Hosting Websites on Bare Minimum VPS/Dedicated Servers

VirtuallyDedicated – $15/3 Months 640MB OpenVZ VPS in South Bend

Tags: , , Date/Time: May 27, 2011 @ 12:37 am, by LowEndAdmin

Virtually Dedicated Mark from Virtually Dedicated has set up a special LowEndBox page for LowEndBox exclusive offers. They currently have a $15/3 month deal on the following VPS:

  • 640MB memory
  • 32GB storage
  • 640GB/month data transfer
  • OpenVZ/VPSGrid

Sign up link. Their servers are in South Bend IN, which is an hour drive from Chicago IL. VirtuallyDedicated are calling their VPS offerings “cloud servers”, which have some very interesting properties. For example instant upgrade, data mirroring, HA failover, load balancing etc. They are OpenVZ based, but from their resource page it says:

Maximum RAM : Unlike normal OpenVZ providers, we do not have UBC memory limits meaning you will be able to use the full potential of your RAM.

And rather than using SAN, on their reliability page it stated that all data are kept on 2 physical servers at the same time to allow fail overs. It’s powered by VPSGrid to provide that functionality. Something that would be interesting to investigate. For example how are the data mirrored? On filesystem level or block level? Automated fail over on the VM-level, but how would applications cope? As an ex-software architect designing applications used in finance sector, having built-in VM-level HA certainly makes life easier. On the other hand, doing a search and found no other VPS providers are using this solution. Virpus used it in the past and dropped it — so could it be more hype than substance?

Their past offers here, i.e. they have been around for a while. Part of RockMyWeb brands.

78 Comments

  1. hii:

    test IP?

    May 27, 2011 @ 1:16 am | Reply
  2. Quite cheap! How can they do at such price? No profit? Thanks LEA for nice offer :)

    May 27, 2011 @ 2:35 am | Reply
    • Not really that cheap. 5 bucks a month is about average for around here. They’re just trying to save on processing costs probably.

      May 27, 2011 @ 1:12 pm | Reply
      • It is basically just a little smaller version of a private cloud which sells for $7.99 per month. We are trying to fill up remaining space, and by charging 3 months at a time instead of monthly we save on transaction fees and accounting fees. We pass these savings on to you.

        Thanks!

        May 27, 2011 @ 1:23 pm | Reply
        • Daniel @ LowEndTalk:

          So we gotta pay for water vapour now, damn I thought it was free :p

          May 27, 2011 @ 1:26 pm | Reply
        • Next it will O2. Nothing is free in this world. lol.

          May 27, 2011 @ 1:27 pm | Reply
  3. @hii: you can ping their site (IP: 67.214.181.195)

    May 27, 2011 @ 2:37 am | Reply
  4. Hello,

    Yes you may ping our web site. VirtuallyDedicated (a subsidiary of RockMyWeb) is the only provider in the USA that has been given access to VPSGrid before its primary release this summer. We have been working with the developers for over a year now as they develop the cloud panel.

    As far as I know Virpus used VSXPathway, a beta project that did not have any clustering functionality, not VPSGrid. VPSGrid is the enterprise product extended from that beta.

    Any questions or concerns, feel free to fill out our contact form.

    Thanks for posting our special!

    May 27, 2011 @ 3:50 am | Reply
    • Daniel @ LowEndTalk:

      Let me correct your mistake .”We have been working with the developers for over a year now as they develop the cloud panel”

      Unless they make a panel that can control water vapour, it isn’t a cloud panel. Its a highly-advance VPS panel that supports load balancing and clustering.

      May 27, 2011 @ 6:45 am | Reply
      • You must be from the UK, no I do not intend on controlling clouds as in water vapor. :)

        I guess I should have come out and said “cloud server control panel”, as the community has come to recognize these as cloud servers more than anything else. They do offer all the features that anyone else can claim.

        -Mark

        May 27, 2011 @ 12:38 pm | Reply
        • Daniel @ LowEndTalk:

          But servers don’t run on water vapour either!

          May 27, 2011 @ 12:50 pm | Reply
        • Hey, I didn’t make up the name, just used what is recognized in the community. Blame the marketing departments of Microsoft and the billion dollar guys out there. :)

          May 27, 2011 @ 12:53 pm | Reply
        • Daniel @ LowEndTalk:

          Thats the evil. Theres like 5 different things companies are now calling “Cloud”.

