Europe Union and don’t have a valid VAT ID. IPv6 addresses can be obtained for free by emailing their support. Their terms and conditions, and other legal documents, can be found here.

Network Information:

Dutch and American servers are located at EvoSwitch datacenters.

Haarlem, Netherlands

Test IPv4: 94.75.223.121
Test File: 10MB | 100MB | 1000MB | 10000MB

Manassas, Virginia (US)

Test IPv4: 108.59.10.97
Test File: 10MB | 100MB | 1000MB | 10000MB

48 Comments

  1. Stephen:

    So the test links seem to be going faster than my connection so I’m guessing there is some compression going on…

    March 12, 2013 @ 5:13 pm | Reply
    • Stephen:

      Never mind I lied, apparently I got a speed upgrade yesterday from my isp, go figure.

      March 12, 2013 @ 5:15 pm | Reply
  2. Joe Merit:

    Be careful with this provider. You aren’t capped at 500GB of bw transfer so you can easily run up a huge bandwidth bill if you aren’t careful.

    March 12, 2013 @ 5:15 pm | Reply
    • I have heard plenty of stories with the bandwidth bills at LeaseWeb, they should cap it imo

      March 12, 2013 @ 5:36 pm | Reply
    • I’ve read this at WHT too.

      My ping result is a bit strange, because seems like Netherlands is closer to me, I hope it’s just my ISP routing.

      # ping 108.59.10.97
      
      Pinging 108.59.10.97 with 32 bytes of data:
      
      Reply from 108.59.10.97: bytes=32 time=324ms TTL=50
      Reply from 108.59.10.97: bytes=32 time=323ms TTL=50
      Reply from 108.59.10.97: bytes=32 time=322ms TTL=50
      Reply from 108.59.10.97: bytes=32 time=324ms TTL=50
      
      Ping statistics for 108.59.10.97:
          Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
      Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
          Minimum = 322ms, Maximum = 324ms, Average = 323ms
      

      # ping 94.75.223.121

      Pinging 94.75.223.121 with 32 bytes of data:

      Reply from 94.75.223.121: bytes=32 time=248ms TTL=48
      Reply from 94.75.223.121: bytes=32 time=240ms TTL=48
      Reply from 94.75.223.121: bytes=32 time=243ms TTL=48
      Reply from 94.75.223.121: bytes=32 time=239ms TTL=48

      Ping statistics for 94.75.223.121:
      Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
      Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
      Minimum = 239ms, Maximum = 248ms, Average = 242ms

      March 12, 2013 @ 6:01 pm | Reply
    • Tom:

      Read to many stories on WHT regarding what they did to some people regarding BW usage. Would never go for such a company no matter what offers they would make.

      March 12, 2013 @ 6:09 pm | Reply
      • Hi,

        Note that – in case you do decide to use some of our services – our self service center allows you to set a bandwidth notification, so you get a warning whenever you pass some kind of threshold. The data traffic on our packs is not unlimited, but 500G per default – so you do have to select a pack that fits what you need, and overuse would be charged rather than capped.

        Robert

        March 12, 2013 @ 7:06 pm | Reply
        • Joe Merit:

          This is pretty useless, just allow people to set their VPS to shut off after 500GB, how hard is that?

          March 12, 2013 @ 9:18 pm | Reply
        • Responding to Joe Merit – as the forum doesn’t allow me to thread deeper.

          We could shut the infrastructure off after hitting a data traffic limit – but most of our customers would rather have their infrastructure function and pay the surcharge (if any). We help our customers to keep track of their usage by having the notification feature.

          That said, I do recognize some customers might want their service to stop after hitting that limit, and I’ll look at what we need to do to implement it – but still, this would remain a feature that you’d have to enable by choice trough our self service center. Thanks for the suggestion!

          March 13, 2013 @ 6:56 am | Reply
    • Spencer:

      Be careful with these guys, their invoice e-mails were going into my spam folder so I didn’t get them. Then once I noticed it was suspended they wanted to charge me a $150 ‘reconnect fee’ for the VPS to be unsuspended. That was crap

      March 12, 2013 @ 9:16 pm | Reply
      • I’m sorry to hear that. We’re strict with payments (and I don’t think that’s a bad thing). Chasing non-paying customers is an expensive activity, and unfortunately we can’t control our customer’s spam filters. If this happened recently (and you got reconnected), get in touch with me (ticket or customer number is fine) and I’ll look into your case to see if there’s anything we can do.

