LowEndBox - Cheap VPS, Hosting and Dedicated Server Deals

OpenVirtuals – $24/Year 256MB OpenVZ SSD-HD VPS in New York, NY

Tags: , , , , , Date/Time: August 8, 2013 @ 10:39 pm, by Liam

Eric, from OpenVirtuals, has got three offers for us this time round. It is worth noting that the coupon for their “professional” plan is only recurring for six months. If you don’t cancel after that, you will be charged $10 per month.

Mini

  • 2 CPU Cores
  • 256MB RAM
  • 512MB vSwap
  • 5GB SSD Disks
  • 10GB HDD Disk
  • 1TB Bandwidth
  • 1 IPv4 Address
  • OpenVZ/SolusVM
  • Code: LEB20%
  • $24/Year
  • Order Link
Standard

  • 4 CPU Cores
  • 512MB RAM
  • 1024MB vSwap
  • 10GB SSD Disk
  • 20GB HDD Disk
  • 2TB Bandwidth
  • 1 IPv4 Address
  • OpenVZ/SolusVM
  • Code: LEB20%YR
  • $4.00/Month
  • Order Link
Professional

  • 4 CPU Cores
  • 1024MB RAM
  • 2048MB vSwap
  • 20GB SSD Disk
  • 40GB HDD Disk
  • 3TB Bandwidth
  • 1 IPv4 Address
  • OpenVZ/SolusVM
  • Code: LEB6FOR6
  • $6.00/Month
  • Order Link

OpenVirtuals are a subsidiary of Intercom Online Inc (a C corporation); who have been providing voice and data solutions for the past 20! years. In the past 5 months, OpenVirtuals have been featured on two other occasions. Comments regarding service has generally been positive. Since their last offer, in addition to Peer1, they’ve begun to provide services from the Internap Datacenter in Manhattan. As they’re now using their own IP space, reverse DNS setup is much easier and can be done via the control panel. Add-ons are now also available when signing up.

OpenVirtuals accept Paypal and any credit cards that can be used via Paypal. They have a 10 day money back guarantee. Servers will be provisioned instantly and all vps come with a 100% Uptime Guarantee supported by a ‘proactive SLA’. We are told that they have pre-made templates for popular installations such as: 64 bit Linux OSes, development frameworks like Ruby on Rails and web applications like WordPress. You can find all of their legal documents on their ‘Terms’ page.

Network Information:

OpenVirtuals have two locations in New York, NY.

Peer1 – New York, NY
Test IPv4: 64.34.61.4
Test File: http://64.34.61.4/test100M.bin

Internap – Manhattan, New York, NY
Test IPv4: 198.143.1.132
Test File: http://198.143.1.132/test100M.bin

54 Comments

  1. trexos:

    Wow, nice to see more offers in NYC :)

    Peer1 and Internap are in the same building right?

    August 8, 2013 @ 11:15 pm | Reply
  2. trexos:

    I read “It is worth noting that the coupon for their “professional” plan is only recurring for six months. If you don’t cancel after that, you will be charged $10 per month.” Does this affect the yearly plan too? After one year you have to pay the normal price?

    August 8, 2013 @ 11:48 pm | Reply
  3. netadmin:

    @Eric How do you choose between Peer1 and Internap? I don’t see any choice in the order form.

    August 9, 2013 @ 12:12 am | Reply
    • We are currently only expanding in Internap. Do you need to be in Peer1?

      August 9, 2013 @ 12:19 am | Reply
      • netadmin:

        Actually I already have a VPS with you in Peer1 but I am considering getting another one in Internap. So if I place an order, it will be in Internap. Correct?

        August 9, 2013 @ 12:22 am | Reply
        • Yes, that’s correct.

          August 9, 2013 @ 12:25 am | Reply
        • Thanks for being a valued client!

          August 9, 2013 @ 12:27 am | Reply
        • netadmin:

          From my Peer1 VPS to your Peer1 test file:

          # wget http://64.34.61.4/test100M.bin
          --2013-08-09 04:35:52-- http://64.34.61.4/test100M.bin
          Connecting to 64.34.61.4:80... connected.
          [...]
          2013-08-09 04:38:28 (655 KB/s) - test100M.bin saved [104857600/104857600]

          Same speed from Peer1 to Internap.

          Is the VPS capped to 5 Mbps or so?