          For example, Google call their Storage “Cloud”, because it is accessibly from anywhere (phone, web, desktop, tablet) this is an ok reason for using Cloud and is what cloud was used for ORIGINALLY.

          Microsoft are basically calling their entire website is a cloud and 15000 sub sites are a cloud, but thats just Microsoft using bad marketing, as always.

          Another example, load balancing, clustering VPSs. I don’t really see how you can call this a cloud. Couldn’t you call it a high-avaiability VPS.

          May 29, 2011 @ 6:35 am | Reply
        • KuJoe:

          To me a cloud is any large system where you don’t want to draw out each individual component and thus on paper it looks like a cloud (i.e. http://img.zdnet.com/techDirectory/CLOUD.GIF).

          May 29, 2011 @ 6:50 am | Reply
        • IMHO accessible from anywhere isn’t the real meaning of cloud – I don’t see the same cloud as you do I bet. And I somehow agree with KuJoe that it actually represents some “stuffs” hidden behind the scene, where there could be only one server in the cloud. Now, “cloud computing”, to me it’s a different beast though.

          Probably these “cloud” companies should start naming their clouds, e.g. Cirrocumulus, Cumulonimbus, Nimbostratus, etc.

          May 29, 2011 @ 9:02 am | Reply
        • C’mon guys. Stop being pedantic. “Cloud” is just a marketing term for your IT manager to see. Techies look at the actual underlying platform and architecture, regardless whether “cloud” appears in the product name or not.

          May 29, 2011 @ 10:09 am | Reply
        • *sniff* I think Bob Ross and his fans would beg to differ. I grew up on Happy Little Clouds. :)

          I can’t get that video to load. I hope folks will understand the reference.

          May 29, 2011 @ 12:59 pm | Reply
      • Daniel @ LowEndTalk:

        All computers sharing the same data and constantly in sync, I can see how you could technically call that a cloud, and that is where it originally came from.

        But VPS providers have now hooked onto it, and are using it for a high-availibty VPS. Which to be honest if you have a good provider, isn’t really gonna be needed.

        May 29, 2011 @ 6:53 am | Reply
        • KuJoe:

          I <3 the cloud. :D [/gigenetcloud fanboy]

          May 29, 2011 @ 7:35 am | Reply
  5. There is some info about the CPU that I got in this plan?

    May 27, 2011 @ 4:39 am | Reply
  6. Link for download test?

    May 27, 2011 @ 5:47 am | Reply
  7. Tom:

    Someone post a test file from your VPS.

    May 27, 2011 @ 7:36 am | Reply
  8. Those $15/3 month, is that just for the 1st 3 months or also for the next months?
    And do you offer native ipv6 addresses?

    May 27, 2011 @ 12:02 pm | Reply
  9. Anthony:

    Speed Test as requested:

    $ wget http://cachefly.cachefly.net/100mb.test
    --2011-05-27 08:32:07--  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: `100mb.test'
    
    100%[================================================>] 104,857,600 10.8M/s   in 10s     
    
    2011-05-27 08:32:17 (10.0 MB/s) - `100mb.test' saved [104857600/104857600]
    
    May 27, 2011 @ 12:33 pm | Reply
  10. @ Yomero: You can expect a little less guaranteed CPU than our private cloud server plan (on our web site) but still can burst to 2×2.4GHz CPUs.

    @ dirk: It is $15 for every 3 months. We offer IPv4 only at the moment.

    Everyone else: You can check out our past thread for benchmarks on performance (both network and server). You can expect the same with this offer.

    May 27, 2011 @ 12:35 pm | Reply
  11. scott2020:

    I have been using their product for about a month, and so far have seen no unscheduled downtime. I am running Asterisk as a test for a very low volume home setup and also put a few small web sites there. System response times and network latency have been consistently good regardless of time of day. Some other VPS’s have tons of gamers so the entire system bogs down when they are online, but these guys have been good. Nice low latency into Chicago.

    May 27, 2011 @ 8:00 pm | Reply
  12. slacker:

    Hello Mark, can I install openvpn on your servers? How many ip addresses do you provide with the package? Thank you.

    May 27, 2011 @ 10:53 pm | Reply
    • Yes you may, just open a ticket requesting a TUN device. We provide one dedicated IP with each server. Each additional is $1.25.

      May 28, 2011 @ 12:40 pm | Reply
  13. Ordered one today, and, got it around an hour or so later, mostly due to greylisting in our email system, otherwise, would have been faster.

    vpsgrid is pretty cool. Some things you might normally do on the command line or in a control panel, you do right from vpsgrid. The interface is nice.

