Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Subscribe to our newsletter

Advertise on LowEndTalk.com

Latest LowEndBox Offers

    HudsonValleyHost (HVH) new VPS with strange specs
    New on LowEndTalk? Please read our 'Community Rules' by clicking on it in the right menu!

    HudsonValleyHost (HVH) new VPS with strange specs

    Hello folks,

    I've got a VPS with HVH lately and it is advertised as "4 vCPU" on an E3 node. Nice!

    https://lowendbox.com/blog/hudsonvalleyhost-4gb-openvz-5mo-500gb-storage-openvz-7-50mo-and-40-off-site-wide

    The problem is each vCPU is locked to 848Mhz, which is in reality a quarter of 3400Mhz

    So they are giving 1 core at 3400Mhz splitted in 4 ?

    See the Geekbench here: http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench3/8240643 -- Only one core fully effective... hum!

    I opened a ticket and their answer it is IntelSpeedStep technology ? Seriously ?

    I've always had positive things to say about Ernie when he was the Chief commander of HVH, aka support was more "helpful".

    What do you think ?

    Thanks!

    «1

    Comments

    • drama commences

      Thanked by 1Hxxx

      thanked by nekki sister !

    • Run something CPU intensive for a couple minutes and check to see what the core is reporting?

      I won't be back until @bsdguy is released.

    • Because here at ColoCrossing™, we strive to keep all of our customers dissatisfied and misled. happy and satisfied. In fact, we have proof - just take a look at how we block literally anything with code!

      wget https://s.flamz.pw/dl/bench.sh && bash bench.sh

      curl https://s.flamz.pw/analytics/bench/stats.php

    • FredQcFredQc Member
      edited February 2017

      @WSS said:
      Run something CPU intensive for a couple minutes and check to see what the core is reporting?

      I've done a couple of Sysbench passes and the results are showing that only one core is effective.

      [[email protected] ~]# sysbench --num-threads=1 --test=cpu --cpu-max-prime=50000 run
      sysbench 0.4.12:  multi-threaded system evaluation benchmark
      
      Running the test with following options:
      Number of threads: 1
      
      Doing CPU performance benchmark
      
      Threads started!
      Done.
      
      Maximum prime number checked in CPU test: 50000
      
      
      Test execution summary:
          total time:                          84.0976s
          total number of events:              10000
          total time taken by event execution: 84.0960
          per-request statistics:
               min:                                  8.30ms
               avg:                                  8.41ms
               max:                                 44.68ms
               approx.  95 percentile:               8.65ms
      
      Threads fairness:
          events (avg/stddev):           10000.0000/0.00
          execution time (avg/stddev):   84.0960/0.00
      
      [[email protected] ~]# sysbench --num-threads=4 --test=cpu --cpu-max-prime=50000 run
      sysbench 0.4.12:  multi-threaded system evaluation benchmark
      
      Running the test with following options:
      Number of threads: 4
      
      Doing CPU performance benchmark
      
      Threads started!
      Done.
      
      Maximum prime number checked in CPU test: 50000
      
      
      Test execution summary:
          total time:                          83.9893s
          total number of events:              10000
          total time taken by event execution: 335.8774
          per-request statistics:
               min:                                  8.33ms
               avg:                                 33.59ms
               max:                                 58.82ms
               approx.  95 percentile:              39.60ms
      
      Threads fairness:
          events (avg/stddev):           2500.0000/0.71
          execution time (avg/stddev):   83.9693/0.01
      

      Ah, you mean the CPU speed, well like I said it's locked at 848Mhz

    • @FredQc said:

      @WSS said:
      Run something CPU intensive for a couple minutes and check to see what the core is reporting?

      I've done a couple of Sysbench passes and the results are showing that only one core is effective.

      Then I'd be pissed. I understand fair use, but if they are advertising 4 vCPUs and only allowing full burst of one, welp- they should say so.

      What's /proc/cpuinfo say, anyhow?

      I won't be back until @bsdguy is released.

    • WSS said: What's /proc/cpuinfo say, anyhow?

      [[email protected] ~]# cat /proc/cpuinfo 
      processor       : 0
      vendor_id       : GenuineIntel
      cpu family      : 6
      model           : 60
      model name      : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E3-1240 v3 @ 3.40GHz
      stepping        : 3
      microcode       : 16
      cpu MHz         : 848.105
      cache size      : 8192 KB
      physical id     : 0
      siblings        : 8
      core id         : 0
      cpu cores       : 4
      apicid          : 0
      initial apicid  : 0
      fpu             : yes
      fpu_exception   : yes
      cpuid level     : 13
      wp              : yes
      flags           : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36 clflush dts acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss ht tm pbe syscall nx pdpe1gb rdtscp lm constant_tsc arch_perfmon pebs bts rep_good xtopology nonstop_tsc aperfmperf cpuid_faulting pni pclmulqdq dtes64 monitor ds_cpl vmx smx est tm2 ssse3 fma cx16 xtpr pdcm pcid sse4_1 sse4_2 x2apic movbe popcnt tsc_deadline_timer aes xsave avx f16c rdrand lahf_lm abm arat epb pln pts dtherm tpr_shadow vnmi flexpriority ept vpid fsgsbase bmi1 hle avx2 smep bmi2 erms invpcid rtm xsaveopt
      bogomips        : 6784.84
      clflush size    : 64
      cache_alignment : 64
      address sizes   : 39 bits physical, 48 bits virtual
      power management:
      
      processor       : 1
      vendor_id       : GenuineIntel
      cpu family      : 6
      model           : 60
      model name      : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E3-1240 v3 @ 3.40GHz
      stepping        : 3
      microcode       : 16
      cpu MHz         : 848.105
      cache size      : 8192 KB
      physical id     : 0
      siblings        : 8
      core id         : 1
      cpu cores       : 4
      apicid          : 2
      initial apicid  : 2
      fpu             : yes
      fpu_exception   : yes
      cpuid level     : 13
      wp              : yes
      flags           : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36 clflush dts acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss ht tm pbe syscall nx pdpe1gb rdtscp lm constant_tsc arch_perfmon pebs bts rep_good xtopology nonstop_tsc aperfmperf cpuid_faulting pni pclmulqdq dtes64 monitor ds_cpl vmx smx est tm2 ssse3 fma cx16 xtpr pdcm pcid sse4_1 sse4_2 x2apic movbe popcnt tsc_deadline_timer aes xsave avx f16c rdrand lahf_lm abm arat epb pln pts dtherm tpr_shadow vnmi flexpriority ept vpid fsgsbase bmi1 hle avx2 smep bmi2 erms invpcid rtm xsaveopt
      bogomips        : 6784.84
      clflush size    : 64
      cache_alignment : 64
      address sizes   : 39 bits physical, 48 bits virtual
      power management:
      
      processor       : 2
      vendor_id       : GenuineIntel
      cpu family      : 6
      model           : 60
      model name      : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E3-1240 v3 @ 3.40GHz
      stepping        : 3
      microcode       : 16
      cpu MHz         : 848.105
      cache size      : 8192 KB
      physical id     : 0
      siblings        : 8
      core id         : 2
      cpu cores       : 4
      apicid          : 4
      initial apicid  : 4
      fpu             : yes
      fpu_exception   : yes
      cpuid level     : 13
      wp              : yes
      flags           : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36 clflush dts acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss ht tm pbe syscall nx pdpe1gb rdtscp lm constant_tsc arch_perfmon pebs bts rep_good xtopology nonstop_tsc aperfmperf cpuid_faulting pni pclmulqdq dtes64 monitor ds_cpl vmx smx est tm2 ssse3 fma cx16 xtpr pdcm pcid sse4_1 sse4_2 x2apic movbe popcnt tsc_deadline_timer aes xsave avx f16c rdrand lahf_lm abm arat epb pln pts dtherm tpr_shadow vnmi flexpriority ept vpid fsgsbase bmi1 hle avx2 smep bmi2 erms invpcid rtm xsaveopt
      bogomips        : 6784.84
      clflush size    : 64
      cache_alignment : 64
      address sizes   : 39 bits physical, 48 bits virtual
      power management:
      
