LowEndBox - Cheap VPS, Hosting and Dedicated Server Deals

TinyVZ - $15/Year 128MB OpenVZ VPS in Kansas City

TinyVZ RAM Host, who have been a consistent top 3 provider over our previous polls, have recently launched two tiny VPS brands — TinyVZ and TinyKVM. Very minimalistic designed home page with only one hosting plan each. For TinyVZ, it’s at the popular $15/Year price point. Sign up TinyVZ plan.

  • 128MB guaranteed/256MB burstable memory
  • 10GB storage
  • 500GB/month data transfer on 1Gbps
  • 1x IPv4 + 65,536x IPv6
  • OpenVZ/Custom Panel

KVM offers are a bit dearer at $35/Year, and it’s fit for not only Linux distros but also xBSD. Sign up TinyKVM plan.

  • 128MB memory
  • 3GB storage
  • 500GB/month data transfer on 1Gbps
  • 1x IPv4 + 65,536x IPv6
  • KVM

Servers in Kansas City (for TinyVZ) and in London UK (for TinyKVM). Robert has been running RAM Host since early 2009 and it should be easy to find mostly-positive reviews here or on WHT. As the name has suggested, these OpenVZ/KVM plans are “tiny” and if you need more resource, you need to upgrade to plans at RAM Host.

Latest posts by LEA (see all)


  1. dpflap:

    Wholesale Internet?

    October 20, 2011 @ 11:29 pm | Reply
  2. fanovpn:

    The TinyKVM plan is actually in London, not Kansas.

    I’ve signed up for one, looks like it’s not instant setup, FYI.

    October 20, 2011 @ 11:52 pm | Reply
  3. jude:

    placed an order on my cellphone, will pay it when i’m on a computer later

    October 21, 2011 @ 12:06 am | Reply
  4. Spirit:

    I’am wondering when IPv6 will actually become possible in KC. After sudden non expected removal of those addresses from KC nodes they said that “better” IPv6 will be back in a week… but now, months later still nothing.

    October 21, 2011 @ 12:17 am | Reply
    • @Spirit – the old tunneled IPv6 in Kansas City was shut off. If we haven’t renumbered you into native IPv6 yet send in a ticket and it’ll be done for you.

      October 21, 2011 @ 12:55 am | Reply
  5. danielfeng:

    65,536x IPv6, LOL.

    KVM looks good but only complaint is the storage. 15GB would be reasonable (10GB at least).

    October 21, 2011 @ 12:22 am | Reply
    • We will be launching another US based TinyKVM plan with more storage to compliment the UK offer next month.

      October 21, 2011 @ 12:56 am | Reply
      • hi ramnet

        any chance we can pay to add more disk space to the vz plans ?



        October 21, 2011 @ 5:37 am | Reply
      • any mailing list to inform us when it happens?

        October 21, 2011 @ 4:30 pm | Reply
      • rm:

        Will you be adding an Europe OpenVZ plan at the same specs/prices?

        October 21, 2011 @ 5:00 pm | Reply
        • There will be no $15 TinyVZ plans in Europe anytime soon, only in Kansas.

          October 22, 2011 @ 12:08 am | Reply
  6. Hosted with RAMHost for almost 1 year without issues. Worth to have a try with their new packages.

    October 21, 2011 @ 12:47 am | Reply
  7. WOW

    processor	: 2
    vendor_id	: GenuineIntel
    cpu family	: 6
    model		: 42
    model name	:           Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E31220 @ 3.10GHz
    stepping	: 7
    cpu MHz		: 3093.117
    cache size	: 8192 KB
    physical id	: 0
    siblings	: 4
    core id		: 2
    cpu cores	: 4
    apicid		: 4
    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	: 6185.87
    clflush size	: 64
    cache_alignment	: 64
    address sizes	: 36 bits physical, 48 bits virtual
    power management: [8]
    wget -O /dev/null http://cachefly.cachefly.net/100mb.test
    --2011-10-21 02:25:34--  http://cachefly.cachefly.net/100mb.test
    Resolving cachefly.cachefly.net...
    Connecting to cachefly.cachefly.net||:80... connected.
    HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK
    Length: 104857600 (100M) [application/octet-stream]
    Saving to: `/dev/null'
    100%[=====================================================================================================================================================>] 104,857,600 50.5M/s   in 2.0s    
    2011-10-21 02:25:36 (50.5 MB/s) - `/dev/null' saved [104857600/104857600]
    dd if=/dev/zero of=test bs=64k count=4k oflag=dsync
    4096+0 records in
    4096+0 records out
    268435456 bytes (268 MB) copied, 7.1476 s, 37.6 MB/s
    dd if=/dev/zero of=test bs=64k count=4k oflag=dsync
    4096+0 records in
    4096+0 records out
    268435456 bytes (268 MB) copied, 6.49761 s, 41.3 MB/s
    October 21, 2011 @ 2:30 am | Reply
  8. So standard plans at KC have been dropped?

    October 21, 2011 @ 2:42 am | Reply
    • We are going to be transitioning all the plans offered on ramhost.us to KVM-based plans only as the platform is superior. Since we still have a large amount of OpenVZ infrastructure still, those servers will be recycled for use as miniature VPS servers by our TinyVZ brand.