    Decided to go with their normal 2 cpu private cloud instead of this special offer since it was close to the same price, but you get a little more.

    On a wget test of 100MB file, I got 11M/s, just what you would expect.

    Very nice thus far, still loading more stuff.

    May 28, 2011 @ 7:10 am | Reply
    • Thanks for the quick review, hope to continue to enjoy our services. Our control panel will have even more features in ~1 week with a new release.

      May 28, 2011 @ 12:41 pm | Reply
  14. Ztc:

    Adult content allowed?

    May 28, 2011 @ 9:31 pm | Reply
    • We do allow all types of hosting, the only limitations are obviously illegal content and IRC related hosting. Due to the nature of adult hosting, usually our smaller VPS plans do not have enough resources. I suggest you looking at our hybrid plan if you expect more than average traffic.

      May 28, 2011 @ 9:41 pm | Reply
  15. I’d be interested to know what their relationship is to cloud3k.com and vps-grid.com? Spinoffs of the brand, etc? Both these sites are hosted on the same IP as virtuallydedicated.com…

    http://viewdns.info/reverseip/?host=virtuallydedicated.com

    Also on the same IP is ‘airispc.net’ which seems to be a broken installation of OS-Commerce. I hope that even if it is broken, that it is updated regularly, otherwise vulnerabilities in this site could lead to the disclosure of the customer database for virtuallydedicated.com!

    May 29, 2011 @ 6:32 am | Reply
    • Cloud3K is an unreleased web site owned by RockMyWeb. Everything else seems to from RockMyWeb’s shared hosting. I don’t think the web sites that share our IP have anything to do with our VPS service so I am unsure why this was posted.

      May 29, 2011 @ 1:51 pm | Reply
      • They saw something that they questioned and asked about it. It’s encouraged here at LEB.

        You’ve probably had your SSL cert looked at and reviewed, your nameservers checked, ports scanned, the address listed on your whois google map’ed, etc. This isn’t WHT, DP or *shudder* V7N where all offers are assumed to be legit and 100% proper and those who question inconsistencies are banned for raising them.

        Hope this helps,
        -drmike

        May 31, 2011 @ 1:46 pm | Reply
        • Yes, but this just seems unnecessary. Would you like someone judging your web site by the other web sites around it?

          One of our client’s sites has nothing to do with the security of our web site.

          May 31, 2011 @ 2:08 pm | Reply
  16. Karl:

    Anyone with slow bandwith to Europe or parts of USA (tested from Utah)? Can’t get more than ~700Kb/s, ever!

    May 31, 2011 @ 7:41 am | Reply
    • Tom:

      Karl, I am a user of rockmyweb for almost a year, the peering sucks and don’t expect it to go more then 700KB/s to Europe, it’s simply capped. On a good day it’s 500KB/s, on a bad day it can be around 300KB/s so if you have any streaming content I just can’t recommend them. That’s why I asked for test file in above post, thought maybe with new nodes speed changes, guess not.

      May 31, 2011 @ 9:43 am | Reply
      • Karl:

        Tom, thanks for your feedback.

        Antony’s speed test posted here downloading from cachefly.cachefly.net follows a different route from the one to Europe, hence the high speed.

        Waiting for more feedback, people! :-)

        May 31, 2011 @ 9:51 am | Reply
        • Tom:

          I mean generate a file on your VPS and try to download it though Hetzner (They have A+++ network) and it will not be more then 700KB/s. Yes I can get 10MB/s (not on gig port) in the USA I believe if peering kicks in, but without it it’s kinda slow =/

          May 31, 2011 @ 9:56 am | Reply
        • Karl:

          Tom, and I meant slow speeds both in and out. According to VirtuallyDedicated/RockMyWeb it’s a peering issue out of their control, but if you are saying it’s been slow for, at least, almost a year than I’m convinced this service will not be suited for my needs.

          May 31, 2011 @ 10:00 am | Reply
        • Karl,

          I believe I know who you are because of the ticket you raised and the Utah link. We believe we settled on it going through Level3 and already recognized that we are waiting on our provider to fix the issue. We do not expect a long fix, however it was also Memorial Day yesterday.

          We haven’t even been at this data center for a year but we are sure that Level3 routes, which currently account for about 60% of our routes are going slower than usual.

