Fiber Volt are a newcomer to the community but their representatives have shown themselves to be polite and helpful, leading me to do this review. After seeing the offers they posted on LET I am very hopeful and interested in their results so let’s get to it!
Disclaimer:
I am in no way affiliated with Fiber Volt. This review was performed on a trial VPS so take results with a grain of salt.
Basics:
The VPS plan is based in Chicago, USA and comes with 256 MB of RAM (512 MB burst), 150 GB of bandwidth (monthly) and 30 GB of disk space. OpenVZ plans are managed by a nicely themed yet standard SolusVM install (unfortunately without SSL) and include commonly used templates such as CentOS (4, 5 and 6), Ubuntu, Debian, Fedora, Gentoo and SUSE (all in 32 and 64 bit variants). Fiber Volt have a fairly standard AUP which allows IRC and disallows torrenting. Finally, a stand out feature of Fiber Volt is their website. A lot of thought seems to have been put into creating a clean and well laid out site and this shows commitment from the company, a very important asset to have as a hosting company.
Support:
Setup was fairly fast after requesting the trial and the server was setup within 24 hours. The welcome emails contained all information necessary to get up and running with the VPS but unfortunately contained the account password and VPS passwords (something I consider a security risk). Also, a ticket requesting a new template was submitted in WHMCS to test response time. The ticket was updated and the task completed without a hitch in little over 6 minutes.
Setup:
Once my VPS was setup I proceeded to install Debian 6 as normal (installing nothing but the SSH server). After it was installed I used Minstall to clean out any unneeded packages and to set up SSH login protection. The setup went without a hitch!
Basic Information:
/proc/cpuinfo showed a processor matching the plan description (two cores):
root@fv:~# cat /proc/cpuinfo processor : 0 vendor_id : GenuineIntel cpu family : 6 model : 42 model name : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E31230 @ 3.20GHz stepping : 7 cpu MHz : 3192.944 cache size : 8192 KB physical id : 0 siblings : 8 core id : 0 cpu cores : 4 apicid : 0 fpu : yes fpu_exception : yes cpuid level : 13 wp : yes flags : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36 clflush dts acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss ht tm syscall nx rdtscp lm constant_tsc ida nonstop_tsc arat pni monitor ds_cpl vmx smx est tm2 ssse3 cx16 xtpr sse4_1 sse4_2 popcnt lahf_lm bogomips : 6385.88 clflush size : 64 cache_alignment : 64 address sizes : 36 bits physical, 48 bits virtual power management: [8] processor : 1 vendor_id : GenuineIntel cpu family : 6 model : 42 model name : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E31230 @ 3.20GHz stepping : 7 cpu MHz : 3192.944 cache size : 8192 KB physical id : 0 siblings : 8 core id : 1 cpu cores : 4 apicid : 2 fpu : yes fpu_exception : yes cpuid level : 13 wp : yes flags : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36 clflush dts acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss ht tm syscall nx rdtscp lm constant_tsc ida nonstop_tsc arat pni monitor ds_cpl vmx smx est tm2 ssse3 cx16 xtpr sse4_1 sse4_2 popcnt lahf_lm bogomips : 6385.43 clflush size : 64 cache_alignment : 64 address sizes : 36 bits physical, 48 bits virtual power management: [8]
/proc/meminfo showed some standard results:
root@fv:~# cat /proc/meminfo MemTotal: 524288 kB MemFree: 513648 kB Buffers: 0 kB Cached: 0 kB SwapCached: 0 kB Active: 0 kB Inactive: 0 kB HighTotal: 0 kB HighFree: 0 kB LowTotal: 524288 kB LowFree: 513648 kB SwapTotal: 0 kB SwapFree: 0 kB Dirty: 780 kB Writeback: 0 kB AnonPages: 0 kB Mapped: 0 kB Slab: 0 kB PageTables: 0 kB NFS_Unstable: 0 kB Bounce: 0 kB CommitLimit: 0 kB Committed_AS: 0 kB VmallocTotal: 0 kB VmallocUsed: 0 kB VmallocChunk: 0 kB HugePages_Total: 0 HugePages_Free: 0 HugePages_Rsvd: 0 Hugepagesize: 2048 kB
Inode allocation was excellent:
root@fv:~# df -i Filesystem Inodes IUsed IFree IUse% Mounted on /dev/simfs 15728640 12749 15715891 1% / tmpfs 65536 3 65533 1% /lib/init/rw tmpfs 65536 1 65535 1% /dev/shm
vmstat showed that the system was under little load:
root@fv:~# vmstat procs -----------memory---------- ---swap-- -----io---- -system-- ----cpu---- r b swpd free buff cache si so bi bo in cs us sy id wa 1 0 0 513584 0 0 0 0 5 1680 0 29303 0 0 100 0
Tests:
Each test was run three times and the middle ranked test was picked.