        March 13, 2013 @ 7:08 am | Reply
  3. Ekaness:

    Is IPv6 available for the dedi in Netherlands? For free?

    March 12, 2013 @ 5:51 pm | Reply
  4. rm:

    It’s Haarlem Shake! :D

    March 12, 2013 @ 7:53 pm | Reply
  5. Spencer:

    Be careful with these guys, their invoice e-mails were going into my spam folder so I didn’t get them. Then once I noticed it was suspended they wanted to charge me a $150 ‘reconnect fee’ for the VPS to be unsuspended. That was crap

    March 12, 2013 @ 9:05 pm | Reply
  6. earl:

    Tempting offer but after reading how they basically screw the customers on bandwidth overages without any lenience, I think I will pass..

    1 euro /GB is a bit steep for overages considering they can afford to give 500GB for $7 p/m

    March 12, 2013 @ 9:30 pm | Reply
    • chaching:

      Some companies will go as far as setting a slow ddos on user accounts. Why? well because it raises the bandwidth usage ;) money money money.

      March 13, 2013 @ 1:28 am | Reply
    • Not sure where you got the 1 EUR/GB from, but surcharges for datatraffic on the $7 offering are $0.1 or EUR 0.1 per gigabyte – depending on where you get the instance. Note you can double up to 1T/month for $5 (or more if you like).

      March 13, 2013 @ 6:49 am | Reply
  7. twheel:

    I signed up for one of the XL packages in January when they were $34/mo. Two periods of downtime for a couple of hours each (one DDOS, one unexplained); other than that excellent network.

    VPSBench:

    CPU model:  QEMU Virtual CPU version (cpu64-rhel6)
    Number of cores: 4
    CPU frequency:  2399.954 MHz
    Total amount of RAM: 3831 MB
    Total amount of swap: 4095 MB
    System uptime:   48 days, 9:04,       
    I/O speed:  65.9 MB/s
    Bzip 25MB: 5.94s
    Download 100MB file: 23.3MB/s

    Unixbench:

    BYTE UNIX Benchmarks (Version 5.1.3)
    
    System: i-159-339-VM: GNU/Linux
    OS: GNU/Linux -- 2.6.32-220.4.2.el6.x86_64 -- #1 SMP Tue Feb 14 04:00:16 GMT 2012
    Machine: x86_64 (x86_64)
    Language: en_US.utf8 (charmap="UTF-8", collate="UTF-8")
    CPU 0: QEMU Virtual CPU version (cpu64-rhel6) (4799.9 bogomips)
    	  x86-64, MMX, Physical Address Ext, SYSCALL/SYSRET
    CPU 1: QEMU Virtual CPU version (cpu64-rhel6) (4799.9 bogomips)
    	  x86-64, MMX, Physical Address Ext, SYSCALL/SYSRET
    CPU 2: QEMU Virtual CPU version (cpu64-rhel6) (4799.9 bogomips)
    	  x86-64, MMX, Physical Address Ext, SYSCALL/SYSRET
    CPU 3: QEMU Virtual CPU version (cpu64-rhel6) (4799.9 bogomips)
    	  x86-64, MMX, Physical Address Ext, SYSCALL/SYSRET
    17:42:06 up 25 min,  1 user,  load average: 0.28, 0.51, 0.26; runlevel 3
    
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Benchmark Run: Wed Jan 23 2013 17:42:06 - 18:10:19
    4 CPUs in system; running 1 parallel copy of tests
    