          August 9, 2013 @ 12:43 am | Reply
    • @netadmin:
      We started in Peer1, and they’ve been great, but we made a decision to invest in larger bandwidth commitments with Internap

      We’d be glad to schedule a live migration of your virtual to our Internap facility where we provide 100 Mb ports. We’ve done that for a few other clients.

      Or if you prefer to stay in Peer1 we can bump your VPS to 15 Mb.

      Just open a ticket to let us know what you’d like to do.

      August 9, 2013 @ 4:21 pm | Reply
      • netadmin:

        @Eric Thanks for bumping my Peer1 VPS bandwidth. Much better now (5X faster):

        # wget http://64.34.61.4/test100M.bin
        --2013-08-10 02:20:19-- http://64.34.61.4/test100M.bin
        Connecting to 64.34.61.4:80... connected.
        [...]
        2013-08-10 02:20:51 (3.14 MB/s) - test100M.bin saved [104857600/104857600]

        August 9, 2013 @ 10:24 pm | Reply
  4. Good choice in New York DC.

    August 9, 2013 @ 1:07 am | Reply
  5. rm:

    Please don’t list non-recurring offers. It’s a slippery slope to all sorts of useless crap.
    $10 is beyond the $7 limit, I think any mention of the “Professional” plan should be removed from this post.

    August 9, 2013 @ 4:27 am | Reply
    • I was in two minds about posting these because of that. But when I reviewed our rule sets; there was nothing prohibiting these from being listed. Furthermore, LEA had posted these sort of offers in the past. The rules are due to be rewritten and I’ll take yours, and others, comments aboard regarding non-recurring offers.

      August 9, 2013 @ 7:54 am | Reply
      • Spirit:

        I usually don’t complain about LEB posts but I must agree here. Allowing things like that it dangerous precedent. Once you do this we can forget about low end box.

        August 9, 2013 @ 11:04 am | Reply
      • So $2/month for 12 months is preferable to $24/yr?

        Or $12 per 6 months and recur once again after the first 6 months?

        Would a recur of just once be ok?

        August 9, 2013 @ 4:09 pm | Reply
        • The problem with allowing these kind of plans is that you open the floodgates to all sorts of baiting offers, lock-ins, annual contracts, small print, clauses etc. Suddenly it’s about who can who can write better small print or who can hook customers in with marketing/offers and it’s no longer about providing a decent product at a fair price.

          August 9, 2013 @ 4:21 pm | Reply
        • netadmin:

          @Eric Why don’t you just make the coupons recurring for life? This would make everyone happy…

          August 9, 2013 @ 10:19 pm | Reply
        • @everyone:
          Let me discuss this with the management and I’ll get back to ya.

          August 9, 2013 @ 10:25 pm | Reply
      • Shane:

        Agree also.

        August 10, 2013 @ 8:05 pm | Reply
      • Raghavendra:

        I agree. Don’t allow these kind of offers on leb.

        August 12, 2013 @ 2:37 pm | Reply
      • Our thinking was.. if a coupon is up front and clear about the term of the discount and what the normal price will be, that’s useful information for the consumer. It’s precisely the opposite of a bait and switch because I’m informed up front and will move on to another offer if I don’t like the terms. But at least I know the terms. And if everyone on LEB expects a discount for life then I guess the only one we’re hurting with a limited recurring offer would be us.

        While we’re considering the possibility of offering recurring discounts without limit we’d like any feedback you guys have on these questions;

        Are there any LEB coupons that actually state the discounted price is for life?

        If a coupon does not clearly specify it’s for life should we assume it is? If so why?

        If a coupon does commit to a permanently recurring discount while allowing us to cancel at any time is that coupon even a lawfully binding deal?

        Maybe that’s over-thinking it. We tend to do that because we want to get it right, which is also why we thought it would be good to be clear up front. But we’re relatively new to LEB and if there is a strong consensus in the community we’d like to understand it better as we refine our policies.

        Thanks in advance for your feedback

        August 15, 2013 @ 7:14 pm | Reply
    • I thought it was a bit tight as well.

      August 9, 2013 @ 8:18 am | Reply
    • Tom:

      Agree with rm, if it’s a vps service and it’s not recurring, should not be posted.

      August 9, 2013 @ 9:01 am | Reply
      • trexos:

        Yeah,

        I’m against non-recurring offers.

        August 9, 2013 @ 10:52 am | Reply
    • The Pro plan is normally $10 but discounted for LEB to $6/month. Its under the $7 limit of the LEB guidelines.

