LowEndBox - Cheap VPS, Hosting and Dedicated Server Deals

URPad.net – $4.87 768MB OpenVZ VPS in Kansas City

Tags: , , Date/Time: November 18, 2011 @ 4:58 am, by LowEndAdmin

URPad URPad has recently launched a new Budget VPS line in Kansas City MO, and are offering some exclusive offers to the LowEndBox community. Two plans here:

  • 384MB guaranteed/768MB burstable memory
  • 15GB storage
  • 250GB/month data transfer on 100Mbps
  • OpenVZ/SolusVM
  • $3.49/month (Direct sign up link)
  • 768MB guaranteed/1024MB burstable memory
  • 40GB storage
  • 350GB/month data transfer on 100Mbps
  • OpenVZ/SolusVM
  • $4.87/month (Direct sign up link)

PayPal, Moneybookers, Liberty Reserve or Mail in Payment — the last group of people should seriously consider entering into the 21st century. Servers with 1102 Grand in Kansas City MO (test IP: 69.55.132.68). URPad has been part of FTNHosting since July this year, which has made a big improvement in customer service (see comments from previous offer).

The original owner of LowEndBox known as "LowEndAdmin" or "LEA" for short founded LowEndBox in 2008 and created the concept of hosting applications on low resource "Low End Boxes". After creating the roots of the community that we know today, "LEA" stepped aside and allowed others to carry the torch forward.

93 Comments

  1. Hi,

    Thanks for the listing Admin; we felt this offer would benefit & interest the readers of Lowendbox.

    We genuinely strive to offer high quality service; so if any of you have any suggestions we always have an open ear! We appreciate that we are offering a service and not a product, and will do anything by all means to fulfill that requirement.

    Please don’t hesitate to let us know if any of you have any questions we will do anything for you guys ;-)

    Have a great weekend!

    Best,

    Kevin Hillstrand
    URPad.net
    Telephone: +1(616) 920-1723
    Twitter: http://twitter.com/URPad

    November 18, 2011 @ 6:44 am | Reply
  2. jack:

    ACCEPT ALERTPAY :(!

    November 18, 2011 @ 11:59 am | Reply
    • Hello Jack,

      Yes we do accept AlertPay it is just not an option for new orders. Please open a ticket with our sales department and we will enable it for you will be able to pay via AlertPay.

      Chris Miller
      URPad.net
      Telephone: +1(616) 920-1723
      Twitter: http://twitter.com/URPad

      November 18, 2011 @ 4:36 pm | Reply
      • jack:

        already paid chris :).

        November 19, 2011 @ 2:50 am | Reply
  3. So, you only have OpenVZ, no XEN or KVM plans?

    November 18, 2011 @ 2:24 pm | Reply
    • Hi Asim how are you doing today?

      We have XEN-HVM plans at our parent company see link below

      http://www.ftnhosting.net/windows-vps/

      Even though it says Windows we should be able to load any Linux template for you upon request since it’s XEN HVM. Have an awesome weekend.

      Best,
      Kevin

      November 18, 2011 @ 5:12 pm | Reply
    • Thanks for letting me know. I will wait for XEN/KVM lowend packages on urpad.net because your parent company are a bit on the expensive side

      November 18, 2011 @ 7:32 pm | Reply
      • Hi Asim,

        Okay no problem. Just so you know, I wouldn’t hold your breathe on a XEN/KVM release on the URPad brand as nothing is planned at the present time. However we will keep that in mind and hopefully be able to start offering that in the future.

        Thanks for your understanding :)

        Best,
        Kevin

        November 18, 2011 @ 8:09 pm | Reply
  4. Anyone having past experience with them?

    November 18, 2011 @ 7:30 pm | Reply
    • Rayan:

      Yes, I purchased a special offer two months ago, support was really good and the machine is stable.

      November 19, 2011 @ 4:39 pm | Reply
      • Thanks Rayan! Thanks for your trust and business.

        November 19, 2011 @ 10:13 pm | Reply
        • Troy:

          Hello,

          I got a lowend VPS yearly package about more than 2 months ago, found them at WHT. Their support very well and Didn’t have any issues at all. The server was up anytime as far as i know (don’t use any monitoring)

          To urpad.net: I got from Houston. Do you offer lowend at another location? I would like to buy.

          Thanks

          November 22, 2013 @ 1:13 pm | Reply
  5. jack:

    Just Purchased. I’ll make a review with 48 hours:)!

    November 18, 2011 @ 8:13 pm | Reply
  6. I think ur is stable :)

    November 19, 2011 @ 1:06 pm | Reply
  7. Jack:
    [root@server1 ~]# uptime
     21:46:21 up 22:21,  1 user,  load average: 0.15, 0.03, 0.01
    [root@server1 ~]# 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, 14.1918 seconds, 75.7 MB/s
    [root@server1 ~]# 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, 14.4881 seconds, 74.1 MB/s
    [root@server1 ~]# wget -O /dev/null cachefly.cachefly.net/100mb.test
    --21:58:30--  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 10.5M/s   in 10s
    
    21:58:41 (9.80 MB/s) - `/dev/null' saved [104857600/104857600]
    
    [root@server1 ~]#
    

    Not bad :)!