      October 21, 2011 @ 3:01 am | Reply
      • zidit:

        I have one OpenVZ at atlanta. So any affect from this?

        October 21, 2011 @ 3:24 pm | Reply
        • We won’t be turning off any legacy OpenVZ plans in Atlanta until 2014 at the earliest :-)

          October 21, 2011 @ 9:15 pm | Reply
      • I think I read about this in your forums… that you were considering moving everything away from OpenVZ because of recent instability issues. But that can’t be an issue any longer, with the release of a new OpenVZ brand :)

        I’m quite happy with moving to KVM, as long as I get the same resources at the same price.

        Cheers and best wishes.

        October 21, 2011 @ 9:54 pm | Reply
        • Well, these TinyVZ plans use our older, more stable OpenVZ platform. We eventually will phase all this OpenVZ stuff out when this infrastructure is retired several years down the road. By that time we will be able to offer KVM plans with these specs at the same price point as OpenVZ.

          October 22, 2011 @ 12:12 am | Reply
        • ray:

          That’s interesting, if I understood right, existing ramhost customers will receive free upgrade from openvz to kvm and their VPS specs remains the same?

          BTW: Now we have a more competitive market of the $15 super-low-end-box and what’s coming next?

          October 22, 2011 @ 11:04 am | Reply
        • paul:

          KVM needs more memory than openvz because you have to run your own kernel and a bunch of system services in your VPS, that are shared node-wide and don’t count in your memory limit in OVZ. 128MB OVZ users will probably have to upgrade to 144MB-ish KVM to run the same applications. But I think ramnet is just saying, hardware will get cheaper, so they will be able to offer the relevant upgrades.

          I’m skeptical of this OpenVZ to KVM migration anyway. OpenVZ has trouble with certain kernels and usage profiles but can work really well, and is constantly being improved. It’s superior to KVM/Xen in many ways (though also worse in some) and it isn’t going away. By a couple years from now maybe all these problems will be sorted.

          October 22, 2011 @ 11:27 am | Reply
        • @paul

          OpenVZ measures memory allocated.

          KVM, Xen, and real hardware, measure memory that is actually used, which is less than memory allocated.

          Applications allocate more than they actually use.

          This is why you can run Java and Python on a 32MB KVM / Xen where OpenVZ will need close to quadruple that or the OOM-killer will step in.

          This is why KVM costs more than OpenVZ: OpenVZ by design counts memory incorrectly, in favor of the host.

          All things being equal, software running inside an OpenVZ VPS will require more memory than software running in a KVM/Xen/real hardware situation.

          October 22, 2011 @ 12:57 pm | Reply
  9. rm:

    How about test IPv4 and IPv6 for both locations.

    October 21, 2011 @ 4:15 am | Reply
    • You can ping and 2605:8900:5000:1001:1::1 for Kansas City and and 2a02:2498:efff:ffff::2 for London.

      October 21, 2011 @ 4:21 am | Reply
      • paul:

        Both v6 work for me from buyvm.net. London v6 ping time is slightly shorter than v4 (a couple ms). KC is about the same.

        root:~# ping6 2605:8900:5000:1001:1::1 
        PING 2605:8900:5000:1001:1::1(2605:8900:5000:1001:1::1) 56 data bytes
        64 bytes from 2605:8900:5000:1001:1::1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=57 time=46.5 ms
        64 bytes from 2605:8900:5000:1001:1::1: icmp_seq=2 ttl=57 time=41.9 ms
        64 bytes from 2605:8900:5000:1001:1::1: icmp_seq=3 ttl=57 time=41.9 ms
        64 bytes from 2605:8900:5000:1001:1::1: icmp_seq=4 ttl=57 time=41.8 ms
        64 bytes from 2605:8900:5000:1001:1::1: icmp_seq=5 ttl=57 time=41.8 ms
        64 bytes from 2605:8900:5000:1001:1::1: icmp_seq=6 ttl=57 time=41.8 ms
        64 bytes from 2605:8900:5000:1001:1::1: icmp_seq=7 ttl=57 time=41.8 ms
        --- 2605:8900:5000:1001:1::1 ping statistics ---
        7 packets transmitted, 7 received, 0% packet loss, time 6018ms
        rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 41.800/42.547/46.526/1.636 ms
        root:~# ping6 2a02:2498:efff:ffff::2
        PING 2a02:2498:efff:ffff::2(2a02:2498:efff:ffff::2) 56 data bytes
        64 bytes from 2a02:2498:efff:ffff::2: icmp_seq=1 ttl=54 time=142 ms
        64 bytes from 2a02:2498:efff:ffff::2: icmp_seq=2 ttl=54 time=139 ms
        64 bytes from 2a02:2498:efff:ffff::2: icmp_seq=3 ttl=54 time=138 ms
        64 bytes from 2a02:2498:efff:ffff::2: icmp_seq=4 ttl=54 time=139 ms
        64 bytes from 2a02:2498:efff:ffff::2: icmp_seq=5 ttl=54 time=138 ms
        --- 2a02:2498:efff:ffff::2 ping statistics ---
        6 packets transmitted, 5 received, 16% packet loss, time 5012ms
        rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 138.911/139.695/142.049/1.211 ms
        October 24, 2011 @ 10:35 am | Reply
  10. Adam:

    Any benchmarks of KVM VPS and OpenVZ VPS?