      Is the issue here the number of times it recurs?

      August 9, 2013 @ 4:18 pm | Reply
      • I think the issue is that these kind of offers are designed to bait customers in with a low price and then hit them with a ‘pay us double or leave’ halfway through the term.

        August 9, 2013 @ 4:22 pm | Reply
    • perennate:

      Someone mentioned that even the other offers aren’t non-recurring, is that true?

      August 10, 2013 @ 1:32 am | Reply
    • My vote on this too. Do not list non recurring offers here, please. If you do, it takes down the standard attributed to LEB.

      August 10, 2013 @ 1:38 am | Reply
  6. florin:

    ok, it looks like NYC is the new trend

    August 9, 2013 @ 4:58 am | Reply
  7. Ishaq:

    I like that you have SSD and HDD, very unique! Also NYC!

    Good stuff.

    August 9, 2013 @ 10:55 am | Reply
  8. Can anybody post a “df -h” ?

    August 9, 2013 @ 11:56 am | Reply
  9. xgx:
    root@test:~# df -h
    Filesystem            Size  Used Avail Use% Mounted on
    /dev/simfs             10G  2.7G  7.4G  27% /
    /dev/loop41            20G  1.2G   18G   7% /storage

    Download Speed

    root@test:~# wget http://cachefly.cachefly.net/100mb.test
    --2013-08-09 15:32:58--  http://cachefly.cachefly.net/100mb.test
    Resolving cachefly.cachefly.net... 205.234.175.175
    Connecting to cachefly.cachefly.net|205.234.175.175|:80... connected.
    HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK
    Length: 104857600 (100M) [application/octet-stream]
    Saving to: `100mb.test'
    
    100%[======================================>] 104,857,600 1.14M/s   in 87s
    
    2013-08-09 15:34:25 (1.15 MB/s) - `100mb.test' saved [104857600/104857600]

    Disk I/O SSD

    root@test:~# 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, 27.3665 s, 39.2 MB/s

    Disk I/O STORAGE

    root@test:~# root@test:/storage# 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, 10.169 s, 106 MB/s
    August 9, 2013 @ 12:33 pm | Reply
    • netadmin:

      Is it from Internap? Network speed seems to be capped at 10 Mbps!

      August 9, 2013 @ 6:43 pm | Reply
      • Sorry guys. As mentioned we had limited bandwidth in Peer1, and it seems the throttling script was not purged on this latest Internap node. That has been fixed now. All our new nodes and users are in Internap and should see they are on 100 Mb ports. Let us know how it looks now.

        August 9, 2013 @ 8:42 pm | Reply
    • According to the unixbench test results posted here (http://vpseer.com/ssd-plans) – our nodes perform well comparatively.

      It’s true that some SSDs don’t have great write performance. The Samsung 840s in the node you’ve tested may be in that category. It could also be that the drives here are mis-configured. We’ll continue to investigate and appreciate your feedback.

      August 9, 2013 @ 8:50 pm | Reply
      • xgx:

        Oh sorry I will post unixbench now :)

        ========================================================================
           BYTE UNIX Benchmarks (Version 5.1.3)
        
           System: test: GNU/Linux
           OS: GNU/Linux -- 2.6.32-042stab078.26 -- #1 SMP Wed Jun 19 11:05:34 MSK 2013
           Machine: i686 (unknown)
           Language: en_US.utf8 (charmap="ANSI_X3.4-1968", collate="ANSI_X3.4-1968")
           CPU 0: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5405 @ 2.00GHz (4000.1 bogomips)
                  Hyper-Threading, x86-64, MMX, Physical Address Ext, SYSENTER/SYSEXIT, SYSCALL/SYSRET, Intel virtualization
           CPU 1: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5405 @ 2.00GHz (3999.4 bogomips)
                  Hyper-Threading, x86-64, MMX, Physical Address Ext, SYSENTER/SYSEXIT, SYSCALL/SYSRET, Intel virtualization
           CPU 2: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5405 @ 2.00GHz (4000.1 bogomips)
                  Hyper-Threading, x86-64, MMX, Physical Address Ext, SYSENTER/SYSEXIT, SYSCALL/SYSRET, Intel virtualization
           CPU 3: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5405 @ 2.00GHz (3999.4 bogomips)
                  Hyper-Threading, x86-64, MMX, Physical Address Ext, SYSENTER/SYSEXIT, SYSCALL/SYSRET, Intel virtualization
           15:53:45 up 38 min,  1 user,  load average: 0.23, 0.31, 0.18; runlevel 2
        