    November 19, 2011 @ 6:59 pm | Reply
  8. joshbaptiste:

    I have been using URPad.net for ~10 months now and I must say it is solid hosting for the price, the only down time I have experienced is when they moved their hosting datacenter from Orlando -> Seattle, which was communicated to me clearly and well in advanced.

    Benches:

    user@vps:~$ 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, 27.2824 s, 39.4 MB/s
    
    user@vps:~$  wget -O /dev/null cachefly.cachefly.net/100mb.test
    --2011-11-19 22:44:07--  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 10.8M/s   in 9.6s    
    
    2011-11-19 22:44:17 (10.4 MB/s) - `/dev/null' saved [104857600/104857600]
    
    November 19, 2011 @ 7:46 pm | Reply
    • Thanks Josh. Nice to see vindication ;-)

      There will be no more moves – it seems like you are one of our long time customers who signed up when Brian (previous owner) owned the company; and as explained in the last offer he was using outdated hardware that wasn’t suitable for webhosting, hence we migrated that off to new setups and infrastructure and have heard awesome feedback ever since! Since then we’ve tripled its growth and now expanded our VPS offerings to Seattle and Kansas City; the offer above being exclusive to Kansas City :)

      I am confident that you will continue to enjoy our services and if you ever have any questions don’t hesitate to let us know.

      Best,
      Kevin

      November 19, 2011 @ 8:06 pm | Reply
  9. jack:

    Hi Kevin

    as your on i would like to ask some more questions about the company and im sure others will benefit from learning a bit of background.

    How many nodes do you have now?

    Are they all the Same config as in all 8GB ram with E1230’s ? RAID 0 / 1 / 5 /10?

    November 19, 2011 @ 8:09 pm | Reply
    • Hi Jack,

      We have enough ;) As you know we have been in business for over 3 years under our parent company FTNHosting.net and we have a solid & hard working team. We acquired 6 RDP companies in 2011 to join our SimpleRDP.net brand and we like to consider ourselves the leaders in the Windows RDP & VPS market, simply because we have been doing it for so long and have a decent clientele base. In July of 2011 we decided to acquire URPad.net to engage ourselves into the Linux Hosting market. Since acquiring URPad.net, we’ve increased its size by at least 3x, and heard alot of positive comments about it. Clients are happy about it; it all worked out for the best for everyone and we have absolutely no regrets.

      As for your server specifications inquiry, the minimum we will put on a node is 16 GB RAM DDR3, I am not sure where you got 8 GB from. The node you are on has an Intel Xeon E3-1230 3.20 GHz, and 16 GB RAM in RAID1 configuration.

      I hope that gives you better background of who you are working with, we are here for the long haul, been in business for over 3 years and we plan on staying! Have an awesome rest of your weekend :)

      Best,
      Kevin

      November 19, 2011 @ 9:56 pm | Reply
  10. [root@urpad1 /]# 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, 15.4218 seconds, 69.6 MB/s
    
    [root@urpad1 /]# dd bs=1M count=512 if=/dev/zero of=test conv=fdatasync
    512+0 records in
    512+0 records out
    536870912 bytes (537 MB) copied, 7.71094 seconds, 69.6 MB/s
    
    [root@urpad1 /]# dd if=/dev/zero of=test bs=64k count=512 oflag=dsync
    512+0 records in
    512+0 records out
    33554432 bytes (34 MB) copied, 1.50249 seconds, 22.3 MB/s
    [root@urpad1 /]# wget cachefly.cachefly.net/100mb.test -O /dev/null
    --2011-11-23 09:59:23--  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%[=Snip=>] 104,857,600 11.1M/s   in 9.1s
    
    2011-11-23 09:59:32 (11.0 MB/s) - `/dev/null' saved [104857600/104857600]
    
    

    Ok. Good Machine.

    November 23, 2011 @ 5:04 am | Reply
  11. Hi Kevin,
    Trying to pay with Paypal, but i couldn’t see Paypal option, i am taking to 2checkout for payment with Credit card option only.Invoice #89961, i only can with Paypal.

    November 25, 2011 @ 1:42 pm | Reply
    • Hi,

      Ensure the currency is set to USD when checking out then you shouldn’t have any problems paying via PayPal.

      Let me know if you face any further issues.

      Best,
      Kevin

      December 1, 2011 @ 4:32 pm | Reply
      • Hi,
        This problem is already resolved via your Support ticket itself.

        I can say your service is so far very good, even though am a newbie to VPS/Linux, learning well with this VPS.

        Once familiarized with it i can move all my websites which are on shared hosting right now.

        Once again thanks to Kevin for his great help.

        Guys try yourself to have good experience.

        December 1, 2011 @ 4:55 pm | Reply
  12. Aaron:

    This looks like a great deal and the comments so far seem to back it up. I get a better ping (I’m in Australia) when I test with your Seattle server. Is this deal available on the Seattle server as well or only Kansas City?
    cheers

    November 28, 2011 @ 10:59 am | Reply
    • Hi Aaron,

      Thanks for writing in, unfortunately we do not have the above promotions listed above available in Seattle this is a promotion for Kansas City.

      If you are looking for Seattle check out http://urpad.net/budget-vps – we offer 2 location choices on any package there.

      Best,
      Kevin

      December 1, 2011 @ 4:33 pm | Reply
      • Aaron:

        Thanks Kevin. I went ahead and purchased the Kansas City deal anyway (ping difference wasnt that much!) and box has been fine so far. Do you have nameservers or do I run my own?

        December 1, 2011 @ 8:54 pm | Reply
        • As our VPS are self-managed we request you run your own DNS/nameservers.

          Thanks for your understanding.

          Best,
          Kevin

          December 1, 2011 @ 11:44 pm | Reply
  13. Been using these folks for a while now. I love there attitude and support. Server speed is great too

    Just purchased this Kansas City offer, so now I have Seattle and Kansas City VPS. Probably don’t make any difference to me, but this offer was too cheap to resist.

    Keep up the good work Chris n Kevin I will always be here to support you.

    Cheers,
    James

    December 1, 2011 @ 10:19 pm | Reply
  14. Max P:

    Hey,

    I signed up about a week ago. Good, solid service so far. Support responded within minutes to enable TUN/TAP for my VPS.

    I would give them a 10/10 you definitely get more than what you pay for.

    December 1, 2011 @ 10:47 pm | Reply
  15. Herbert Maker:

    Howdy,

    Nice offer, a really good one as a matter of fact for the specs.

    One question before I order, Is Custom RDNS (Reverse PTR Recor) supported?

    Regards
    Herbert

    December 1, 2011 @ 11:00 pm | Reply
  16. Hi,

    Who are you using for Kansas City? :)

    Regards
    Jack.

    December 1, 2011 @ 11:49 pm | Reply
    • Hi Jack,

      The Kansas City server nodes are in the 1102GRAND.com datacenter.

      If anyone has any further questions we are available on Live Chat on our website.

      Best,
      Kevin

      December 1, 2011 @ 11:54 pm | Reply
  17. Ryan:

    Signed up about a week ago. Major problems with disk I/O making apache unusable on my machine. They’ve slipped a bit since vRozenSch00n ran his marks a week ago:

    UnixBench 5.1.2: Dec 1 2011
    —————
    Single = 675.5
    4 Parallel = 1639.4
    Full results: http://pastebin.com/raw.php?i=M2f5eVQW

    Disk I/O not acceptable:
    ————————

    -(~:#)-> 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, 50.8755 s, 21.1 MB/s
    
    -(~:#)-> dd if=/dev/zero of=test bs=64k count=512 oflag=dsync
    512+0 records in
    512+0 records out
    33554432 bytes (34 MB) copied, 157.904 s, 212 kB/s   wget http://cachefly.cachefly.net/100mb.test -O /dev/null
    ...
    100%[======================================>] 104,857,600 11.2M/s   in 9.0s
    
    2011-12-01 23:32:21 (11.1 MB/s) - “/dev/null” saved [104857600/104857600]
    

    Plenty of RAM:
    ————-

                 total       used       free     shared    buffers     cached
    Mem:       1048576     384844     663732          0          0          0
    -/+ buffers/cache:     384844     663732
    Swap:            0          0          0
    

    Overall Impression
    ==================
    Unusable right now. Pipe is great, great value with lots of RAM and disk space. Friendly help, but some niggling problems: clock drift > 7seconds, two requests for rDNS. Any comment from Kevin? Did I just end up on a temporary server or something? Black Friday effect?

    December 2, 2011 @ 5:42 am | Reply
  18. Ryan:

    Yes, that was a 212 kB/s dd result above. I just ran ioping to get an idea of what’s happening. All over the map, but *not good*:

    #)-> ./ioping .
    4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=1 time=12.1 ms
    4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=2 time=31.1 ms
    4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=3 time=67.0 ms
    4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=4 time=67.0 ms
    4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=5 time=14.0 ms
    4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=6 time=12.2 ms
    4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=7 time=11.0 ms
    4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=8 time=116.0 ms
    4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=9 time=327.7 ms
    4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=10 time=11.1 ms
    4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=11 time=3.9 ms
    4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=12 time=15.5 ms
    4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=13 time=14.5 ms
    4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=14 time=34.0 ms
    4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=15 time=11.2 ms
    4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=16 time=0.2 ms
    4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=17 time=24.6 ms
    4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=18 time=43.9 ms
    4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=19 time=0.3 ms
    4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=20 time=8.2 ms
    4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=21 time=0.1 ms
    4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=22 time=466.4 ms
    4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=23 time=21.2 ms
    4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=24 time=0.2 ms
    4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=25 time=21.2 ms
    4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=26 time=2126.0 ms
    4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=27 time=10.8 ms
    4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=28 time=635.2 ms
    4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=29 time=16.7 ms
    4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=30 time=12.2 ms
    
    --- . (simfs /dev/simfs) ioping statistics ---
    30 requests completed in 33858.4 ms, 7 iops, 0.0 mb/s
    min/avg/max/mdev = 0.1/137.8/2126.0/396.2 ms
    
    December 2, 2011 @ 6:00 am | Reply
  19. I just try them out last week and everyone was satisfied. Even thou i got lack of knowledge, the support always cover it up for me. Im thinking to try their vps.

    Keep the good work, Kevin. Dont let me down.

    December 2, 2011 @ 7:32 am | Reply
  20. Dear Kevin Hillstrand,

    I just got suspended, according to the e-mail Ticket #341260 I received:

    Product/Service: Kansas City | Budget VPS 1GB Burst
    Domain: urpad1
    Amount: $4.87 USD
    Due Date: 12/18/2011
    Suspension Reason: High load
    
    Please contact us as soon as possible to get your service reactivated.
    

    and this

    Hi,
    
    We have suspeded your VPS as it was causing high load in the node server.
    
    The process which was causing the load is as below.
    
    ==========
    /usr/sbin/httpd.itk
    =========
    
    Feel free to contact us if you need any further assistance.
    
    
    =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
    Ethan Coleman
    URPad Technical Support Operator
    http://urpad.net/
    
    Telephone: +1(616) 920-1723
    Twitter: http://twitter.com/URPad
    

    I have contacted your staff Ethan Coleman to turn back it on, and you may turn off the apache so I can move some of the website to another VPS. But it seems that he is waiting for a Senior Admin

    Hi Agi,
    
    We will confirm the same with our Senior admin and updte you.
    
    Please await for further updates.
    
    =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
    Ethan Coleman
    URPad Technical Support Operator
    http://urpad.net/
    
    Telephone: +1(61) 920-1723
    Twitter: http://twitter.com/URPad
    

    I tried to call them on the phone, but nobody picked it up, only answering machine that I cannot connect through voip.

    Now through this forum I’m begging you to please turn back my VPS.

    December 2, 2011 @ 8:50 am | Reply
    • Agi,

      What do you expect us to do? Give you special treatment for posting on LEB?

      That’s simply not the way its going to work, unlike other hosts we give absolutely no special treatment to those who post on forums & blogs. In fact your comment only just got approved by the Admin since I just got an email notification.

      You were causing a high load on your server which is breaching our TOS, there is nothing more to it. You are on a self-managed server, it is your responsibility to monitor your services to ensure none will cause massive server load that will affect other users on the same server node as you.

      Your issue was solved over 24 hours ago and VPS unsuspended.

      Best,
      Kevin

      December 3, 2011 @ 10:14 am | Reply
  21. So good Service ~~

    Would recommend this to all ,,,

    Even nice speed from India..

    December 2, 2011 @ 7:17 pm | Reply
    • Thanks and welcome aboard Chaaruchandra. We will do whatever it takes to ensure you’ll be happy :)

      It has been a pleasure working with you as I do remember speaking with you over live chat the other day, please know we are here if you need any help!

      December 3, 2011 @ 10:34 am | Reply
  22. Ryan:

    I haven’t received any definitive replies addressing the poor disk IO performance above. It’s a bit better now (probably since Sat AM), but still nowhere near the numbers vRozenSch00n reported on Nov 23.

    Can anyone else replicate these tests on their account to see if it’s just my node?

    I will say their prices are great and their network is awesome. But the disk IO is really poor still as reflected by ioping:

    #)-> ioping -c 20 .
    4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=1 time=0.1 ms
    4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=2 time=13.9 ms
    4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=3 time=0.2 ms
    4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=4 time=9.9 ms
    4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=5 time=13.8 ms
    4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=6 time=6.2 ms
    4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=7 time=7.3 ms
    4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=8 time=0.2 ms
    4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=9 time=0.3 ms
    4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=10 time=567.0 ms
    4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=11 time=13.7 ms
    4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=12 time=36.1 ms
    4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=13 time=233.9 ms
    4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=14 time=335.3 ms
    4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=15 time=8.1 ms
    4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=16 time=10.2 ms
    4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=17 time=9.4 ms
    4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=18 time=5.7 ms
    4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=19 time=625.0 ms
    4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=20 time=13.3 ms

    And “dd” reports speeds about 1/10 as good as they were for others:

    --- . (simfs /dev/simfs) ioping statistics ---
    20 requests completed in 20930.8 ms, 10 iops, 0.0 mb/s
    min/avg/max/mdev = 0.1/95.5/625.0/187.0 ms
    -(root@egeland:0)-(0 files:0@~)-(0 jobs)-(10:54)-
    -(~:#)-> dd if=/dev/zero of=test bs=64k count=512 oflag=dsync
    512+0 records in
    512+0 records out
    33554432 bytes (34 MB) copied, 14.5341 s, 2.3 MB/s

    Perhaps you could comment Kevin? My IP is 199.192.229.122.

    December 3, 2011 @ 5:04 pm | Reply
    • Hello Ryan,

      Have you opened a ticket with our support department for a member of our staff can investigate your issue?

      Thanks,
      Chris

      December 3, 2011 @ 7:07 pm | Reply
      • Ryan:

        Yes, but the responses have been mostly unhelpful. Twice now I have asked about the disk I/O problem and provided data. The following is my second request for help on this:

        Client 	12/02/2011 13:32
        I'm continuing to have some pretty poor IO results. It shows up also in big lags serving pages via apache.
        ...
        It seems moving to another node might be the best solution to get ioping < 10ms?
        Thanks
        PS. ioping on all my other VPSs is always <1ms ioping -c 20 .
        ...
        4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=18 time=774.4 ms
        --- . (simfs /dev/simfs) ioping statistics ---
        20 requests completed in 22620.2 ms, 6 iops, 0.0 mb/s
        min/avg/max/mdev = 0.1/180.0/1731.1/412.6 ms

        The following is the response I got. It seems to be: “I can ping your IP address and loadavg is reported low in your guest so everything’s fine.” I’m not sure how this relates to a slow disk? Am I missing something?:

        Ethan …
        Staff 12/02/2011 16:18
        Hi,

        I could see your VPS responding fine and we can access it with your any issues and quicker. Kinldy verify the below mentioned snippet.