    October 21, 2011 @ 6:31 am | Reply
  11. total used free shared buffers cached
    Mem: 256 234 21 0 0 0
    -/+ buffers/cache: 234 21
    Swap: 0 0 0
    4008 www-data 21 0 229m 3276 1544 S 0 1.2 0:00.00 apache2
    what’s wrong?

    October 21, 2011 @ 7:05 am | Reply
  12. Ramhost…Oh!

    October 21, 2011 @ 7:54 am | Reply
  13. Not bad at all for just under £10 a year.
    Just waiting for setup now.

    October 21, 2011 @ 9:59 am | Reply
  14. This site takes simplicity to the next level :P Nice deal though.

    October 21, 2011 @ 10:04 am | Reply
  15. Mark R:

    I have several servers with ramhost. Please check support ticket # 144912. I would like to try the TinyVZ they are offering here.

    October 21, 2011 @ 2:37 pm | Reply
    • Mark R:

      Thanks ramnet for ignoring my tickets. Ticket # 746718 (2011/10/03) and ticket # 144912 (2011/10/21).

      October 22, 2011 @ 7:30 am | Reply
      • We don’t like spammers and abuse. Go bother some other host who doesn’t mind your garbage.

        October 22, 2011 @ 12:46 pm | Reply
        • Mark R:

          Nicely said even if I’m asking help from you how to prevent such abuses via support ticket. It seems trusting you to help me means a very bad decision I make. Good luck.

          October 23, 2011 @ 4:36 am | Reply
        • @Mark R

          4 servers spamming and sending out network attacks for over a month is your fault. You are either deliberately conducting criminal activity, or are far too unskilled to administer a server yourself. Considering it involves 4 servers, I’m going to assume you’re a scumbag :)

          Good luck to you as well.

          October 23, 2011 @ 5:18 am | Reply
        • Mark R:

          Thanks for deleting all my servers after posting my experience with you here and accusing me of conducting criminal activity even if I have upgraded all my methods of protecting my VPS. Liars will go to hell and God is just to give justice to those who are oppressed. Accusing me of 4 more abuse reports just in order for you to delete all my servers.

          October 23, 2011 @ 11:15 am | Reply
        • @Mark R “Liars will go to hell”

          If only it were that easy to get rid of you :-)

          Spamming and attacking US government servers is a criminal offense.

          Your services were shut down a month ago after you were given several weeks to cease that activity and resolve the problem, which you failed to do.

          Now do everyone a favor and stop trolling.

          October 23, 2011 @ 11:39 am | Reply
        • Mark R:

          If you have told me not to pay because you’re going to terminate my servers anyway I would have not renewed it for the quarter Oct-Dec for the due date was Sep. You told me that my IP will be renumbered that’s why I trusted you and pay for the next quarter but instead of renumbering you have terminated it all. It’s very unfair.

          October 24, 2011 @ 5:20 am | Reply
  16. mike:

    allow IRC?

    October 21, 2011 @ 10:03 pm | Reply
    • IRC on the TinyVZ is clearly specified in the AUP/TOS

      October 21, 2011 @ 11:46 pm | Reply
    • IRC clients are fine.

      IRC servers for personal use is fine as well.

      October 22, 2011 @ 12:13 am | Reply
  17. andy:

    And what about VPN? =)

    October 21, 2011 @ 10:45 pm | Reply
    • KVM you can pretty much run whatever your OS is able to run on a real server.

      The old OpenVZ technology powering the TinyVZ plans can handle TUN for OpenVPN and that’s about it.

      October 22, 2011 @ 12:38 pm | Reply
  18. Mike Hat:

    Very nice offer. Looks like RAM Host works out of my hometown. One drawback is having to pay state sales tax, but on the other hand it’s nice to support a local business …and even nicer to know where to go with my pitchfork and torch if something goes wrong ;)

    October 22, 2011 @ 4:45 am | Reply
    • Zigga:

      Knowing where to take the pitchfork and torch is worth the state tax!

      October 22, 2011 @ 5:50 am | Reply
    • We’re probably going to incorporate in a year or two in a state that doesn’t require sales tax on web hosting (or in a state with very low population like Wyoming). Texas is one of the very few states that requires we collect sales tax on web hosting, and we’re not particularly thrilled about passing that tax along to TX clients….

      October 22, 2011 @ 6:36 am | Reply
      • Mike Hat:

        FWIW, it doesn’t really matter where you’re incorporated – you’re going to have to collect Texas sales tax either way. Any presence in Texas (your home office in Baytown, for example) requires that an account be established with the State Comptroller to collect sales taxes.

        Unless, of course, you’re planning on moving to Wyoming … :)

        October 22, 2011 @ 7:21 am | Reply
        • Just FYI, A personal presence isn’t equal to a business presence when it comes to corporations.