The cachefly test showed some awesome speeds, this server delivers what’s advertised!
root@fv:~# wget -O /dev/null http://cachefly.cachefly.net/100mb.test --2012-06-26 20:09:11-- http://cachefly.cachefly.net/100mb.test Resolving cachefly.cachefly.net... 205.234.175.175 Connecting to cachefly.cachefly.net|205.234.175.175|:80... connected. HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK Length: 104857600 (100M) [application/octet-stream] Saving to: `/dev/null' 100%[====>] 104,857,600 76.3M/s in 1.3s 2012-06-26 20:09:12 (76.3 MB/s) - `/dev/null' saved [104857600/104857600]
Ping Tests (No IPv6 Unfortunately):
root@fv:~# ping -c 3 google.com PING google.com (74.125.225.40) 56(84) bytes of data. 64 bytes from ord08s06-in-f8.1e100.net (74.125.225.40): icmp_req=1 ttl=53 time=1.92 ms 64 bytes from ord08s06-in-f8.1e100.net (74.125.225.40): icmp_req=2 ttl=53 time=2.16 ms 64 bytes from ord08s06-in-f8.1e100.net (74.125.225.40): icmp_req=3 ttl=53 time=1.85 ms --- google.com ping statistics --- 3 packets transmitted, 3 received, 0% packet loss, time 2000ms rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 1.856/1.981/2.160/0.139 ms root@fv:~# ping6 -c 3 ipv6.google.com socket: Address family not supported by protocol
Disk IO was average:
root@fv:~# dd if=/dev/zero of=test bs=64k count=16k conv=fdatasync; rm test 16384+0 records in 16384+0 records out 1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB) copied, 23.4776 s, 45.7 MB/s
Update: Fiber Volt have informed me that there have been upgrades to their IO results and after testing the following great results were shown:
root@fv:~# dd if=/dev/zero of=test bs=64k count=16k conv=fdatasync; rm test 16384+0 records in 16384+0 records out 1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB) copied, 4.78863 s, 224 MB/s
IOPing showed average results (they could be better):
root@fv:~/ioping-0.6# ./ioping -c 10 . 4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=1 time=0.1 ms 4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=2 time=0.2 ms 4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=3 time=0.2 ms 4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=4 time=11.6 ms 4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=5 time=15.1 ms 4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=6 time=19.6 ms 4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=7 time=0.2 ms 4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=8 time=5.0 ms 4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=9 time=0.2 ms 4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=10 time=22.2 ms --- . (simfs /dev/simfs) ioping statistics --- 10 requests completed in 9087.4 ms, 135 iops, 0.5 mb/s min/avg/max/mdev = 0.1/7.4/22.2/8.4 ms
Geekbench results were good: (Online View)
root@fv:~/dist/Geekbench21-Linux# ./geekbench_x86_32
Geekbench 2.1.13 : http://www.primatelabs.ca/geekbench/
System Information
Platform: Linux x86 (32-bit)
Compiler: GCC 4.1.2 20070925 (Red Hat 4.1.2-33)
Operating System: Linux 2.6.32-274.18.1.el5.028stab098.1 i686
Model: Linux PC (Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E31230 @ 3.20GHz)
Motherboard: Unknown Motherboard
Processor: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E31230 @ 3.20GHz
Processor ID: GenuineIntel Family 6 Model 42 Stepping 7
Logical Processors: 2
Physical Processors: 1
Processor Frequency: 3.19 GHz
L1 Instruction Cache: 0.00 B
L1 Data Cache: 0.00 B
L2 Cache: 256 KB
L3 Cache: 0.00 B
Bus Frequency: 0.00 Hz
Memory: 15.6 GB
Memory Type: N/A
SIMD: 1
BIOS: N/A
Processor Model: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E31230 @ 3.20GHz
Processor Cores: 2
Integer
Blowfish
single-threaded scalar 1956 |||||||