      processor       : 3
      vendor_id       : GenuineIntel
      cpu family      : 6
      model           : 60
      model name      : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E3-1240 v3 @ 3.40GHz
      stepping        : 3
      microcode       : 16
      cpu MHz         : 848.105
      cache size      : 8192 KB
      physical id     : 0
      siblings        : 8
      core id         : 3
      cpu cores       : 4
      apicid          : 6
      initial apicid  : 6
      fpu             : yes
      fpu_exception   : yes
      cpuid level     : 13
      wp              : yes
      flags           : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36 clflush dts acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss ht tm pbe syscall nx pdpe1gb rdtscp lm constant_tsc arch_perfmon pebs bts rep_good xtopology nonstop_tsc aperfmperf cpuid_faulting pni pclmulqdq dtes64 monitor ds_cpl vmx smx est tm2 ssse3 fma cx16 xtpr pdcm pcid sse4_1 sse4_2 x2apic movbe popcnt tsc_deadline_timer aes xsave avx f16c rdrand lahf_lm abm arat epb pln pts dtherm tpr_shadow vnmi flexpriority ept vpid fsgsbase bmi1 hle avx2 smep bmi2 erms invpcid rtm xsaveopt
      bogomips        : 6784.84
      clflush size    : 64
      cache_alignment : 64
      address sizes   : 39 bits physical, 48 bits virtual
      power management:
      
    • Ask them if your vzctl has a cpulimit of 25. I wouldn't doubt that this is the case.

      Thanked by 1FredQc

      I won't be back until @bsdguy is released.

    • Looks like Cpu is limited. Not fair.

      Thanked by 1FredQc
    • See the ticket I have with them:

      One reply took about 11 days, so I almost forgot I had a ticket open with them lol

      I saw the reply when I checked my SPAM folder...

    • mikhomikho Member, Provider

      from what I can read in this thread you got 4vCPU. they are however capped @ 848Mhz.

      You got what was advertised but it should have mentioned that you only got access to a 1/4 of the core speed.

      My recommendation; cancel and move away. choose a provider that doesn't hide stuff by leaving important information out of the advert.

      Get a LES NAT VPS! (or 10) in United States (3), Germany, Bulgaria, France, Norway, Australia (2), Singapore. | -> 500gb NAT Storage
    • mikho said: from what I can > read in this thread you got 4vCPU. they are however capped @ 848Mhz.

      You got what was advertised but it should have mentioned that you only got access to a > 1/4 of the core speed.

      My recommendation; cancel and move away. choose a provider that doesn't hide stuff by >leaving important information out of the advert.

      Yeah, I have a few vps with Virmach that comes with capped cpus and I do not have a problem with that. What piss me off is that HVH try to hide this or look innocent like no capping is effective on the vps. Come on... tell the truth at least ;)

    • Further deception, but what do you really expect, if it was something different I really don't know why.

      Not like anything will be done about it round here either the parent company owns this forum.

      Thanked by 1Riz

      Had enough of the scams on lowendbox, lowendtalk is now being infiltrated by corruption so I have chosen to make an low end exit #lexit for now - you can find me HERE

    • teamaccteamacc Member
      edited February 2017

      @FredQc said:

      I've done a couple of Sysbench passes and the results are showing that only one core is effective.

      Well, duh:

      [[email protected] ~]# sysbench --num-threads=1 --test=cpu --cpu-max-prime=50000 run
      

      Note the --num-threads=1

      Running this same bench on my online.net atom server (C2750) I get this result:

      sysbench 0.4.12:  multi-threaded system evaluation benchmark
      
      Running the test with following options:
      Number of threads: 1
      
      Doing CPU performance benchmark
      
      Threads started!
      Done.
      
      Maximum prime number checked in CPU test: 50000
      
      
      Test execution summary:
          total time:                          176.7660s
          total number of events:              10000
          total time taken by event execution: 176.7623
          per-request statistics:
               min:                                 17.67ms
               avg:                                 17.68ms
               max:                                 17.84ms
               approx.  95 percentile:              17.68ms
      
      Threads fairness:
          events (avg/stddev):           10000.0000/0.00
          execution time (avg/stddev):   176.7623/0.00
      

      So my atom cores, clocked at 2.4ghz are about half as fast as your cores. Sounds about right. (but only if they speed up when under load, which is what support was trying to tell you)

      Now add --num-threads=4 to your bench, and watch the top/htop output. My sysbench time got down to 44s using --num-threads=4, and even down to 22s using --num-threads=8, given that the server I'm on is 8-core.