          And with global warming moving north might not be a bad idea heh :-P

          October 22, 2011 @ 12:36 pm | Reply
  19. paul:

    This is great. There was an LET thread recently about redefining “low end” at higher than $7/month, but I think $15/year is really the right new definition. If you watch BuyVM stock releases, they always sell out their 128MB $15/year plans immediately while everything else hangs around all day. These are still quite powerful and useful servers. I keep feeling tempted to buy more of them even though in practice they’d end up sitting idle.

    October 22, 2011 @ 6:32 am | Reply
    • At the current rate of orders we’re seeing for these the $15 plan should have stock well into next week :-)

      October 22, 2011 @ 6:39 am | Reply
      • James B:

        BuyVM sells out in seconds everything they have stock.

        October 22, 2011 @ 7:09 am | Reply
        • James B:

          How do they do it?

          October 22, 2011 @ 7:13 am | Reply
        • paul:

          No really they don’t. They had no stock at all for ages, so when they finally released a bunch last Saturday it almost all went fast. Later releases have lasted longer, like several hours for the 128MB plans and days for everything else. Today’s release seems to have not included any 256MB’s (there were 4 available at that time) and that’s why there’s none now. There are still plenty of 512MB and up available, with 512M at $5.95 priced well within the LEB limit. There’s even a 2048M KVM that’s been dangling there all week like a piece of ripe fruit ready for picking, but this place is too cheap to be tempted by it ;-). Anyway this is a Ramhost thread, shouldn’t go on too much about buyvm.

          October 22, 2011 @ 7:49 am | Reply
        • This is not a BuyVM thread :) lets discuss this in LET, shall we?

          October 23, 2011 @ 2:19 pm | Reply
      • paul:

        I like your minimalist home page and I’d happily buy one of those servers except I don’t know what I’d do with it. Yes this LEB stuff has problems but I’m just amazed that it works as well as it does.

        October 22, 2011 @ 7:54 am | Reply
  20. circus:

    what about the service/support quality, will it be any different between tiny and ram customers?

    October 22, 2011 @ 7:33 am | Reply
    • tinyvz / tinykvm come with minimal to no support. If you require semi-managed support or periodic hand-holding these discounted offers are not for you.

      October 22, 2011 @ 7:54 am | Reply
      • I guess he talks about general support (network fails, system reboots, outages, tun enabling, etc).

        October 23, 2011 @ 5:58 am | Reply
        • Well, obviously network and hardware issues, and any other issues beyond a client’s ability to control, are supported.

          October 23, 2011 @ 7:03 am | Reply
        • circus:

          @Yomero, Yup that what I meant :)
          like if I have network/node/tun/etc issues, how long tiny{vz,kvm} have to wait for ticket reply, do we have the same priority as ramhost customers for this kind of issues?

          October 23, 2011 @ 12:22 pm | Reply
        • pindank:

          I am with them since 2 days ago. Very fast support on replying my ticket. TUN and PPTP enable by default however change hostname and RDNS record must open a ticket.

          Today I notice, intermittent down almost 2 hours without any announcement in advance.

          October 23, 2011 @ 1:16 pm | Reply
        • Yeah, circus is a pro!

          October 23, 2011 @ 4:38 pm | Reply
  21. If only you could buy extra BW on this plan :p

    October 22, 2011 @ 10:28 am | Reply
  22. ramhost:

    I/O is Too slow
    Sometimes only 300KB/S, Good case only 20MB/S

    and ramhost tell me ,test I/O will Fine, Be afraid

    October 23, 2011 @ 2:38 pm | Reply
    • Perl:

      I/O seems OK with dd.

      root@vpsXXXXXXXX:/# 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, 10.9096 s, 98.4 MB/s
      root@vpsXXXXXXXX:/# 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, 14.3025 s, 75.1 MB/s

      However, I’m still reserved as to the overall performance. Apt seems to take minutes to install packages that would complete in <30 seconds on another VPS I have elsewhere.

      Three other things I think it's worth noting:
      – My VPS was set up within ~30 minutes of me paying (with Google checkout at ~7AM UTC)
      – IPv6 doesn't seem to work (ping6 always returns "Network is unreachable", and I can't connect to/from another VPS over it – and I know that IPv6 is working fine.)
      – The control panel is a bit disappointing after being with providers using SolusVM and HyperVM. It would be nice to be able to change the hostname/RDNS without submitting a ticket, and the reload OS option always results in an error (although it does work fine.)

      October 23, 2011 @ 10:38 pm | Reply
      • Can you do a ioping test? =)

        October 24, 2011 @ 2:05 am | Reply
      • You’re probably seeing the effects of caching. Wanna retry that with conv=fsync ?

        October 24, 2011 @ 2:27 am | Reply
        • Just a FYI, conv=fsync is basically the same as conv=fdatasync

          If that was a cache’ing effect it’d be many orders of magnitude higher in the GBPS range.

          October 24, 2011 @ 5:03 am | Reply
      • @Perl

        IPv6 works fine here – if it doesn’t open a ticket and we’ll take a look.