          @Tom: Have you tested us in comparison with other Chicago providers? Testing to Europe is going over 3000 miles of fiber, it isn’t going to be as fast as USA routes.

          May 31, 2011 @ 2:06 pm | Reply
        • Karl:

          Mark, yes it was me who raised that ticket you are referring to. I was not aware that yesterday was a public holiday in USA.

          My point is that once that issue is fixed (which I suppose it should already have been fixed by who is responsible for it because it affects thousands of clients in that area) I will try again.

          A friend of mine who owns a VPS also in USA can reach 40Mb/s from/to Europe easily.

          May 31, 2011 @ 2:40 pm | Reply
        • Are you sure it was over a single thread? And megabits or megabytes? I have yet to see anyone post anything about reaching 320mbps from the USA to Europe in a single thread.

          May 31, 2011 @ 3:04 pm | Reply
        • Karl:

          Single thread. He downloaded a file from a server in Europe to his VPS in USA.

          May 31, 2011 @ 3:06 pm | Reply
        • Well, you might want to look up his host, I have never heard of such a thing. Most people can’t push 40MB/s in a single thread over 100 miles yet alone 3000.

          May 31, 2011 @ 3:07 pm | Reply
        • Karl:

          Forgot to answer the second question: 40Mb/s (megabits) but I think he meant megabytes. Anyway, 40Mb/s is more than what I can get so… :-(

          May 31, 2011 @ 3:09 pm | Reply
  17. We are still looking into speed issues, however the Utah mirror seems to be capped. I’m sure that is the case for a lot of mirrors.

    Multithreaded Cachefly speed test (using aget not wget)

    Downloading /100mb.test (104857600 bytes) from site cachefly.cachefly.net(205.234.175.175:80). Number of Threads: 10
    ..                                                 [4% completed]
    .....                                              [9% completed]
    .......                                            [14% completed]
    ..........                                         [19% completed]
    ............                                       [24% completed]
    ...............                                    [29% completed]
    .................                                  [34% completed]
    ....................                               [39% completed]
    ......................                             [44% completed]
    .........................                          [49% completed]
    ...........................                        [54% completed]
    ..............................                     [59% completed]
    ................................                   [64% completed]
    ...................................                [69% completed]
    .....................................              [74% completed]
    ........................................           [79% completed]
    ..........................................         [84% completed]
    .............................................      [89% completed]
    ...............................................    [94% completed]
    .................................................. [99% completed]
    .................................................. [100% completed]
     Download completed, job completed in 2 seconds. (51200 KB/sec

    Multithreaded test to London, UK using aget

    Downloading /mirror.centos.org/5.6/isos/x86_64/CentOS-5.6-x86_64-LiveCD.iso (733669376 bytes) from site mirror.as29550.net(213.229.119.169:80). Number of Threads: 10
    ..                                                 [4% completed]
    .....                                              [9% completed]
    .......                                            [14% completed]
    ..........                                         [19% completed]
    ............                                       [24% completed]
    ...............                                    [29% completed]
    .................                                  [34% completed]
    ....................                               [39% completed]
    ......................                             [44% completed]
    .........................                          [49% completed]
    ...........................                        [54% completed]
    ..............................                     [59% completed]
    ................................                   [64% completed]
    ...................................                [69% completed]
    .....................................              [74% completed]
    ........................................           [79% completed]
    ..........................................         [84% completed]
    .............................................      [89% completed]
    ...............................................    [94% completed]
    .................................................. [99% completed]
    .................................................. [100% completed]
     Download completed, job completed in 136 seconds. (5268 KB/sec)
     Shutting down.

    As you can see, you can still push over 40mbps to Europe, just not in a single thread. Cachefly which has a POP in Chicago is able to push over 400mbps.

    May 31, 2011 @ 6:11 pm | Reply
    • Well that didn’t turn out how I’d like, but I believe you can still read it.

      May 31, 2011 @ 6:12 pm | Reply
      • Karl:

        Mark, I believe in you when you say that there is no problem when downloading/uploading in multithread but for what I need, that’s not suitable. The only conclusion that I can take is that seems to be a bandwith limit per connection of ~500KB/s then (London test: 5288KB/s / 10 threads = 528.8KB/s)

        May 31, 2011 @ 6:43 pm | Reply
        • Karl,

          I recommend using a CDN service if you need to stream content at high speeds all over the globe. Note that our network is based in Chicago, therefore speeds to Europe will not be as high as you may like. We are about 900 miles from the east coast then about 2500 miles across the Atlantic. It is not likely that you will be able to find a provider that can transfer those speeds across the Atlantic in single threads which is why people maintain multiple mirrors around the globe. A CDN service like Cachefly allows you to serve content from multiple locations. If a majority of your customers or visitors are in Europe, then it may be best for you to choose a European based server.