        =================================
        ping 199.192.229.122
        PING 199.192.229.122 (199.192.229.122) 56(84) bytes of data.
        64 bytes from 199.192.229.122: icmp_seq=1 ttl=50 time=294 ms
        64 bytes from 199.192.229.122: icmp_seq=2 ttl=50 time=294 ms
        64 bytes from 199.192.229.122: icmp_seq=3 ttl=50 time=295 ms

        — 199.192.229.122 ping statistics —
        3 packets transmitted, 3 received, 0% packet loss, time 1999ms
        rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 294.635/294.972/295.325/0.525 ms
        =================================

        -(/:#)-> w
        16:15:52 up 17 min, 0 users, load average: 0.14, 0.82, 0.79

        Thanks for your help Chris. All I need to be happy customer is disk latency within three orders of magnitude of my other VPSs :-)

        I’m happy to follow up with a positive report on this forum if the disk problem is solved (and your support staff realizes the difference between disk and net speed in their responses).

        Solve this and keep up the great work and you’ll have a good number of customers I think.

        December 4, 2011 @ 12:11 am | Reply
        • That support agent is… incompetent, I hope you will get someone better.

          December 4, 2011 @ 12:24 am | Reply
        • Hi,

          I have updated your ticket accordingly and patiently waiting for your reply.

          Best,
          Kevin

          December 4, 2011 @ 12:27 am | Reply
        • Reply above was for Ryan.

          @Yomero,

          Thanks for your comment. Let me explain a couple of things. Ioping is 3rd party software and Ethan was unaware of it, however I have notified Ethan of this as I personally know what it is.

          He was referring to the overall performance of your server as he mistaken your ioping result as a ping/performance complaint, we don’t expect our technicians to be experienced in every single 3rd party software out there and rest assured we only hire qualified system administrators who are experienced with servers.

          I can assure you that Ethan is very much qualified to be working with OpenVZ & Linux servers. I have been working with him for quite a while now and he’s a joy to work with.

          I’m sorry that your initial impressions due with a misunderstanding on our part might of changed the impression you have on our team, but I hope you can understand no one is perfect and misunderstandings do happen to both small and large hosts. We do our best, but in this particular instance Ethan was confused of what ioping was, which will be rectified in the future.

          Please let us know if you require any further clarification.

          Best,
          Kevin

          December 4, 2011 @ 12:36 am | Reply
  23. Yeah, hmm. I hope you get your issue resolved Ryan.

    I haven’t had any performance issues with my VPS with them, and it runs my Ventrilo server just fine. I think it might just be your VPS.

    My VPS in UrPad Kansas City for the DD I/O Test

    # dd if=/dev/zero of=iotest bs=64k count=16k conv=fdatasync
    16384+0 records in
    16384+0 records out
    1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB) copied, 22.0786 seconds, 48.6 MB/s
    

    Kansas City Network Speed Test:

    # wget -O /dev/null http://cachefly.cachefly.net/100mb.test
    --01:52:03--  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 11.0M/s   in 9.2s   

    And this is not to forget I have a Ventrilo service running with some of my friends actively talking on it. Of course there are just my results, they are pretty decent IMO for the price I pay. Good luck geting your issue solved, I’m sure they will get it all good with you :)

    Cheers,
    James

    December 4, 2011 @ 12:54 am | Reply
    • Ryan:

      Thanks James for the report. Decent results for sure — at any price! Looks like it might just be a dud node. Kevin wrote me a nice email and they’re moving me to another node now. Will report back. Hope I end up with numbers like those.

      December 4, 2011 @ 1:14 am | Reply
      • Hi Ryan,

        You should be all good to go now and I updated your ticket a few hours ago. Sorry about the troubles you may have witnessed.

        Best,
        Kevin

        December 4, 2011 @ 9:13 am | Reply
  24. Hi, all
    Here are my test details for my Kansas City for the DD I/O Test:

    dd if=/dev/zero of=iotest bs=64k count=16k conv=fdatasync
    16384+0 records in
    16384+0 records out
    1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB) copied, 26.0179 seconds, 41.3 MB/s

    Network Speed Test Results:

    wget -O /dev/null http://cachefly.cachefly.net/100mb.test
    –08:20:36– 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 11.2M/s in 9.0s

    08:20:46 (11.1 MB/s) – `/dev/null’ saved [104857600/104857600]

    This is just for reference to compare with others and to confirm good performance of the URPAD Kansas city VPS.

    December 4, 2011 @ 2:58 am | Reply
  25. Aaron:

    Thought I’d post mine as well. Seems fine, consitent with TIRUMALA RAO and James.
    For the $5 per month that I pay (+$1.50 for an extra IP) I really couldn’t be happier.

    bpp@srv1:~/www$ dd if=/dev/zero of=iotest bs=64k count=16k conv=fdatasync
    16384+0 records in
    16384+0 records out
    1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB) copied, 25.9598 s, 41.4 MB/s
    
    
    bpp@srv1:~/www$ wget -O /dev/null http://cachefly.cachefly.net/100mb.test
    --2011-12-04 18:15:08--  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 10.9M/s   in 9.3s    
    
    2011-12-04 18:15:18 (10.8 MB/s) - `/dev/null' saved [104857600/104857600]
    
    
    December 4, 2011 @ 7:18 am | Reply
    • Thanks Aaron.

      I can assure you that the issue that Ryan has witnessed is not normal at all with us and I have already went ahead and resolved the issue for him as mentioned above.

      Anyhow I’m glad to see you’re seeing great performance with your VPS with us. As long as you’re happy we’re happy ;)

      Happy Holidays,
      Kevin

      December 4, 2011 @ 9:17 am | Reply
  26. Ryan:

    Just to follow up with the thread. After two support tickets Kevin responded and understood my problem was poor disk I/O. He immediately offered to transfer my account (and data) to another node and kindly gave me his direct email. All of this on a Saturday evening after hours. He’s obviously dedicated to keeping customers happy. Very good service for < $5/mo.

    The node I'm now on shows much disk I/O numbers. The following are three tests over a few hours this AM:

    #)-> dd if=/dev/zero of=iotest bs=64k count=16k conv=fdatasync
    16384+0 records in
    16384+0 records out
    1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB) copied, 28.4704 s, 37.7 MB/s
    
    #)-> dd if=/dev/zero of=iotest bs=64k count=16k conv=fdatasync
    16384+0 records in
    16384+0 records out
    1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB) copied, 27.1141 s, 39.6 MB/s
    -(root@egeland:1)-(2 files:2.1G@~)-(0 jobs)-(13:18)-
    
    #)-> dd if=/dev/zero of=iotest bs=64k count=16k conv=fdatasync
    16384+0 records in
    16384+0 records out
    1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB) copied, 49.3283 s, 21.8 MB/s
    

    Not quite the > 40MB/s others are getting, but decent for sure. IOping results are also consistently better:

    -(~:#)-> ioping -c 10 .
    4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=1 time=9.7 ms
    4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=2 time=10.4 ms
    4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=3 time=18.2 ms
    4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=4 time=12.0 ms
    4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=5 time=8.3 ms
    4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=6 time=5.7 ms
    4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=7 time=21.9 ms
    4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=8 time=18.3 ms
    4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=9 time=0.2 ms
    4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=10 time=9.0 ms
    
    --- . (simfs /dev/simfs) ioping statistics ---
    10 requests completed in 9126.1 ms, 88 iops, 0.3 mb/s
    min/avg/max/mdev = 0.2/11.4/21.9/6.2 ms
    

    On my other low end account @ cheapvps I’m getting similar numbers (cheapvps shows 77MB/s on the dd test but their support is terrible).

    Overall, I’m very happy with Kevin’s assistance, and new node performance. I must have been sharing with a disk hog on the old node. I’ll run a UnixBench now and see how the performance holds up. As of right now, I’d strongly recommend URPad. Kevin has been great, they have great prices, and performance on the new node is excellent.

    More to follow. Thanks everyone for your results, more reports welcome! Keep it up URPad!

    December 4, 2011 @ 8:29 pm | Reply
  27. Got me one of these, urpad was kind enough to provide a custom vps configuration for my needs. Works beautifully.

    December 5, 2011 @ 7:00 am | Reply
    • Aaron:

      Steve, sounds like the support keeps getting better! Care to share details of your custom setup?

      December 5, 2011 @ 7:27 am | Reply
  28. Ryan:

    Repeat of the above tests now on my new node this afternoon:

    -(~:#)-> 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, 23.1635 s, 46.4 MB/s
    
    -(~:#)-> dd bs=1M count=512 if=/dev/zero of=test conv=fdatasync
    512+0 records in
    512+0 records out
    536870912 bytes (537 MB) copied, 18.9191 s, 28.4 MB/s
    
    -(~:#)-> dd if=/dev/zero of=test bs=64k count=512 oflag=dsync
    512+0 records in
    512+0 records out
    33554432 bytes (34 MB) copied, 6.34416 s, 5.3 MB/s
    
    -(~:#)-> ioping . -c 20
    4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=1 time=0.1 ms
    4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=2 time=16.7 ms
    4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=3 time=11.6 ms
    4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=4 time=0.2 ms
    4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=5 time=26.0 ms
    4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=6 time=14.7 ms
    4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=7 time=23.0 ms
    4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=8 time=16.1 ms
    4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=9 time=15.6 ms
    4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=10 time=9.2 ms
    4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=11 time=22.5 ms
    4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=12 time=0.2 ms
    4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=13 time=136.0 ms
    4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=14 time=25.5 ms
    4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=15 time=6.8 ms
    4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=16 time=65.4 ms
    4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=17 time=25.1 ms
    4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=18 time=9.1 ms
    4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=19 time=0.3 ms
    4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=20 time=4.0 ms
    
    --- . (simfs /dev/simfs) ioping statistics ---
    20 requests completed in 19454.0 ms, 47 iops, 0.2 mb/s
    min/avg/max/mdev = 0.1/21.4/136.0/30.0 ms
    
    
    -(~:#)-> wget -O /dev/null http://cachefly.cachefly.net/100mb.test
    --2011-12-05 17:52:30--  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”
    
    104,857,600 9.91M/s   in 10s
    
    2011-12-05 17:52:40 (10.0 MB/s) - “/dev/null” saved [104857600/104857600]
    
    December 5, 2011 @ 11:54 pm | Reply
  29. buy:

    i’ve bought their vps a week ago
    what more can i say ? i’m very happy with their customer service and vps perfomance.
    it is fast but i do encounter some issue with their SolusVM panel.it showed there my server is offline BUT, my server is online actually.dont know what’s the issue actually.overall,9.5/10.
    very good service. (will considered to give 10/10 if you allowed IRC use for bots) :p

    December 6, 2011 @ 12:16 am | Reply
  30. Ryan:

    Here’s a full single threaded benchmark. Don’t try to run the multithreaded UnixBench. Got me blocked temporarily for high resource usage.

    ========================================================================
       BYTE UNIX Benchmarks (Version 5.1.3)
    
       System: egeland: GNU/Linux
       OS: GNU/Linux -- 2.6.32-274.7.1.el5.028stab095.1 -- #1 SMP Mon Oct 24 20:49:24 MSD 2011
       Machine: i686 (unknown)
       Language: en_US.utf8 (charmap="UTF-8", collate="UTF-8")
       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 (6385.3 bogomips)
              Hyper-Threading, x86-64, MMX, Physical Address Ext, SYSENTER/SYSEXIT, SYSCALL/SYSRET, Intel virtualization
       CPU 2: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E31230 @ 3.20GHz (6385.5 bogomips)
              Hyper-Threading, x86-64, MMX, Physical Address Ext, SYSENTER/SYSEXIT, SYSCALL/SYSRET, Intel virtualization
       CPU 3: 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
       19:07:55 up 14 min,  1 user,  load average: 0.04, 0.10, 0.06; runlevel 2
    
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Benchmark Run: Mon Dec 05 2011 19:07:55 - 19:36:56
    4 CPUs in system; running 1 parallel copy of tests
    
    Dhrystone 2 using register variables       14540363.9 lps   (10.0 s, 7 samples)
    Double-Precision Whetstone                     2954.7 MWIPS (9.8 s, 7 samples)
    Execl Throughput                               4712.3 lps   (29.9 s, 2 samples)
    File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks        506018.5 KBps  (30.0 s, 2 samples)
    File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks          145920.0 KBps  (30.0 s, 2 samples)
    File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks       1374426.2 KBps  (30.0 s, 2 samples)
    Pipe Throughput                              957146.0 lps   (10.0 s, 7 samples)
    Pipe-based Context Switching                 214534.2 lps   (10.0 s, 7 samples)
    Process Creation                              14363.0 lps   (30.0 s, 2 samples)
    Shell Scripts (1 concurrent)                   4548.9 lpm   (60.0 s, 2 samples)
    Shell Scripts (8 concurrent)                   1023.5 lpm   (60.0 s, 2 samples)
    System Call Overhead                         753607.6 lps   (10.0 s, 7 samples)
    
    System Benchmarks Index Values               BASELINE       RESULT    INDEX
    Dhrystone 2 using register variables         116700.0   14540363.9   1246.0
    Double-Precision Whetstone                       55.0       2954.7    537.2
    Execl Throughput                                 43.0       4712.3   1095.9
    File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks          3960.0     506018.5   1277.8
    File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks            1655.0     145920.0    881.7
    File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks          5800.0    1374426.2   2369.7
    Pipe Throughput                               12440.0     957146.0    769.4
    Pipe-based Context Switching                   4000.0     214534.2    536.3
    Process Creation                                126.0      14363.0   1139.9
    Shell Scripts (1 concurrent)                     42.4       4548.9   1072.9
    Shell Scripts (8 concurrent)                      6.0       1023.5   1705.8
    System Call Overhead                          15000.0     753607.6    502.4
                                                                       ========
    System Benchmarks Index Score                                         986.3
    
    December 6, 2011 @ 2:44 am | Reply
  31. Vin:

    Is the offer still good?

    December 6, 2011 @ 2:53 am | Reply
  32. Dear, I like this host because they accept liberty reserve : – )

    Paypal is not a viable option for me. Someone please confirm if you are still accepting liberty reserve .

    Thanks if so I might order this week …

    December 6, 2011 @ 5:12 am | Reply
  33. Bart Net:

    Do you accepet South Africa customer?

    December 6, 2011 @ 7:39 am | Reply
  34. Mimir:

    I have the $3.49/mth plan in kansas, very nice offer. Friendly support and great performance.. would recommend to all. Thanks

    December 10, 2011 @ 9:00 pm | Reply
    • Egor:

      Agree with you.. have used UrPad VPS for over one month now. A+ solid service!

      December 14, 2011 @ 7:10 pm | Reply
    • Many thanks for the awesome feedback. Merry Christmas!

      December 22, 2011 @ 12:13 am | Reply
  35. Hi everyone,

    All the way up to Christmas we are running a Twitter contest – this is an exciting opportunity for everyone as we are giving away a total of $20 worth of accounts credits everyday.

    For more details please see: http://urpad.net/contest-2011

    Thank you for your time and happy holidays to all.

    Best,
    Kevin

    December 22, 2011 @ 12:14 am | Reply
  36. Luis:

    Greetings!
    Urpad vps is pretty good nothing but good words to tell about the service.. fast download and upload speeds :)

    Regards.
    Luis

    December 30, 2011 @ 12:36 am | Reply
  37. Infinity:

    I’ve been using UrPad for a few months now and the service is unbeatable!
    I’ve got a reseller service with them not quite the same as you guys but the uptime is 100% in my eyes confirmed with Pingdom reports.

    There only problem I’ve got is the cPanel suspension page – I’d like to be able to change this but for some reason on UrPad I cannot properly, I’ve changed it, saved it and suspended an account but the default cPanel page appears – according to cPanel support I should be able to have my own one, every reseller account should be able to and there is no need for a VPS.

    But the price, the performance – both brilliant.

    January 19, 2012 @ 12:56 pm | Reply
  38. Ville:

    I seem to have the same problem as Ryan had here.

    # ./ioping .
    4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=1 time=165.5 ms
    4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=2 time=32.0 ms
    4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=3 time=156.0 ms
    4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=4 time=34.1 ms
    4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=5 time=377.5 ms
    4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=6 time=84.0 ms
    4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=7 time=546.1 ms
    4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=8 time=207.1 ms
    4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=9 time=182.1 ms
    4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=10 time=270.2 ms
    4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=11 time=1717.7 ms
    4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=12 time=179.2 ms
    4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=13 time=321.1 ms
    4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=14 time=92.6 ms
    4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=15 time=308.3 ms
    4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=16 time=512.6 ms
    4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=17 time=2.4 ms
    4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=18 time=347.3 ms
    4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=19 time=372.7 ms
    4096 bytes from . (simfs /dev/simfs): request=20 time=411.1 ms
    
    --- . (simfs /dev/simfs) ioping statistics ---
    20 requests completed in 26004.2 ms, 3 iops, 0.0 mb/s
    min/avg/max/mdev = 2.4/316.0/1717.7/356.0 ms
    

    Not good.

    The support has also been quite unhelpful as well, let me transcript our message exchange in short

    Me: My VPS is slow. Here are the ioping results.
    URPad: This should be fixed now.
    Me: It was okay brielfy, but now it slow again. (pasting ioping results again)
    URPad: It’s your fault for serving so many HTTP requests.
    (Comment: It’s a Tor node with a low 300KB/s bandwidth limit. Using as low as 112MB of RAM (out of 1GB) and <0.10 load in average which of course causes no problems on other VPS'es. No other daemons run there)
    Me: I just installed another OS and the problem still persists when not running any daemons! (ioping results again)
    URPad: I can't find any load on your server and the command "./ioping ." is not working
    (Comment: …even though the log I pasted clearly shows the executable in a subdirectory)
    Me: Go to the subdirectory, (use the "cd" command), it's not installed in $PATH
    URPad: You don't seem to understand this depends on the load on our main node [what the…?]. Although we have now suspended some other VPS causing high load.
    Me: The results right now are somewhat better (not great anyway). Shouldn't you monitor server load yourself instead of waiting for someone to submit a support ticket?
    URPad: We sure monitor

    The results you see above are a couple of hours AFTER this support chat.

    Seems like the support people are pretty incompetent. Not only they don't seem to understand what bad IO means, I also have to lecture them about the basic UNIX commands.

    Will probably cancel before the next billing date.

    January 19, 2012 @ 8:09 pm | Reply
    • shearerc:

      This in Kansas? If so, probably you got the same bad node as Ryan did. Maybe try asking them to move you to another node.
      Anyway it’s disturbing to see that the disk hog has not been dealt with – although i understand they can be hard to track down.

      January 26, 2012 @ 3:40 am | Reply
      • Ville:

        Seattle actually. Moving to another node might have been a solution but they never suggested that, even after I replied to the same support ticket seven times saying that the problem had not been fixed (to which they always responded “I just inspected it. should be fine now”).

        Got a bit tired after that, so I canceled my service and burned down the remaining bandwidth I had.

        January 26, 2012 @ 6:59 am | Reply
  39. Mimir:

    I am back with another quick review 2 months later.

    I am very satisfied with the speed of the VPS still., no complaints at all. Would highly recommend(still) :-] Thanks UrPad!

    February 7, 2012 @ 10:05 pm | Reply
  40. Calvin:

    I have a Vps in the Kansas City, the $4.87 one.

    Would really recommnd it.. very passoinate support and quick to reply. I am from Singapore so my day time is the night time for Ur support, and I still received a 4 minute support response time at this weird times.

    Currently using my Vps for Openvpn (watching hulu), works without any lag even from Singapore.

    Thanks Urpad!!

    February 11, 2012 @ 3:55 am | Reply
  41. KallyC:

    People tell me the host is good, but unfortunately i always get a MaxMind error when trying to order. so annoying..

    May 22, 2012 @ 2:52 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 *