        Your apt is probably going slow because of an issue with your network configuration related to your IPv6 not working.

        October 24, 2011 @ 2:37 am | Reply
        • Perl:

          Unless I need to explicitly do something to enable it, it definitely isn’t working how I’d expect – can’t connect in via the one address [/128] attached, and outwards always returns “network unreachable” – so I will log a ticket.

          The slow part of installs isn’t the network part, it’s was unpacking / configuring. It seems to be better now, but still not ideal. (I’m on the same host as herbyscrub below, will see like in a couple of days.)

          October 24, 2011 @ 9:07 pm | Reply
      • ramhost:

        You’re using ‘conv=fdatasync’, but do you dare to use ‘oflag=dsync’ test?

        dd if=/dev/zero of=test bs=64k count=4k oflag=dsync

        ramhost smashed their own brand of low-end vps, I will not renew the!

        October 25, 2011 @ 11:01 am | Reply
        • rm:

          oflag=dsync is an useless test, fdatasync is the closest to real-world behaviour.

          October 25, 2011 @ 11:09 am | Reply
        • I second @rm’s comment. ‘conv=fdatasync’ is enough

          October 25, 2011 @ 11:09 am | Reply
    • Disk IO is fine on these servers. You are testing it incorrectly if you think it’s that slow.

      October 24, 2011 @ 2:39 am | Reply
      • john:

        then, tell us how to test correctly.

        October 24, 2011 @ 5:47 am | Reply
        • Same way Perl and Mr.z did earlier in these comments is fine.

          October 24, 2011 @ 8:49 am | Reply
  23. herbyscrub:

    Just got mine provisioned. Network is fine, but performance on VZ5 is less than ideal. Needed approximately 4 minutes for “aptitude install lighttpd” (download was extremely quick, unpacking was appalling).

    October 24, 2011 @ 1:36 pm | Reply
    • There are a lot of os reloads going on at the moment from people installing their stuff slowing things down – the server will settle down in a few days.

      We’re staggering provisioning of the orders for these to help keep that from happening on new servers.

      October 24, 2011 @ 1:42 pm | Reply
    • paul:

      But 4 minutes is ridiculous, it’s usually just a few seconds.

      October 25, 2011 @ 11:12 am | Reply
      • rm:

        Test with ioping.

        October 25, 2011 @ 11:21 am | Reply
      • herbyscrub:

        It’s better now compared to my previous post. Very useable, but there are definitely still brief(seconds) hiccups.

        October 25, 2011 @ 12:03 pm | Reply
  24. Are they allow web proxies?

    October 24, 2011 @ 2:18 pm | Reply
  25. Brandon:

    I am frequently getting “504 Gateway Timeout” on my WordPress site hosted by TinyVZ.

    After researching it looks like that speed may be the issue?

    root@vps21352858:/home/brandon# dd if=/dev/zero of=/home/test bs=64k count=512 oflag=dsync
    512+0 records in
    512+0 records out
    33554432 bytes (34 MB) copied, 116.935 s, 287 kB/s

    Any thoughts? Is there anything else I should check? I set it up from the WordPress tutorial @ http://www.lowendbox.com/blog/wordpress-cheap-vps-lowendscript/

    October 25, 2011 @ 4:58 pm | Reply
  26. earl:

    Their website seems to be down, and so is my VPS!!

    October 25, 2011 @ 6:13 pm | Reply
    • khaste:

      yes, my VPS is also down for 4 hours till now, VZ5 and i think all Kansas City VPSs are down, if all of this is because of os reload of new customers as ramnet say that before, then i suggest add restriction on number of OS reloads one customer can do in one day or in an hour.

      October 25, 2011 @ 6:35 pm | Reply
    • sleddog:

      Me too. Issues all afternoon. And I’m not on a $15 plan. Déjà vu…

      October 25, 2011 @ 6:52 pm | Reply
      • Diger:

        Yeah looks like whole KC servers have a problem.

        October 25, 2011 @ 7:10 pm | Reply
    • powerade_zero:

      Yep. Here for example is what my VPS status looks like:


      Lots of red faces today:


      Makes me sad.

      October 25, 2011 @ 7:58 pm | Reply
      • Networking issues I think, not hardware downtime. The red faces change frequently. Lots of empty space in the graphs. My VPS has 40 days uptime and a load of 0 0 0, but is mostly unreachable. I’m sure ramnet is working on it.

        October 25, 2011 @ 8:16 pm | Reply
        • Yes, somebody was hitting kansas city, atlanta, and our web site in seattle with network attacks today.

          Those have since been mitigated.

          Would seem somebody doesn’t like us.

          October 25, 2011 @ 10:37 pm | Reply
        • powerade_zero:

          I opened a ticket asking about my VPS and a couple hours later got a response explaining the network problem.

          For a $15/year VPS, that’s pretty good service.

          October 25, 2011 @ 10:50 pm | Reply
        • James B:

          Maybe the company want to be the only to sell $15/year VPS and afraid of you.

          October 26, 2011 @ 6:06 am | Reply
        • earl:

          It seems all the Kansas location is down again! is this another network attack?