        ------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Benchmark Run: Fri Aug 09 2013 15:53:45 - 16:21:39
        4 CPUs in system; running 1 parallel copy of tests
        
        Dhrystone 2 using register variables       10030883.1 lps   (10.0 s, 7 samples)
        Double-Precision Whetstone                     1937.4 MWIPS (10.2 s, 7 samples)
        Execl Throughput                               2284.9 lps   (30.0 s, 2 samples)
        File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks        333185.3 KBps  (30.0 s, 2 samples)
        File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks           92445.4 KBps  (30.0 s, 2 samples)
        File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks        648481.5 KBps  (30.0 s, 2 samples)
        Pipe Throughput                              528595.9 lps   (10.0 s, 7 samples)
        Pipe-based Context Switching                  80374.8 lps   (10.0 s, 7 samples)
        Process Creation                               6594.1 lps   (30.0 s, 2 samples)
        Shell Scripts (1 concurrent)                   5046.7 lpm   (60.0 s, 2 samples)
        Shell Scripts (8 concurrent)                   1753.1 lpm   (60.0 s, 2 samples)
        System Call Overhead                         475441.9 lps   (10.0 s, 7 samples)
        
        System Benchmarks Index Values               BASELINE       RESULT    INDEX
        Dhrystone 2 using register variables         116700.0   10030883.1    859.5
        Double-Precision Whetstone                       55.0       1937.4    352.2
        Execl Throughput                                 43.0       2284.9    531.4
        File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks          3960.0     333185.3    841.4
        File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks            1655.0      92445.4    558.6
        File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks          5800.0     648481.5   1118.1
        Pipe Throughput                               12440.0     528595.9    424.9
        Pipe-based Context Switching                   4000.0      80374.8    200.9
        Process Creation                                126.0       6594.1    523.3
        Shell Scripts (1 concurrent)                     42.4       5046.7   1190.3
        Shell Scripts (8 concurrent)                      6.0       1753.1   2921.9
        System Call Overhead                          15000.0     475441.9    317.0
                                                                           ========
        System Benchmarks Index Score                                         633.3
        
        ------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Benchmark Run: Fri Aug 09 2013 16:21:39 - 16:49:36
        4 CPUs in system; running 4 parallel copies of tests
        
        Dhrystone 2 using register variables       39971118.7 lps   (10.0 s, 7 samples)
        Double-Precision Whetstone                     7580.6 MWIPS (10.2 s, 7 samples)
        Execl Throughput                               9334.1 lps   (29.9 s, 2 samples)
        File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks        294086.0 KBps  (30.0 s, 2 samples)
        File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks           81045.4 KBps  (30.0 s, 2 samples)
        File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks        785724.7 KBps  (30.0 s, 2 samples)
        Pipe Throughput                             2164212.2 lps   (10.0 s, 7 samples)
        Pipe-based Context Switching                 480672.5 lps   (10.0 s, 7 samples)
        Process Creation                              20445.3 lps   (30.0 s, 2 samples)
        Shell Scripts (1 concurrent)                  15996.9 lpm   (60.0 s, 2 samples)
        Shell Scripts (8 concurrent)                   2087.4 lpm   (60.0 s, 2 samples)
        System Call Overhead                        1515301.2 lps   (10.0 s, 7 samples)
        
        System Benchmarks Index Values               BASELINE       RESULT    INDEX
        Dhrystone 2 using register variables         116700.0   39971118.7   3425.1
        Double-Precision Whetstone                       55.0       7580.6   1378.3
        Execl Throughput                                 43.0       9334.1   2170.7
        File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks          3960.0     294086.0    742.6
        File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks            1655.0      81045.4    489.7
        File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks          5800.0     785724.7   1354.7
        Pipe Throughput                               12440.0    2164212.2   1739.7
        Pipe-based Context Switching                   4000.0     480672.5   1201.7
        Process Creation                                126.0      20445.3   1622.6
        Shell Scripts (1 concurrent)                     42.4      15996.9   3772.8
        Shell Scripts (8 concurrent)                      6.0       2087.4   3479.1
        System Call Overhead                          15000.0    1515301.2   1010.2
                                                                           ========
        System Benchmarks Index Score                                        1571.6
        August 10, 2013 @ 1:27 pm | Reply
    • a:

      something is wrong in here-
      39.2 MB/s from ssd
      106 MB/s from hd
      ssd slower than hd? and how did you know that it was using the ssd or the hd?