multi-threaded scalar 4149 ||||||||||||||||
Text Compress
single-threaded scalar 2279 |||||||||
multi-threaded scalar 5620 ||||||||||||||||||||||
Text Decompress
single-threaded scalar 3071 ||||||||||||
multi-threaded scalar 6250 |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Image Compress
single-threaded scalar 1830 |||||||
multi-threaded scalar 3282 |||||||||||||
Image Decompress
single-threaded scalar 1651 ||||||
multi-threaded scalar 3165 ||||||||||||
Lua
single-threaded scalar 2808 |||||||||||
multi-threaded scalar 5577 ||||||||||||||||||||||
Floating Point
Mandelbrot
single-threaded scalar 2717 ||||||||||
multi-threaded scalar 5372 |||||||||||||||||||||
Dot Product
single-threaded scalar 3854 |||||||||||||||
multi-threaded scalar 7713 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
single-threaded vector 4156 ||||||||||||||||
multi-threaded vector 8965 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LU Decomposition
single-threaded scalar 2226 ||||||||
multi-threaded scalar 2748 ||||||||||
Primality Test
single-threaded scalar 3920 |||||||||||||||
multi-threaded scalar 6096 ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sharpen Image
single-threaded scalar 7082 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
multi-threaded scalar 13743 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blur Image
single-threaded scalar 6165 ||||||||||||||||||||||||
multi-threaded scalar 12305 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Memory
Read Sequential
single-threaded scalar 5892 |||||||||||||||||||||||
Write Sequential
single-threaded scalar 8641 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stdlib Allocate
single-threaded scalar 3234 ||||||||||||
Stdlib Write
single-threaded scalar 7147 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stdlib Copy
single-threaded scalar 13575 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stream
Stream Copy
single-threaded scalar 5174 ||||||||||||||||||||
single-threaded vector 7627 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stream Scale
single-threaded scalar 5267 |||||||||||||||||||||
single-threaded vector 7263 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stream Add
single-threaded scalar 5369 |||||||||||||||||||||
single-threaded vector 6649 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stream Triad
single-threaded scalar 5591 ||||||||||||||||||||||
single-threaded vector 4926 |||||||||||||||||||
Integer Score: 3469 |||||||||||||
Floating Point Score: 6218 ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Memory Score: 7697 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stream Score: 5983 |||||||||||||||||||||||
Overall Geekbench Score: 5528 ||||||||||||||||||||||UNIX Bench results were also good:
========================================================================
BYTE UNIX Benchmarks (Version 5.1.3)
System: fv: GNU/Linux
OS: GNU/Linux -- 2.6.32-274.18.1.el5.028stab098.1 -- #1 SMP Sat Feb 11 15:30:41 MSK 2012
Machine: i686 (unknown)
Language: en_US.utf8 (charmap="ANSI_X3.4-1968", collate="ANSI_X3.4-1968")
CPU 0: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E31230 @ 3.20GHz (6385.9 bogomips)
Hyper-Threading, x86-64, MMX, Physical Address Ext, SYSENTER/SYSEXIT, SYSCALL/SYSRET, Intel virtualization
CPU 1: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E31230 @ 3.20GHz (6385.4 bogomips)
Hyper-Threading, x86-64, MMX, Physical Address Ext, SYSENTER/SYSEXIT, SYSCALL/SYSRET, Intel virtualization
20:20:07 up 16 min, 1 user, load average: 0.09, 0.15, 0.09; runlevel 2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benchmark Run: Tue Jun 26 2012 20:20:07 - 20:48:21
2 CPUs in system; running 1 parallel copy of tests
Dhrystone 2 using register variables 20346894.6 lps (10.0 s, 7 samples)
Double-Precision Whetstone 3280.6 MWIPS (10.0 s, 7 samples)
Execl Throughput 6044.8 lps (29.5 s, 2 samples)
File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks 661387.1 KBps (30.0 s, 2 samples)
File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks 181281.4 KBps (30.0 s, 2 samples)
File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks 1773328.4 KBps (30.0 s, 2 samples)
Pipe Throughput 1162584.4 lps (10.0 s, 7 samples)
Pipe-based Context Switching 311773.9 lps (10.0 s, 7 samples)
Process Creation 17677.7 lps (30.0 s, 2 samples)
Shell Scripts (1 concurrent) 5994.8 lpm (60.0 s, 2 samples)
Shell Scripts (8 concurrent) 1455.0 lpm (60.0 s, 2 samples)
System Call Overhead 878768.8 lps (10.0 s, 7 samples)
System Benchmarks Index Values BASELINE RESULT INDEX
Dhrystone 2 using register variables 116700.0 20346894.6 1743.5
Double-Precision Whetstone 55.0 3280.6 596.5
Execl Throughput 43.0 6044.8 1405.8
File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks 3960.0 661387.1 1670.2
File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks 1655.0 181281.4 1095.4
File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks 5800.0 1773328.4 3057.5
Pipe Throughput 12440.0 1162584.4 934.6
Pipe-based Context Switching 4000.0 311773.9 779.4
Process Creation 126.0 17677.7 1403.0
Shell Scripts (1 concurrent) 42.4 5994.8 1413.9
Shell Scripts (8 concurrent) 6.0 1455.0 2425.1
System Call Overhead 15000.0 878768.8 585.8
========
System Benchmarks Index Score 1265.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benchmark Run: Tue Jun 26 2012 20:48:21 - 21:16:37
2 CPUs in system; running 2 parallel copies of tests
Dhrystone 2 using register variables 39537188.4 lps (10.0 s, 7 samples)
Double-Precision Whetstone 6282.8 MWIPS (10.0 s, 7 samples)
Execl Throughput 11093.5 lps (30.0 s, 2 samples)
File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks 447117.3 KBps (30.0 s, 2 samples)
File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks 129986.7 KBps (30.0 s, 2 samples)
File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks 1315790.9 KBps (30.0 s, 2 samples)
Pipe Throughput 2177550.0 lps (10.0 s, 7 samples)
Pipe-based Context Switching 649682.5 lps (10.0 s, 7 samples)
Process Creation 33013.0 lps (30.0 s, 2 samples)
Shell Scripts (1 concurrent) 12949.9 lpm (60.0 s, 2 samples)
Shell Scripts (8 concurrent) 1592.9 lpm (60.1 s, 2 samples)
System Call Overhead 1553477.6 lps (10.0 s, 7 samples)
System Benchmarks Index Values BASELINE RESULT INDEX
Dhrystone 2 using register variables 116700.0 39537188.4 3387.9
Double-Precision Whetstone 55.0 6282.8 1142.3
Execl Throughput 43.0 11093.5 2579.9
File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks 3960.0 447117.3 1129.1
File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks 1655.0 129986.7 785.4
File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks 5800.0 1315790.9 2268.6
Pipe Throughput 12440.0 2177550.0 1750.4
Pipe-based Context Switching 4000.0 649682.5 1624.2
Process Creation 126.0 33013.0 2620.1
Shell Scripts (1 concurrent) 42.4 12949.9 3054.2
Shell Scripts (8 concurrent) 6.0 1592.9 2654.9
System Call Overhead 15000.0 1553477.6 1035.7
========
System Benchmarks Index Score 1812.4Conclusion:
In conclusion I believe that Fiber Volt is a good host with decent performance with the potential to improve performance wise. The pricing is above average but judging on my experience with support staff the added cost is worth it due to their excellent response times and well done panel and add-ons such as the iPhone app (which looks like it could be very useful!)
Please give Fiber Volt a try and report on findings! Thanks for reading, tips and suggestions are appreciated!
Review written by maxexcloo (contact), results may not be accurate as providers change over time.
Related Posts:
Triple Header: The Greatest Thanksgiving Turkey Recipe of All Time, a Bonus Code for RackNerd's Give...
RackNerd's 11.11 Sale NOW LIVE! KVM VPS from $11.11/Year in Los Angeles, San Jose, Seattle, Dallas, ...
RackNerd Says Thank You to Customers: Fabulous Prizes in Their Thanksgiving Giveaway, and Cheap VPS ...
ColoCrossing: Now in Chicago! And Those Deals Are There Now, Too!
Vote For Your Favorite RackNerd Location and Get FREE Entries in RackNerd's Halloween Giveaway!
Cheap Dedi Deals in Madison, WI: Must Be a Felware Special! 🐺👍
At LowEndBox, our News and Editorial Team is laser focused on delivering quality content our audience values; we curate and syndicate top stories in hosting, data centers, and related topics. Our mission is to keep you informed about the latest developments in hosting solutions, ensuring you have the knowledge needed to make informed decisions for your online ventures. Stay tuned for insightful articles and updates from our dedicated team.
Latest posts by Frank (see all)
- SteadyVPS – Dedicated Server offer for $35 a month out of Los Angeles datacenter - April 25, 2020
- WindowsVPS.Host – VPS plans starting at $5.50! - March 13, 2020
- HostNOC – Dedicated VPN offer for $4.99 a month! Secure, Safe and Private! - March 9, 2020
This is Max’s first published review on LowEndBox, please be constructive in your feedback and go easy on him.
Let Max know what extra information you would like to see in a review, feedback on structure and over time those can be worked in to the reviews. Network test from multiple global points is coming, we are currently working on this system to automate it ;)
From a provider point of view I think these post (reviews) are very important because focus on the quality and not only on the economics. Thank you!
It’s interesting, but might not be representative of everyone’s experience, due to different loads on different nodes.
Of course, a good provider will manage it and spread containers around so that each node has decent performance, but not all will. It’d be pretty straightforward for a provider to put a test VPS on an underused node so that you get a better impression than regular users might.
We all like benchmarks though, so keep it up. :)
But the discussion that the post generate can help share experience with the providers. :)
Yep. I’m all for that.
Awesome network speed there.
Thanks for the review, Max.
Is it (review) going to be regular content for LEB?
We’re hoping to have one a week :)
I wouldn’t consider 29K context switches per second “under little load”, personally. But maybe that’s just me.
Nice to see a review, and awesome Cachefly speed!
Surprised to see reviews on LEB. Should there not be a boundary between LET/LEB? because we already see reviews in LET or 96mb.com etc
Just my opinion
I think they’re trying to dilute the advertisement-like feel on LEB. Its a step in the right direction. Overlaps between LET/LEB already exist (LET has an offers board).
any offer ?
http://www.lowendtalk.com/discussion/2969
Hello all,
We’re well aware of the IO issue on this node, and are working on fixing it ASAP. We’ve ordered new hard drives and RAID controller which are on their way as we speak. Once that’s installed, there should be a significant improvement in performance. We apologize for the inconvenience and will rectify this issue ASAP.
Regards,
Vic
What is regular IO on other nodes?
It varies between nodes, but we always strive to maintain it above 60-70s.
Thanks for working on the issue!
I signed up this afternoon with these guys using their current $7/month for 512MB OpenVZ promotion. So far I’m really happy with the performance of the VPS (except some slow IOping here and there), and on top of that their website + SolusVM + WHMCS integration is fantastic and the support is VERY quick and friendly. I’ve posted some of my performance numbers below just for comparison. Seems great so far!
[root@vps ioping-0.6]# df -iFilesystem Inodes IUsed IFree IUse% Mounted on
/dev/simfs 52428800 22928 52405872 1% /
none 131072 95 130977 1% /dev
[root@vps ioping-0.6]# vmstatprocs -----------memory---------- ---swap-- -----io---- --system-- -----cpu-----
r b swpd free buff cache si so bi bo in cs us sy id wa st
1 0 0 1003940 0 0 0 0 0 25 0 345 4 4 92 0 0
[root@vps ioping-0.6]# wget -O /dev/null http://cachefly.cachefly.net/100mb.test--2012-06-30 08:05:21-- http://cachefly.cachefly.net/100mb.testResolving cachefly.cachefly.net... 205.234.175.175
Connecting to cachefly.cachefly.net|205.234.175.175|:80... connected.
HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK
Length: 104857600 (100M) [application/octet-stream]
Saving to: “/dev/null”
100%[======================================>] 104,857,600 70.3M/s in 1.4s
2012-06-30 08:05:23 (70.3 MB/s) - “/dev/null” saved [104857600/104857600]
[root@vps ~]# dd if=/dev/zero of=test bs=64k count=16k conv=fdatasync; rm test16384+0 records in
16384+0 records out
1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB) copied, 24.1213 s, 44.5 MB/s
This was faster earlier, so not sure what’s up with this..
[root@vps ioping-0.6]# ./ioping -c 10 .4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=1 time=0.1 ms
4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=2 time=0.2 ms
4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=3 time=8.2 ms
4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=4 time=0.2 ms
4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=5 time=0.1 ms
4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=6 time=13.0 ms
4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=7 time=23.1 ms
4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=8 time=0.3 ms
4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=9 time=0.2 ms
4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=10 time=11.5 ms
--- . (simfs /dev/simfs) ioping statistics ---
10 requests completed in 9066.2 ms, 176 iops, 0.7 mb/s
min/avg/max/mdev = 0.1/5.7/23.1/7.6 ms
Hopefully the new raid controllers and hard drives arrive soon. We can’t wait to boost the performance of that node. :)
Any idea when that might be? (Next few days, next week, in the next month)?
Hi Cody, We’re expecting the upgrade within the next few days ;)
Thanks for the stats, hopefully Fiber Volt treat you well!
One of my colleague is running his blog with these guy and performance is Good. i won’t say it great but its just good, value for money.
Thanks for the feedback guys. If you issues please let us know, we’re always looking to improve.
What is even better now – is real users actually commenting on real experience with these Hosts.
EVERYBODY and his dog has basically the same specs these days – more important is:
1. who is their upline? (Most are 3rd level resellers)
2. what shows up on owner names on google. (Hint ad “beware” in search terms.
3. Finally, how long in business?
Just as in the real world, 3 years is the breakpoint. Almost 90% of “sub-hosts” are gone in under ONE year. 60% in 2, 50% end of 3.
Cheers!
WOOPS! Left out “of the remainder” – then it makes sense numbers-wise :-)
Hello all,
Just an update to the original post. We’ve finally upgraded all our Chicago based nodes’ hard drives setup, and are now on 4x1TB HW Raid 10. This has improved our I/O significantly, and it rose from the previous ~40s to ~210+.