          October 26, 2011 @ 11:27 am | Reply
  27. Edward:

    Danggggg, when’s the next time you guys are stocking up on this? I really wanna give this a try.

    October 25, 2011 @ 9:45 pm | Reply
    • We still have stock on these. Due to the 3gbps worth of network attacks earlier it took down our order form for a little while.

      October 25, 2011 @ 11:38 pm | Reply
      • Edward:

        BAM! Just put in my order. Can’t wait to try out your service =)!

        October 26, 2011 @ 4:02 am | Reply
      • Edward:

        I didn’t think it would take the full 3 days to set up the VPS; but yea… it’s almost the full 3 days, and I still haven’t got my VPS yet.

        October 28, 2011 @ 3:46 pm | Reply
      • Edward:

        Nevermind, checked my SPAM and found the server information… can’t wait to try this new VPS out! =D

        October 28, 2011 @ 3:47 pm | Reply
      • Edward:

        Just tried it out. Seems pretty decent, but really not for me unless they can do anything for my problem. I’m hosting a community Teamspeak 3 server, and the connections of the clients get dropped every other minute. This didn’t happen with my previous VPS provider, and not only are the international clients are getting dropped… but also US clients! I also submitted a ticket, but the response time isn’t that great; hopefully it’s better than their setup time.

        Other than bandwidth quality & support response; I would say this is a decent quality VPS. Fast OS reloads, decent I/O, decent download (peaks at 1.1mb/s @ a file test from Softlayer), okay upload (Upload to the server at < 200kb/s), and exceptional price.

        October 28, 2011 @ 8:14 pm | Reply
      • Edward:

        Get TinyVZ, best thing ever; support was answer within 2 hrs, and it was totally perfect. Worth the 15 bucks, DEFINITELY.

        October 28, 2011 @ 9:36 pm | Reply
  28. My vps is still pending after 24 hours.

    October 26, 2011 @ 12:35 am | Reply
  29. anton ahmad:

    i already paid $15 yesterday,but setup info not sent to my email and also i submit ticket but no response,please check it , i use my name and email same as i post in here.

    October 26, 2011 @ 12:36 am | Reply
    • mog_man:

      well… it does say it takes up to 3 days to get it set up AND to NOT open a ticket until the 3 days are up.

      i signed up a few hours ago. I, too, am patiently waiting :)

      October 26, 2011 @ 2:31 am | Reply
      • powerade_zero:

        Mine did not take anything like 3 days. I think I ordered in the afternoon and it was provisioned by the next morning (US Pacific times).

        October 26, 2011 @ 6:12 am | Reply
        • All orders from the 24th have been set up.

          All orders from yesterday will be setup later today once another block of IP’s gets routed where we need it :-)

          October 26, 2011 @ 9:32 am | Reply
  30. Guys, please subscribe to their announcements to know whats wrong. RAMHost.us always keep that updated

    (I use rss2email on Ubuntu and/or Google Reader)

    October 26, 2011 @ 6:24 am | Reply
  31. jack:

    tinyvz out of stock?

    October 30, 2011 @ 5:11 pm | Reply
    • Keith W.:

      Looks like the 15/mo is out of stock. I should have ordered this earlier..


      October 31, 2011 @ 12:57 pm | Reply
  32. root@vps23233081:~# dd if=/dev/zero of=test bs=16k count=64k conv=fdatasync
    65536+0 records in
    65536+0 records out
    1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB) copied, 14.9926 s, 71.6 MB/s
    root@vps23233081:~# ioping . -c 10
    4096 bytes from . ( ): request=1 time=0.1 ms
    4096 bytes from . ( ): request=2 time=12.1 ms
    4096 bytes from . ( ): request=3 time=14.0 ms
    4096 bytes from . ( ): request=4 time=430.6 ms
    4096 bytes from . ( ): request=5 time=10.3 ms
    4096 bytes from . ( ): request=6 time=7.1 ms
    4096 bytes from . ( ): request=7 time=9.3 ms
    4096 bytes from . ( ): request=8 time=24.9 ms
    4096 bytes from . ( ): request=9 time=18.2 ms
    4096 bytes from . ( ): request=10 time=13.1 ms
    --- . ( ) ioping statistics ---
    10 requests completed in 9540.4 ms, 19 iops, 0.1 mb/s
    min/avg/max/mdev = 0.1/54.0/430.6/125.7 ms

    Network speed is a great to some locations and OK to others:

    root@vps23233081:~# wget http://freevps.us/downloads/net-test.sh -O - -o /dev/null|bash
    Linode, Atlanta, GA
    --2011-10-31 11:50:36--  http://atlanta1.linode.com/100MB-atlanta.bin
    Resolving atlanta1.linode.com...
    Connecting to atlanta1.linode.com||:80... connected.
    HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK
    Length: 104857600 (100M) [application/octet-stream]
    Saving to: `/dev/null'
    100%[======================================>] 104,857,600 6.81M/s   in 16s     
    2011-10-31 11:50:54 (6.25 MB/s) - `/dev/null' saved [104857600/104857600]
    Linode, Dallas, TX
    --2011-10-31 11:50:55--  http://dallas1.linode.com/100MB-dallas.bin
    Resolving dallas1.linode.com...
    Connecting to dallas1.linode.com||:80... connected.
    HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK
    Length: 104857600 (100M) [application/octet-stream]
    Saving to: `/dev/null'
    100%[======================================>] 104,857,600 12.0M/s   in 8.6s    
    2011-10-31 11:51:04 (11.6 MB/s) - `/dev/null' saved [104857600/104857600]
    Linode, Tokyo, JP:
    wget -O /dev/null http://tokyo1.linode.com/100MB-tokyo.bin
    echo Linode, London, UK
    --2011-10-31 11:51:04--  http://london1.linode.com/100MB-london.bin
    Resolving london1.linode.com...
    Connecting to london1.linode.com||:80... connected.
    HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK
    Length: 104857600 (100M) [application/octet-stream]
    Saving to: `/dev/null'
    100%[======================================>] 104,857,600 18.6M/s   in 9.7s    
    2011-10-31 11:51:14 (10.3 MB/s) - `/dev/null' saved [104857600/104857600]
    --2011-10-31 11:51:14--  http://cachefly.cachefly.net/100mb.test
    Resolving cachefly.cachefly.net...
    Connecting to cachefly.cachefly.net||:80... connected.
    HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK
    Length: 104857600 (100M) [application/octet-stream]
    Saving to: `/dev/null'
    100%[======================================>] 104,857,600 10.9M/s   in 11s     
    2011-10-31 11:51:25 (8.88 MB/s) - `/dev/null' saved [104857600/104857600]
    QuadraNet, Los Angles, CA
    --2011-10-31 11:51:25--  http://www.quadranet.com/speedtests/100mb.test
    Resolving www.quadranet.com...
    Connecting to www.quadranet.com||:80... connected.
    HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK
    Length: 105472000 (101M) [text/plain]
    Saving to: `/dev/null'
    100%[======================================>] 105,472,000 5.77M/s   in 23s     
    2011-10-31 11:51:49 (4.32 MB/s) - `/dev/null' saved [105472000/105472000]
    Softlayer, San Jose, CA
    --2011-10-31 11:51:49--  http://speedtest.sjc01.softlayer.com/downloads/test100.zip
    Resolving speedtest.sjc01.softlayer.com...
    Connecting to speedtest.sjc01.softlayer.com||:80... connected.
    HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK
    Length: 104874307 (100M) [application/zip]
    Saving to: `/dev/null'
    100%[======================================>] 104,874,307 33.4M/s   in 3.0s    
    2011-10-31 11:51:52 (33.4 MB/s) - `/dev/null' saved [104874307/104874307]
    Softlayer, Washington, DC
    --2011-10-31 11:51:52--  http://speedtest.wdc01.softlayer.com/downloads/test100.zip
    Resolving speedtest.wdc01.softlayer.com...
    Connecting to speedtest.wdc01.softlayer.com||:80... connected.
    HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK
    Length: 104874307 (100M) [application/zip]
    Saving to: `/dev/null'
    100%[======================================>] 104,874,307 31.3M/s   in 3.2s    
    2011-10-31 11:51:55 (31.3 MB/s) - `/dev/null' saved [104874307/104874307]
    Softlayer, Singapore
    --2011-10-31 11:51:55--  http://speedtest.sng01.softlayer.com/downloads/test100.zip
    Resolving speedtest.sng01.softlayer.com...
    Connecting to speedtest.sng01.softlayer.com||:80... connected.
    HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK
    Length: 104874307 (100M) [application/zip]
    Saving to: `/dev/null'
    100%[======================================>] 104,874,307 12.5M/s   in 12s     
    2011-10-31 11:52:08 (8.13 MB/s) - `/dev/null' saved [104874307/104874307]
    Softlayer, Seattle, WA
    --2011-10-31 11:52:08--  http://speedtest.sea01.softlayer.com/downloads/test100.zip
    Resolving speedtest.sea01.softlayer.com...
    Connecting to speedtest.sea01.softlayer.com||:80... connected.
    HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK
    Length: 104874307 (100M) [application/zip]
    Saving to: `/dev/null'
    100%[======================================>] 104,874,307 27.4M/s   in 5.6s    
    2011-10-31 11:52:14 (17.8 MB/s) - `/dev/null' saved [104874307/104874307]

    Geekbench: http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/506064

    Now I just need them to add a CentOS 6 template so I can use the VPS for what I bought it for instead just of running benchmarks.

    October 31, 2011 @ 3:59 pm | Reply
  33. Mike:

    I’ve had the VPS for a few days now, and network doesn’t seem to be very stable. I have a test bot connected to IRC to test connection, and the bot has gone down several times, about 6 in the last 2-3 days.

    November 1, 2011 @ 1:05 am | Reply
    • Mike:

      via IPV6 btw.

      November 1, 2011 @ 1:05 am | Reply
      • most carriers still consider ipv6 to be experimental, so the global ipv6 network is likely to be less stable than the normal ipv4 one most people use.