      August 10, 2013 @ 1:45 am | Reply
      • xgx:

        Look at df -h
        you will see what disk is SSD and what is used for storage.
        Also storage disk is mounted to /storage from where test is done…

        August 10, 2013 @ 3:20 am | Reply
  10. xgx:

    Yes it’s from Internap

    August 9, 2013 @ 7:09 pm | Reply
  11. a:

    agree with rm_ and everyone else. this is obviously a shitty offer.

    soon I would be offering a free one month but $100 monthly afterwards here in leb. If this offer passed- I don’t know why my offer will not.

    August 10, 2013 @ 1:43 am | Reply
  12. Travis:

    I ordered the standard package. The VPS was activated instantly and I was able to begin the setup process. So far it seems like a great company and a very good deal. Thumbs up!

    August 11, 2013 @ 3:08 am | Reply
  13. Little question, how is this advertised as HDD space and SSD space? Isn’t it called SSD-caching?

    August 12, 2013 @ 8:46 am | Reply
    • perennate:

      ? The offer clearly implies there are two disks.

      August 12, 2013 @ 10:23 am | Reply
  14. netadmin:

    @Eric Have you discussed with management about the idea of making the coupons recurring for life? I would sign up immediately…

    August 12, 2013 @ 8:42 pm | Reply
    • Our thinking was.. if a coupon is up front and clear about the term of the discount and what the normal price will be, that’s useful information for the consumer. It’s precisely the opposite of a bait and switch because I’m informed up front and will move on to another offer if I don’t like the terms. But at least I know the terms. And if everyone on LEB expects a discount for life then I guess the only one we’re hurting with a limited recurring offer would be us.

      While we’re considering the possibility of offering recurring discounts without limit we’d like any feedback you guys have on these questions;

      Are there any LEB coupons that actually state the discounted price is for life?

      If a coupon does not clearly specify it’s for life should we assume it is? If so why?

      If a coupon does commit to a permanently recurring discount while allowing us to cancel at any time is that coupon even a lawfully binding deal?

      Maybe that’s over-thinking it. We tend to do that because we want to get it right, which is also why we thought it would be good to be clear up front. But we’re relatively new to LEB and if there is a strong consensus in the community we’d like to understand it better as we refine our policies.

      Thanks in advance for your feedback

      August 15, 2013 @ 7:36 pm | Reply
      • Spirit:

        “Are there any LEB coupons that actually state the discounted price is for life?”
        – all of them? (apart from some… let call it “glitch” here and there)

        “If a coupon does not clearly specify it’s for life should we assume it is? If so why?”
        – because non-recurring offers normally aren’t featured here. We’re looking for actual deal as such, not part-time discounts.

        “If a coupon does commit to a permanently recurring discount while allowing us to cancel at any time is that coupon even a lawfully binding deal?”
        – no it’s not. You can do this however it would become part of your record, your reputation. Do you wan’t to become known as host who can’t keep agreement with clients? In overcrowded market like hosting industy is reputations means a lot.

        But we’re relatively new to LEB and if there is a strong consensus in the community we’d like to understand it better as we refine our policies.

        Your policies? What this have to do with those pages? That’s just advertisement space for you. It does not affect your company policies directly. Every advertisement space have own rules, if they are suitable for your business adopt them or move along. Isn’t this simple? :)
        And about being new somewhere – observe, learn, do your homework ;-)

        August 27, 2013 @ 10:19 am | Reply
  15. Hello! I’m at work browsing your blog from my new iphone 3gs! Just wanted to say I love reading through your blog and look forward to all your posts! Carry on the great work!

    August 19, 2013 @ 3:58 am | Reply
  16. 要是有洛杉矶就好了

    August 27, 2013 @ 8:04 am | Reply
  17. John:

    How To Choose Location? or what’s the default vps location

    August 27, 2013 @ 11:05 am | Reply
  18. Bought a 256MB box today. Migrated a site from another host in France, it run fast is now working in production. It is working amazingly well so far (first 12 hours).

    My stack is: Nginx + Ophal(CMS) + SQlite + Debian 6.0. Running a high traffic downloads site. If you happen to have any issues please let me know cause this provider is pretty recent yet.

    August 30, 2013 @ 5:52 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. 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 *