Here’s a new test on the node.
I signed up for the $7/month 512MB plan in Chicago, and can confirm that this has drastically improved performance, I’m seeing between 216-247 MB/s on DD tests now. Awesome!
I signed up for the annual 128 Volt account last year with the discount code and had no issues until they dropped my VPS. It was a small hobby VPS and no TOS violations. It appears my server information was changed (physical move?) without me being notified.
I contacted support and they sent me out an email with new server information, slow response, and the new info didn’t work. Now my IP is attached to someone else’s VPS and the control panel shows no active servers. Frustrated, will not be renewing my subscription and have since moved on to another host. Just a heads up.
I’ve been using them for about a year. When it’s up the performance has been positive, but they’ve had a lot of downtime recently. As I speak, their Chicago Node has been down for 3 days and despite submitting a ticket, I haven’t heard a word from them. Serverbear now puts them at 81.68% uptime. Ouch! Far from the 99.9% they advertise on their homepage. When they are up the performance is great, but the downtime and lack of communication are very disappointing. At this point, I wouldn’t recommend them for a server where you care about uptime or prompt support, sadly.
Here’s an example of the support you get from these guys. Four days of downtime and zero communication about it. The downtime is bad, but the complete lack of communication with customers means they just don’t care about their service anymore:
http://i.imgur.com/v9U1roh.png
I definitely agree with Scott regarding the support. I signed up for a VPS back in 2011. Recently I noticed my VPS was down and removed from my account. I’ve now been waiting 6 days for an answer as to why my VPS appears to have been deleted when still under prepaid contract with NO communication at the time of deletion and zero response to my ticket after 6 days. My ticket is still open so I’m still waiting for a reply.
It is pretty clear that they don’t care about their customers or service. Luckily the VPS that appears to have been deleted was of low importance and I had backups. After this experience I cannot imagine using them for anything. I’ve had great experience with many other LEB providers. I was lucky that my server was rarely used and the impact was minimal… but not responding to such an issue in a reasonable time frame is a major red flag. Needless to say I’m moving on and won’t be returning. My VPS was also in Chicago.
my ticket: http://i.imgur.com/RDl71q8.png
I hope you pulled your stuff from your servers because it seems the company just went bellyup. Do you have a new company you are using? I am downloading all of my files as we speak because their domain expired but the server is still active somehow.
The company just went bellyup it seems. I’ve found pretty much everyone associated with this company and not one of them has deemed its customers worthy of a response via twitter, email, support panel, google plus…or otherwise. Domain expired two days ago as well. This will haunt these guys in the future, you cannot do your customers this badly and think you will somehow relaunch under a new business name and have us not expose them. Sorry but this has been a nightmare company to use and I will personally keep an eye out for new hosting start ups associated with any of these guys…I will make sure their new potential customers are well aware of their track history.
It looks like “Adam Gammell” the former director is now running “8Bytes” – http://8bytes.ie/ and apparently does iOS development for HubSpot. It looks like he’s gotten out of the hosting game. Even has a linked to the fibervolt webpage (which has been defunct for a while). They went after one of my friends recently with an invoice for services while their servers were down the whole time. It’s pretty amazing. I filed a complaint against them through PayPal, I hope my friend does the same.
The other owner, “Alex Bateman” – I haven’t been able to find anything he’s done since, but he also is associated with “Depeche Hosting”, whose website is also (unsurprisingly) down.
I’m not gonna bother looking up Victor or the others. They probably had less to do with it than the “directors”. I’ve moved all my business to RackSpace since and it’s been a dream in comparison.
If the company hasn’t gone bellyup yet, we should consider a class action against these guys. They have not delivered the promised 99.9% by far and we paid for support we never received. I’m not a litiguous person at all but the complete lack of communication on their end says that that’s probably the only way to get their attention. If I don’t hear from them soon, they may be hearing from my lawyer.