          If you can show that our speeds are slower than other Chicago based providers, I would be glad to take a second look, but as far as I know they are pretty consistent.

          May 31, 2011 @ 7:03 pm | Reply
  18. Thank you all for your orders. This special has been discontinued based on availability of new virtual servers. Check back soon.

    June 1, 2011 @ 10:26 pm | Reply
    • Just had a look at the new offer. It’s basically $19.10/3 months (after the 15% off discount), for a 1GB VPS with 40GB storage and 1000GB/month data. Not bad.

      June 2, 2011 @ 7:20 am | Reply
      • innya:

        LEA what is the discount code?

        June 2, 2011 @ 8:36 pm | Reply
        • This post on WebHostingTalk. 15OFF to get 15% off recurring discount.

          June 2, 2011 @ 11:04 pm | Reply
        • Thanks for posting a link LEA, I appreciate it, I hadn’t gotten to it yet.

          Our special will only be lasting a short while longer, we have low availability so order soon if you wish to get the special rate.

          June 2, 2011 @ 11:36 pm | Reply
        • innya:

          thanks LEA, I am going to try it out myself.

          June 3, 2011 @ 5:11 am | Reply
  19. Buck Mojo:

    This HostTracker ping result shows packet loss every time I test VirtuallyDedicated.net http://h-t.co/ip79

    Should that be cause for concern?

    June 2, 2011 @ 7:40 pm | Reply
  20. Note that ICMP packets are usually treated with low priority in a router. That is the only thing I can think of, we haven’t seen any actual packet loss. I personally haven’t seen any packet loss with ICMP either, are you seeing packet loss when you ping our site?

    June 2, 2011 @ 7:46 pm | Reply
    • scott2020:

      Mark
      I sent a note via the contact form a few days ago about hosting options for a friend’s website. It was a question about banner ads. I haven’t heard back yet so I thought I would check here.

      June 7, 2011 @ 8:02 pm | Reply
      • Sorry about that, I replied back, must have gotten buried in our inbox.

        June 8, 2011 @ 12:12 am | Reply
  21. I tested a few sites on there, and about 1/3 of them reported packet loss. I’m assuming it is an issue with their system, if you see real packet loss you can contact support@virtuallydedicated.com for us to look into it. http://tools.pingdom.com/ping/ seems to be showing 0% on multiple tests as well.

    June 2, 2011 @ 7:51 pm | Reply
    • No packet loss for me in real use of the VPS. BTW – I am amazed thus far with the performance. Unlike EVERY other VPS I have or have had, this one breezes along consistently with no pauses, hiccups, etc. It’s very consistent. No one else slows me down. And the free memory is WAY higher than another OpenVZ VPS I have that was running the same site, not sure why though.

      June 3, 2011 @ 1:55 am | Reply
      • Good to hear, glad you are happy. We will continue to strive to deliver superb uptime and performance :)

        June 3, 2011 @ 2:02 am | Reply
  22. Hi Mark,

    Your data center is down?

    -saosangmo

    June 30, 2011 @ 6:36 am | Reply
    • Tom:

      Seems like everything is down and that makes me sad :(

      June 30, 2011 @ 6:48 am | Reply
      • Yes as Tom had said our data center and network provider had a core switch failure. A very rare occurrence but we are still looking into why it lead to a longer replacement process than usual. Feel free to open a support ticket upon your next invoice for a downtime credit as accordance with our uptime guarantee.

        June 30, 2011 @ 7:24 pm | Reply
  23. zidit:

    Mine down as well

    June 30, 2011 @ 6:49 am | Reply
  24. innya:

    Are you guy still down? My has no problem.

    June 30, 2011 @ 4:35 pm | Reply
    • Tom:

      Nope, it was a colostore network failer. All servers have been online just unreachable.

      June 30, 2011 @ 4:56 pm | Reply
  25. subq:

    now what’s going on? down again

    July 8, 2011 @ 10:41 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. Quoting webhostingtalk.com URL seems to get binned consistently here, but I do peek into the spam box frequently to publish those comments.
  • Use <pre>...</pre> to quote the output from your terminal/console, or consider using a pastebin service.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *