LowEndBox - Cheap VPS, Hosting and Dedicated Server Deals

YardVPS – $6.36/month 512MB XEN-PV in Los Angeles

Tags: , , Date/Time: February 22, 2012 @ 4:17 pm, by Jarland Donnell

YardVPSJimmy Lu of YardVPS has contacted us letting us know that he’s running his $6.36/month XEN-PV deal again. While ordering be sure to apply the coupon code YardVPS, otherwise the price goes back up to $7.95/month.

TREE1 – Xen VPS Offer

  • 512MB Guaranteed RAM
  • 1GB Swap
  • 20GB Disk Space
  • 1500GB Bandwidth
  • 1 IPV4 Address
  • SolusVM

$6.36/month – Coupon Code YardVPS

Test IP v4 – 199.71.213.2
Test IP v6 – 2604:6600:1019::2
Test Files – 10MB 50MB 100MB

All servers are based in Los Angeles. Originally starting in the OpenVZ market, it seems they’ve since then discontinued it in favor of KVM & XEN. Paypal, Alipay & direct credit cards are all accepted while paying. Previous reviews/comments have been hit/miss.

Jarland Donnell was the administrator of LowEndBox from 2015 to 2016 and continues to be an active member of our community on LowEndTalk.

51 Comments

  1. Dano:

    Just a comment about the 199 range: seems this is like the “last of the mohichan” IP range. We just asked for some additional addresses from our colo provider, and were given a 199 range also, even though our current range is in the 60’s.

    I just realized, I need to get out more :D

    February 22, 2012 @ 5:00 pm | Reply
  2. pubcrawler:

    Read through the previous comments on YardVPS. Was underwhelmed by little if any negative reviews.

    Picked up the special and am running it through paces / setup now.

    Some basic info:

    This is a 1 CPU VPS. Intel 5620 CPU.

    Network is limited by the 100Mbps port.

    Network is somewhat questionable, it performs fine, but it differs from YardVPS’ website, which says:

    "We only utilize Tier-1 multi-homed providers, running on full fiber. We have 20GBps direct fiber to our main provider, Level(3) Communications. We have 2GBps direct fiber to Global Crossing, XO Communications, and BTN. In order to support our network, we also have 1GBps of direct fiber to SAVVIS, Sprint, Verio, MCI, Tiscali, T-Systems, Telia, as well as LA-IIX and Any2."

    Have yet to see these other providers in routes to this facility. What I do see almost solely is HE bandwdith.

    Route from this facility to FDCServers Denver location is way mucked up:

     4  10gigabitethernet1-3.core1.lax2.he.net (72.52.92.122)  4.101 ms  4.363 ms  0.527 ms
     5  10gigabitethernet1-2.core1.den1.he.net (72.52.92.37)  28.753 ms  28.959 ms  28.939 ms
     6  10gigabitethernet8-2.core1.chi1.he.net (184.105.213.85)  49.297 ms  59.751 ms  55.856 ms
     7  equinix-chicago.r1.chi1.us.as5580.net (206.223.119.45)  54.456 ms  57.862 ms  54.383 ms
     8  tge1-1.den01-1.us.as5580.net (78.152.34.214)  73.648 ms  72.477 ms  73.001 ms
     9  * * fdcservers-30058-gw-1.den01-1.us.as5580.net (78.152.32.102)  168.729 ms
    10  204.45.244.2 (204.45.244.2)  69.236 ms  68.977 ms  72.129 ms
    11  74.221.213.3 (74.221.213.3)  68.918 ms  69.130 ms  69.083 ms
    

    That route is LA to Denver to Chicago to Denver. Far from the first time I’ve seen FDC routing mishaps. Common with Denver facility.

    February 22, 2012 @ 7:39 pm | Reply
  3. pubcrawler:

    UnixBench for this machine is SLOW:

    # # # # # # # ##### ###### # # #### # #
    # # ## # # # # # # # ## # # # # #
    # # # # # # ## ##### ##### # # # # ######
    # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # #
    # # # ## # # # # # # # ## # # # #
    #### # # # # # ##### ###### # # #### # #

    4 1 Based on the Byte Magazine Unix Benchmark
    44 11
    v v 4 4 1
    v v 44444 1 v4.1 revisions mostly by David C. Niemi,
    v 4 o 111 – WHT.2 Reston, VA, USA

    WHT Variant by Andy A. Lee
    See: http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=308055

    Dhrystone 2 using register variables 1 2

    Double-Precision Whetstone 1 2

    Execl Throughput 1

    Filesystem Throughput 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks 1

    Filesystem Throughput 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks 1

    Filesystem Throughput 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks 1

    Pipe Throughput 1 2

    Pipe-based Context Switching 1 2

    Process Creation 1

    System Call Overhead 1 2

    Shell Scripts (8 concurrent) 1
    join: file 2 is not in sorted order

    ==============================================================
    BYTE UNIX Benchmarks (Version 4.1-wht.2)
    System — Linux ca-usa.pubcrawler.com 2.6.32-5-amd64 #1 SMP Mon Jan 16 16:22:28 UTC 2012 x86_64 GNU/Linux
    /dev/xvda1 20642428 6203664 13390188 32% /

    Start Benchmark Run: Wed Feb 22 11:27:41 PST 2012
    11:27:41 up 54 min, 2 users, load average: 0.15, 0.04, 0.01

    End Benchmark Run: Wed Feb 22 11:38:55 PST 2012
    11:38:55 up 1:06, 3 users, load average: 15.06, 6.19, 2.76

    INDEX VALUES
    TEST BASELINE RESULT INDEX

    Dhrystone 2 using register variables 376783.7 8216341.6 218.1
    Double-Precision Whetstone 83.1 1774.1 213.5
    Execl Throughput 188.3 1384.1 73.5
    File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks 2672.0 50278.0 188.2
    File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks 1077.0 13578.0 126.1
    File Read 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks 15382.0 496832.0 323.0
    Pipe-based Context Switching 15448.6 66436.2 43.0
    Pipe Throughput 111814.6 341063.1 30.5
    Process Creation 569.3 2802.9 49.2
    Shell Scripts (8 concurrent) 44.8 406.9 90.8
    System Call Overhead 114433.5 396722.4 34.7
    =========
    FINAL SCORE 94.4

    February 22, 2012 @ 7:39 pm | Reply
  4. pubcrawler:

    Disk speed is respectable to fast:

    dd if=/dev/zero of=test bs=64k count=16k conv=fdatasync && rm test
    16384+0 records in
    16384+0 records out
    1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB) copied, 6.10947 s, 176 MB/s

    February 22, 2012 @ 7:41 pm | Reply
  5. pubcrawler:

    ioping looks fast:

    ioping-0.6# ./ioping . -c 10
    4096 bytes from . (ext3 /dev/xvda1): request=1 time=0.2 ms
    4096 bytes from . (ext3 /dev/xvda1): request=2 time=0.3 ms
    4096 bytes from . (ext3 /dev/xvda1): request=3 time=0.3 ms
    4096 bytes from . (ext3 /dev/xvda1): request=4 time=0.4 ms
    4096 bytes from . (ext3 /dev/xvda1): request=5 time=0.2 ms
    4096 bytes from . (ext3 /dev/xvda1): request=6 time=0.3 ms
    4096 bytes from . (ext3 /dev/xvda1): request=7 time=0.3 ms
    4096 bytes from . (ext3 /dev/xvda1): request=8 time=0.4 ms
    4096 bytes from . (ext3 /dev/xvda1): request=9 time=0.2 ms
    4096 bytes from . (ext3 /dev/xvda1): request=10 time=0.3 ms

    — . (ext3 /dev/xvda1) ioping statistics —
    10 requests completed in 9004.5 ms, 3473 iops, 13.6 mb/s
    min/avg/max/mdev = 0.2/0.3/0.4/0.1 ms

    February 22, 2012 @ 7:42 pm | Reply
  6. pubcrawler:

    hparm is showing an unbelievably high number:

    hdparm -T /dev/xvda1

    /dev/xvda1:
    Timing cached reads: 15036 MB in 1.99 seconds = 7568.89 MB/sec

    February 22, 2012 @ 7:44 pm | Reply
    • denos:

      A case of the wrong t ;)

      Capital T shows OS / RAM cache performance (does not hit the disk)
      hdparm -T XXX

      You want this (lowercase t) which measures sequential read performance from the disk:
      hdparm -t XXX

      February 22, 2012 @ 8:19 pm | Reply
      • Yea, most people do hdparm -tT /dev/xxx :)

        February 22, 2012 @ 10:57 pm | Reply
        • pubcrawler:

          Oops :)

          That was an error on my part, was in a hurry earlier and wasn’t working directly from my scripted test/install process.

          Revised disk speed still look peppy:

          hdparm -t /dev/xvda1

          /dev/xvda1:
          Timing buffered disk reads: 462 MB in 3.01 seconds = 153.50 MB/sec

          February 23, 2012 @ 12:28 am | Reply
  7. pubcrawler:

    Regardless of what UnixBench says, this VPS is darn fast.

    Compiled a bunch of stuff and seemed faster than just about anything we’ve seen before.

    Pretty good machine and service. Now if they could somehow be less HE dependent.

    February 22, 2012 @ 8:04 pm | Reply
    • We utilize multiple peers such as nLayer and Xeex with more to come. However, HE.net just has the best preferred bath within BGP route tables. In fact we had to prepend some of the traffic so other peers may be utilized. If there is any issues with HE.net we can usually route around the issue. Just need traceroutes and source IP so we can pick the best preferred path

      February 23, 2012 @ 4:38 am | Reply
      • pubcrawler:

        Thanks PhotonVPS-Jim!

        Run a traceroute from your facility to:
        74.221.210.1

        Do that over the preferred route which is per se non-optimally HE right now.

        Route cleanup for sure :)

        Still doing good with our VPS. Should have it in production by Monday to see how it really does.

        February 23, 2012 @ 6:09 am | Reply
  8. qwerty6666:

    i have a 15$/year openvz vps with them since like 15 month havnt got much problem i’m very satisfied =)

    February 22, 2012 @ 11:47 pm | Reply
  9. Jamie:

    I ordered a Xen plan nearly a year ago – it was practically unusable – 100% I/O wait and yum took an awfully long time to run. I cancelled it. Against my better judgement, i tried again several months later, and it was much the same experience, so i cancelled that as well.

    On the other hand, my $15/yr OpenVZ plan has been great. Poor I/O wait again, but the plan is allocated the “lowest” I/O priority. It’s still more usuable than the Xen plan though, haha. Uptime has been great, so it makes for a good slave DNS server anyway.

    February 23, 2012 @ 12:22 am | Reply
    • I’m sorry to hear about your I/O issues on our Xen based VPS. If you would like to try us again and I can give you a free month :)

      February 23, 2012 @ 2:53 am | Reply
  10. Sonic:

    Bad offer!!!

    February 23, 2012 @ 2:46 am | Reply
    • How so? I don’t see many VPS providers offering similar performance at this price.

      February 23, 2012 @ 2:53 am | Reply
      • Alex:

        Because your attitude towards your customers is pathetic, in many of these offers from you people state their experiences with you, including myself who had a terrible experience with your vps, and yourself.

        I wouldn’t ever choose to buy a vps from yourself again due to the terrible support and lack of service.

        For anyone else that wants more info, my vps hardly ever started, and when it did it went down minutes later. Jim never tried to help apart from to tell me it works perfectly, he then refused a part refund, even though it said in the terms I was entitled to one (I had used the vps for a few hours) Jim then edited his terms and conditions there and then, to remove the part that offered me the refund, completely unprofessional and childish.

        I realize you’ll probably come back at me, trying to pretend what a good host you are, but you need to learn how to treat people, if I can find my old screen shots of the terms before & after and the kind of support I got, I’ll post them later.

        March 1, 2012 @ 6:41 pm | Reply
        • We do not offer refunds as stated on our TOS.

          March 1, 2012 @ 6:44 pm | Reply
        • Alex:

          I quote:

          “he then refused a part refund, even though it said in the terms I was entitled to one (I had used the vps for a few hours) Jim then edited his terms and conditions there and then, to remove the part that offered me the refund, completely unprofessional and childish.”

          You removed it while I was talking to you, don’t even try and cover it up, you act like a complete child.

          March 1, 2012 @ 11:08 pm | Reply
        • Alex:

          In reply again:

          This is his TOS of when I asked for a refund: http://i.imgur.com/3jvlQ.png

          I then asked for a refund and quoted those TOS, he then said he doesn’t offer refunds and continued to edit his TOS while he was talking to me over live support, he then changed them to this: http://i.imgur.com/4d7Ms.png and told me according to his new terms, he cannot offer me a refund.

          Jim, you are a completely immature host, and I feel sorry for anyone who has to put up with you. I’ve been with a lot of VPS hosts over the time I’ve been running website, and you have been (easily) the worst.

          March 1, 2012 @ 11:21 pm | Reply
        • Brandon:

          Hello,

          Is says “If cancellation is caused by customers violation of these polices, then a refund will be pro rated for the unused days in a given month.”

          If I read above correctly, you were not happy with the VPS and did not break any of the terms of service polices, so that would be null for this case.

          March 2, 2012 @ 4:16 am | Reply
  11. Brandon:

    I would have signed up but they don’t offer additional IPs on these plans? Terrible as I needed some for SSL.

    February 23, 2012 @ 4:48 am | Reply
  12. or no:

    why ,I can’t use Coupon Code “YardVPS” now.

    February 23, 2012 @ 6:14 am | Reply
  13. CM:

    How long do these take to setup? I ordered one about 20 minutes ago, got the details, but haven’t been able to SSH into it or login via SolusVM yet. Just wondering when I can expect to access the VM.

    I’ll report back once I get access =]

    February 23, 2012 @ 11:55 am | Reply
    • pubcrawler:

      Setup time was a few minutes wait. Certainly under 20 minutes.

      When your account is readying you will get a barrage of emails about your VPS, payment, etc.

      February 23, 2012 @ 3:54 pm | Reply
      • CM:

        I see. Hmm, i’m still waiting. I filed a ticket, they responded and said they had re-installed the VPS and to verify if it was working. I still can’t access the VPS via the details given to me and still can’t access SolusVM. I’m just waiting for them to get it sorted. (I’m in no rush nor am I angry, just stating the facts of my experience thus far).

        February 23, 2012 @ 4:37 pm | Reply
        • CM:

          Ticket ID: PXG-860326 (in case a staff member wants to verify my statements)

          February 23, 2012 @ 4:39 pm | Reply
        • CM:

          Got a response, got access to SolusVM, but still can not access my VPS via SSH. My VPS will not stay online. SolusVM always say it’s ‘offline’. I’ll reboot it, and I will see that it is ‘online’, only to not be able to connect, go back to SolusVM and see it is ‘offline’ again. This keeps happening. =[

          Am I the only one who has experienced this? I’m on the node: “snack”, if it matters.

          I’ll report back once we finally get this all sorted out!

          February 23, 2012 @ 5:58 pm | Reply
        • CM:

          Got it sorted. It was an issue with the CentOS 6.2 image…

          February 23, 2012 @ 7:09 pm | Reply
  14. tinyX:

    All of their customers should be careful, the only way is keep await if your VPS is offline, don’t tell or complain at a public forum, or all of your VPS ordered from them would be killed immediately without any backup.

    February 24, 2012 @ 10:59 am | Reply
  15. Dano:

    Well, I tried to order, but of course, this provider needs a credit card/bank account backed Paypal account.

    Note to self: make a list of providers that don’t accept generic Paypal accounts.

    February 24, 2012 @ 8:57 pm | Reply
  16. Gary:

    If you considered trying this offer and get a refund later, please be informed that YardVPS does not issue any refunds. See a screenshot below, it’s a reply from their Director of Operations Jimmy Lu: “We do not offer refunds as per our TOS.”

    February 25, 2012 @ 8:25 pm | Reply
      • Off our main page:

        “Welcome to YardVPS, your one stop solution for unmanaged VPS’s. We use Xen virtualization alongside with SolusVM to provide you un-restricted access to your VPS. Our plans are completely unmanaged and we do not offer any refunds on our plans. Using the latest Intel Quadcore Processors with DDR3 RAM to give you the performance you need.”

        February 25, 2012 @ 10:19 pm | Reply
        • Alex:

          I thought offering refunds was a legal requirement of selling services online was it not?

          March 2, 2012 @ 12:04 am | Reply
      • I think that’s only in the UK where they have laws for that stuff.

        March 2, 2012 @ 12:44 am | Reply
  17. Brandon:

    I ended up signing up anyway, been great so far took ~12 hours for support to resolve my vps not booting. Since then it’s been great, good speeds and a fast server overall. Would recommend them to other people.

    How long does this deal last for?

    February 25, 2012 @ 10:22 pm | Reply
  18. I am looking for my website hosting, spending aproximandamente 2TB / month.
    That such is this company?
    Is it reliable?
    He has a good connection and machine uptime?

    February 27, 2012 @ 9:27 pm | Reply
  19. Do you support FreeBSD Xen PV ?

    March 15, 2012 @ 2:52 pm | Reply
  20. Graham:

    Not a great experience so far. Got my Windows VPS details but the VPS won’t boot, sent in a ticket, got an instant reply of what my details are for the box, then dead silence…..

    So much for instant activation

    August 8, 2012 @ 7:36 am | Reply
  21. pub crawler:

    Calling it quits on YardVPS.

    This offer was alright back in February. Not so much so now.

    Problems:
    Single CPU
    Disk is smallish
    VPS generally seems far more sluggish than back then
    Uptime —> Our VPS is at 13 days of uptime. We’ve never restarted the machine, the provider has.

    Most important problem, lousy throughput to Time Warner’s network. Prime example:

    HTTP request sent, awaiting response… 200 OK
    Length: 134217728 (128M) [application/zip]
    Saving to: `/dev/null’

    1% [ ] 2,073,242 30.8K/s eta 80m 43s

    30K/s simply sucks. I can’t send traffic there since anyone with Time Warner (major provider) very likely will have the same lousy throughput. No random issue either, their own speed test file goes just as slowly.

    Nothing seems wrong or troubling in routing from Time Warner to YardVPS:
    11: tge1-11-0-2.clmkohpe-ccr01.mwrtn.rr.com 27.504ms
    12: 107.14.19.60 35.302ms
    13: ae-1-0.pr0.chi10.tbone.rr.com 29.557ms
    14: ge9-4.br03.chc01.pccwbtn.net 34.689ms
    15: 63-218-72-142.static.pccwglobal.net 88.732ms asymm 19
    16: psychz.vlan701.br02.lax05.pccwbtn.net 86.140ms asymm 18
    17: distr.r1-615.psychz.net 85.479ms asymm 19

    PCCW is where I’d say the problem is. Haven’t had good experiences with them in the middle as a provider.

    October 17, 2012 @ 8:03 am | Reply
  22. Don’t use YardVPS. I ordered a VPS and for 3 days they went and setup 3 templates because none of them could be logged in. I gave up and asked for a refund and I was told there TOS said no refunds. Never even got to login to the server.

    April 8, 2013 @ 9:26 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 *