        For something like an irc bot that needs to keep a connection open for a long time, ipv4 will perform a lot better than ipv6 for the forseeable future.

        November 7, 2011 @ 8:13 pm | Reply
  34. Mike Hat:

    These guys are great. One of my sites hit the second page of Reddit and was overwhelmed with traffic, which choked my dedicated server’s 100mbit port. I ended up distributing the content between 3 LEBs – one of which was at TinyVZ – and everything ran great. I was maxing 100mbps for about 5 hours at TinyVZ and there were absolutely no issues.

    Highly recommended!

    November 1, 2011 @ 8:53 pm | Reply
  35. peter:

    still out of stock?

    November 7, 2011 @ 4:19 pm | Reply
    • We’ll be adding some more stock on these later this month.

      November 7, 2011 @ 11:46 pm | Reply
      • SwordfishBE:

        Can we reserve one, or get contacted when it will be available?

        November 12, 2011 @ 9:28 pm | Reply
  36. Jim snow:

    Still wait for my SSH proxy Account wich I Have ordered(and paid) on 11/11/2011 but neither a reply from my ticket… odd

    November 15, 2011 @ 11:21 am | Reply
  37. andrew:

    Restock! hurry up ^|^

    November 20, 2011 @ 8:19 am | Reply
    • SwordfishBE:

      Thanks for the heads up! :)

      November 20, 2011 @ 10:14 am | Reply
  38. peterson:

    I’ve already book 1 vps this afternoon,
    but until now , 5hr passed , do not active.

    November 20, 2011 @ 1:34 pm | Reply
    • SwordfishBE:

      Yes me too, however it was sunday. So I wasn’t expecting my vps yesterday :)

      November 21, 2011 @ 12:31 pm | Reply
      • peterson:

        when will the vps be setup ?

        waiting almost 1 days.

        November 21, 2011 @ 2:59 pm | Reply
        • David J. French:

          No more than 3 business days, IIRC.

          November 21, 2011 @ 3:54 pm | Reply
  39. David J. French:

    Things with TinyKVM are going well — I’m a satisfied customer. I even had an issue with configuring my network manually (I assumed “address” was a local IP) and it was fixed in a support ticket within an hour.

    Thanks so far, RAM Host.

    November 20, 2011 @ 3:31 pm | Reply
  40. Just ordered my site last night, can I expect my VPS to be online by saturday? or will it be up on monday?

    November 25, 2011 @ 11:09 pm | Reply
  41. khaste:

    Any news about tinyKvm in US?

    December 4, 2011 @ 11:23 am | Reply
  42. Rsh:

    I have registered via proxy – ramhost thinks i am fraud and suspended my login at all. Even reset password does not help :-)

    December 7, 2011 @ 4:34 pm | Reply
  43. Anonymous:

    I was idling in their IRC public support channel last night. I woke up to read this this morning.
    Apparently these are “garbage” VPS’s and the ONE server they’re on isn’t reliable.
    I figure if this is public information, everyone should know what they’re buying.

    “Customer” is the person who joined. “ramnet” is the network/company operator.

    **Edit**: Use http://pastebin.com/DztsULzd instead.

    December 8, 2011 @ 12:00 am | Reply
    • Powerade_Zero:

      If I’d known I was buying something the provider referred to as a “garbage” server, I would never have bought one.

      December 8, 2011 @ 5:11 pm | Reply
      • You should not take such comments so seriously.

        If you read the entire conversation it is very obvious that it is just a bit of sarcasm.

        We obviously don’t consider any of our services to actually be garbage.

        December 11, 2011 @ 1:17 am | Reply
    • Impressive comments… So, after that, I don’t want their garbage servers anymore.

      December 8, 2011 @ 5:37 pm | Reply
    • Obviously, the premium servers we sell on our RAM Host brand are better than the specially discounted plans sold through the TinyVZ brand. That is a given: If they weren’t we wouldn’t be pricing them significantly cheaper.

      TinyVZ infrastructure is primarily RAM Host’s older infrastructure from 2009/2010, which is why we jokingly refer to them as garbage since they have been recycled.

      December 10, 2011 @ 9:15 am | Reply
  44. Rsh:

    I thought ramhost is good name.

    December 8, 2011 @ 9:13 am | Reply
    • TinyVZ is operated independently of RAM Host. Any experiences from TinyVZ are not reflective of RAM Host services.

      December 10, 2011 @ 9:17 am | Reply
  45. Alexey:

    I’m pretty happy with TinyKVM plan. Uptime is 99% over month, OS installation over VNC is amazing.

    December 8, 2011 @ 6:01 pm | Reply
  46. safefaek:


    December 26, 2011 @ 10:24 am | Reply
  47. bwoi:

    So what about the US tinykvm?

    January 11, 2012 @ 5:38 pm | Reply
  48. Tom Williamson:

    I signed up for TinyVZ not expecting much from the price and some of the comments here. But so far I have been very impressed. I’m using it mostly for learning purposes, and with TinyVz I have more freedom then I get with my current shell provider for half the price. Outstanding like a smoker on lunch break.

    January 18, 2012 @ 3:38 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 *