    Dhrystone 2 using register variables       27632135.6 lps   (10.0 s, 7 samples)
    Double-Precision Whetstone                     3225.0 MWIPS (9.8 s, 7 samples)
    Execl Throughput                               1678.9 lps   (30.0 s, 2 samples)
    File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks        656117.1 KBps  (30.0 s, 2 samples)
    File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks          175667.8 KBps  (30.0 s, 2 samples)
    File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks       1372562.1 KBps  (30.0 s, 2 samples)
    Pipe Throughput                             1315689.2 lps   (10.0 s, 7 samples)
    Pipe-based Context Switching                 256428.8 lps   (10.0 s, 7 samples)
    Process Creation                               6220.5 lps   (30.0 s, 2 samples)
    Shell Scripts (1 concurrent)                   4430.0 lpm   (60.0 s, 2 samples)
    Shell Scripts (8 concurrent)                   1729.2 lpm   (60.0 s, 2 samples)
    System Call Overhead                        1788208.1 lps   (10.0 s, 7 samples)
    
    System Benchmarks Index Values               BASELINE       RESULT    INDEX
    Dhrystone 2 using register variables         116700.0   27632135.6   2367.8
    Double-Precision Whetstone                       55.0       3225.0    586.4
    Execl Throughput                                 43.0       1678.9    390.4
    File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks          3960.0     656117.1   1656.9
    File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks            1655.0     175667.8   1061.4
    File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks          5800.0    1372562.1   2366.5
    Pipe Throughput                               12440.0    1315689.2   1057.6
    Pipe-based Context Switching                   4000.0     256428.8    641.1
    Process Creation                                126.0       6220.5    493.7
    Shell Scripts (1 concurrent)                     42.4       4430.0   1044.8
    Shell Scripts (8 concurrent)                      6.0       1729.2   2882.0
    System Call Overhead                          15000.0    1788208.1   1192.1
    																   ========
    System Benchmarks Index Score                                        1086.7
    
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Benchmark Run: Wed Jan 23 2013 18:10:19 - 18:38:40
    4 CPUs in system; running 4 parallel copies of tests
    
    Dhrystone 2 using register variables      102830669.9 lps   (10.0 s, 7 samples)
    Double-Precision Whetstone                    12186.1 MWIPS (9.9 s, 7 samples)
    Execl Throughput                              10964.1 lps   (30.0 s, 2 samples)
    File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks        587987.2 KBps  (30.0 s, 2 samples)
    File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks          150080.0 KBps  (30.0 s, 2 samples)
    File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks       1818920.9 KBps  (30.0 s, 2 samples)
    Pipe Throughput                             4960947.8 lps   (10.0 s, 7 samples)
    Pipe-based Context Switching                 925483.3 lps   (10.0 s, 7 samples)
    Process Creation                              41283.4 lps   (30.0 s, 2 samples)
    Shell Scripts (1 concurrent)                  15337.1 lpm   (60.0 s, 2 samples)
    Shell Scripts (8 concurrent)                   2103.2 lpm   (60.0 s, 2 samples)
    System Call Overhead                        5285930.2 lps   (10.0 s, 7 samples)
    
    System Benchmarks Index Values               BASELINE       RESULT    INDEX
    Dhrystone 2 using register variables         116700.0  102830669.9   8811.5
    Double-Precision Whetstone                       55.0      12186.1   2215.7
    Execl Throughput                                 43.0      10964.1   2549.8
    File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks          3960.0     587987.2   1484.8
    File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks            1655.0     150080.0    906.8
    File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks          5800.0    1818920.9   3136.1
    Pipe Throughput                               12440.0    4960947.8   3987.9
    Pipe-based Context Switching                   4000.0     925483.3   2313.7
    Process Creation                                126.0      41283.4   3276.5
    Shell Scripts (1 concurrent)                     42.4      15337.1   3617.2
    Shell Scripts (8 concurrent)                      6.0       2103.2   3505.3
    System Call Overhead                          15000.0    5285930.2   3524.0
    																   ========
    System Benchmarks Index Score                                        2847.3
    March 13, 2013 @ 1:26 am | Reply
  8. Jon617:

    Btw, 2x2TB disks on a dedicated machine with choice of either 5TB on gbit or 100mbit unmetered for 44EUR (~$57) monthly is pretty good. I pay about the same for a dedicated backup server in the US which has just one 1TB drive.

    March 13, 2013 @ 4:43 am | Reply
  9. Been there with LW for 1 or 2 months. Good service but with limited abilities in their control panel. Their customer service is responsive enough to answer my queries, even on weekend. Had to churn due to other tempting offers from LET/LEB.:)

    March 13, 2013 @ 4:58 am | Reply
  10. Alex:

    Robert, when I go to check out (for a dedicated server) I’m only given a 100Mbit port but your advert says its 1000Mbit uplink?

    March 13, 2013 @ 9:27 am | Reply
    • Jon617:

      There are two “Order Link” above, under dedicated server. One says 5TB on 1gbps, other says 100mbit unmetered.

      March 13, 2013 @ 11:57 am | Reply
      • John:

        Did you try them? Alex is correct.

        March 13, 2013 @ 12:48 pm | Reply
    • Alex:

      Yes, this is when I’ve clicked 5000GB link

      March 13, 2013 @ 11:59 am | Reply
      • We’re really sorry for the misunderstanding. The Dedicated Server offer now lists the correct port speed, which is 100Mbps for both the configuration with 5000GB Premium and 100Mbps Unmetered.

        March 15, 2013 @ 9:54 am | Reply
        • Jon617:

          Ohhh, okay. Thinking of picking one up. So the choices are either 5TB on “premium” 100mbit bandwidth or 100mbit unmetered. How do the performance differ? Are there different test IPs for each choice?

          March 18, 2013 @ 3:54 pm | Reply
  11. William:

    Can’t complain at 29EUR:
    http://torstatus.blutmagie.de/router_detail.php?FP=754c1aad379b10fd4ed2b340d8992d9850aabd9c
    Doing around 75Mbit In/Out without any issue :)

    March 13, 2013 @ 12:54 pm | Reply
  12. William:

    Only downside, accepts only PayPal – No other way, CCs are billed by PayPal as well, which is annoying if your card is banned at PayPal…

    March 13, 2013 @ 12:54 pm | Reply
    • I guess you have never used Virtual cards before. ;)

      March 14, 2013 @ 3:31 am | Reply
      • William:

        Not available in Austria, as they violate banking laws.

        March 14, 2013 @ 10:47 am | Reply
  13. Lukas Krug:

    When I receive a UDP flood on the 5TB 1Gbit Machine and the flood is below 1Gbit, will the server simply eat the flood or will it be nullrouted?

    March 13, 2013 @ 4:40 pm | Reply
  14. Rob M.:

    I tried one of those virtual servers when their previous offer was listed here. It was rather good, performance-wise, especially considering the price, but within the first couple of weeks there was a two-hour outage. Similar to twheel’s story, I received no notice of it before or after, which I find unacceptable. I canceled, they asked me why and offered me a free month. I told them why, they directed me to their NOC page, where nothing regarding this outage was written. I suppose that was to be expected: their customer service has always been pretty miserable in my experiences with them over the past 2-3 years. Unfortunately, that doesn’t appear to have changed. I’ve also grown tired of their slow and non-intuitive Self Service Center, so I’ve decided to move 20-30 domains away from them as well, and just leave altogether. Purchase with caution.

    March 13, 2013 @ 8:42 pm | Reply
  15. Although the offer is wonderful at a very affordable price, some guys still complain. OMG

    March 13, 2013 @ 9:47 pm | Reply
    • earl:

      This is the beauty of LEB, you can say what you want without being banned or censored, but if you feel this is not a good thing maybe you can stay on webhostingtalk where no one is allowed to say anything negative on an offer page..

      March 15, 2013 @ 4:29 am | Reply
  16. cloromorpho:

    Great servers and DC. But unfortuntly customer service simply sucks…
    Tickets answered days after, regarding urgency.

    I made the horrible mistake of setting up the automatic payments with paypal, they charged me 2 times 150 euros by mistake and refund me into the same account not to my credit card…

    Another time they nullrouted my ip without any notice because of a payment problem that end up being their own fault.

    So, i hate them.

    :)

    March 15, 2013 @ 2:55 am | Reply
    • I’m really sorry to hear that. We strive to provide excellent service. If you send me an email with your ticket number or customer number, then I’ll ask our Support/Administration department to look into it.

      March 15, 2013 @ 9:59 am | Reply
      • STAY AWAY from LeaseWeb part 2 !:

        Dude, stop lying ! You are the worst web company ever. You should do something else.

        July 25, 2013 @ 2:04 pm | Reply
  17. So i’ve used Leaseweb before and i have nothing bad to say about them, they were excelent to me.

    Best Regards,

    Bernardo Andrade

    March 15, 2013 @ 10:48 am | Reply
  18. I am sure at some point they can create a script to shut off servers when bandwidth is used.

    March 15, 2013 @ 11:21 am | Reply
  19. Tom:

    I have been a customer for many many years (10+, originally with a company that was aquired by them a few years back). I was always happy, until I was migrated to their “new” VPS solution and all I can say, absolutely terrible performance. Not just a few days, always, over many many many months. Their disk performance, to this day, is sooo slow. Even running something super simple like roundcube for webmail or a wordpress blog with virtually no visitors is slow like a snail. I double-checked my system, re-installed everything just to make sure it’s not actually me causing this. They haven’t been able to fix it. Needless to say, I moved all my stuff from them to another provider, which I’m quite happy with (stormvz). Unfortunately I was stupid enough to pay upfront to save even more, so my server is now sitting there pretty much unused for another couple of months…

    March 16, 2013 @ 1:56 am | Reply
  20. podolski:

    whether the virtual server package – s supports SSH Tunnel?

    How Virtual server port speed package – s?

    thanks

    April 19, 2013 @ 9:36 am | Reply
  21. STAY AWAY !:

    Stay away from LeaseWeb ! I had a VPS with them and it failed to reboot ! I asked them for 3 days !!!!!!! to do something about it ! Opened a ticket and NOTHING ! I contacted online support and they LIE about everything, they say will fix it but after 2 days nothing happened. I asked them to reinstall the system to DO SOMETHING make the vps work as I need that space and NOTHING till this day ! LeaseWeb is the biggest fail ever ! I advice you, STRONGLY ADVICE YOU to stay away from this con artist company ! They are only keen to get your money, afterwards they don’t care. STAY AWAY FROM LEASE WEB !

    July 24, 2013 @ 10:03 am | Reply
  22. STAY AWAY from LeaseWeb part 2 !:

    This is the 5’th day they ignore my tickets. They simply don;t give a damn, no answer and nothing. I asked them to refund in another ticked and NOTHING. LeaseWeb is SCAM ! That is what it is ! For your own good, stay away from them, they are the most incompetent web hosting company I dealt with ! And I have some experience in the field. They simply abandon you, there is no support and when I mean no support I am not reffering for them to help you with your VPS program install or something, but for their end, managing their own thing. I only asked them to start the thing, taht is failing to start or reinstall it. I got the answer like this : “we are sorry, your instance cannot be reinstalled now” and then pause…NOTHING ! This is LeaseWeb, the worst web company ever, a big bloat and a scam ! If you want hosting, look to any other option but LeaseWeb, as they are simply the worst choice.

    July 25, 2013 @ 1:36 pm | Reply
  23. dano:

    I agree, stay away from LeaseWeb, as their technical and customer service are terrible. At the end of the day, I had a virtual machine with them for about 6 months, but since I cancelled at 1pm on the 1st day of the month, I was too late, and had to pay for another month of service, is what they told me. From a technical side, I was never able to get the IPv6 address they assigned me to work, although I have configured IPv6 many times on many virtual and host/router systems on other networks without issues. Otherwise, the virtual machine ran fine, other than not being able to get IPv6 to connect to anything.

    LeaseWeb is almost like the Wally-Mart of hosting – it’s kinda cheap, but yet, when something doesn’t work or you need assistance, no one is there or able* to help you(bad policy,outsourced support,etc).

    January 2, 2014 @ 6:17 pm | Reply
  24. review-admin:

    They Scam , with Good face , But DO NOT SELL WITH THEM..
    BIG SCAMMER
    BIG SCAMMER
    BIG SCAMMER
    BIG SCAMMER
    They Tell Me 200euro For 2 Domain .

    November 20, 2014 @ 2:08 pm | Reply
  25. Menurut saya mereka sangat bagus..

    October 11, 2016 @ 5:11 am | 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. Quoting webhostingtalk.com URL seems to get binned consistently here, but I do peek into the spam box frequently to publish those comments.
  • 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 *