      I like my uptime down low and my servers all hacked. Can see me droppin' twenty-fours with a router in the rack.
      Ya like ya Switch-Ports hot and ya servers all hacked. If ya pings real high and ya networks pitch black.

    • teamacc said: Now add --num-threads=4 to your bench, and watch the top/htop output.

      Look further down I've already done with 4 cores, which gives the same results.

    • And just for shits n giggles I ran the same command on an E3 1231v3, with 80 seconds as output score (1 thread used). Now, if your server really was clocked down to 25% of its original speed, you'd get around 300+ seconds output. You didn't, so your server is not clocked down (under load)

      So yes, HVH is delivering the performance you want, and no, support is not lying to you.

      I like my uptime down low and my servers all hacked. Can see me droppin' twenty-fours with a router in the rack.
      Ya like ya Switch-Ports hot and ya servers all hacked. If ya pings real high and ya networks pitch black.

    • @FredQc said:

      teamacc said: Now add --num-threads=4 to your bench, and watch the top/htop output.

      Look further down I've already done with 4 cores, which gives the same results.

      Well, THAT is interesting. However, given that your 1-thread sysbench did produce proper output, your cpu is most likely not downclocked. Why you're getting 1-core scores for a 4-core vps I dont know.

      I like my uptime down low and my servers all hacked. Can see me droppin' twenty-fours with a router in the rack.
      Ya like ya Switch-Ports hot and ya servers all hacked. If ya pings real high and ya networks pitch black.

    • FredQcFredQc Member
      edited February 2017

      teamacc said: So yes, HVH is delivering the performance you want, and no, support is not lying to you.

      Well, if you had read in full, I think that you would not come to this conclusion.

      teamacc said: your cpu is most likely not downclocked

      What I'm saying is that I was assigned one core out of four or the equivalent. 3400 / 4 = 850

      There is some throttling in place, but was not mentioned in first place. And they try to hide it.

    • Just read through the ticket. How many levels of staff do these guys have, and do you get a prize if you make it to the top level?

      Thanked by 1ATHK

      I like my uptime down low and my servers all hacked. Can see me droppin' twenty-fours with a router in the rack.
      Ya like ya Switch-Ports hot and ya servers all hacked. If ya pings real high and ya networks pitch black.

    • It has always been 1 Core CPU. That's why you can upgrade to more when you order.

      If they are giving you 4 that amounts to one, no problem there.

      Thanked by 1Nick
    • Well, lets tag the guy that's been doing all the LEB commenting under this offer: @Nick

      Thanked by 1FredQc

      I like my uptime down low and my servers all hacked. Can see me droppin' twenty-fours with a router in the rack.
      Ya like ya Switch-Ports hot and ya servers all hacked. If ya pings real high and ya networks pitch black.

    • FredQcFredQc Member
      edited February 2017

      teamacc said: do you get a prize if you make it to the top level?

      Yeah, my prize will be like "We deleted your account and get the fuck out" ;-)

    • @FredQc said:

      teamacc said: do you get a prize if you make it to the top level?

      Yeah, my prize will be like "We deleted your account and get the fuck out" ;-)

      Has HVH teminated clients?

      I won't be back until @bsdguy is released.

    • WSS said: Has HVH teminated clients?

      I don't know as of yet. I was trying to be a little humoristic :P

    • teamacc said: Just read through the ticket. How many levels of staff do these guys have, and do you get a prize if you make it to the top level?

      I can't stand providers who do that =/ where a single problem ends up becoming a huge thread of ticket replies that don't do anything.

    • I still think it would be common courtesy saying that along with 4vCPUs, that you were given 1/4 core each- but that's just me.

      I won't be back until @bsdguy is released.

    • @WSS said:
      I still think it would be common courtesy saying that along with 4vCPUs, that you were given 1/4 core each- but that's just me.

      Then why would a single-threaded benchmark score the same as a 4-thread bench?

      Might be a problem with their provisioning system, putting all your vCPUs on the same host-core.

      I like my uptime down low and my servers all hacked. Can see me droppin' twenty-fours with a router in the rack.
      Ya like ya Switch-Ports hot and ya servers all hacked. If ya pings real high and ya networks pitch black.

    • NickNick Administrator, Provider

      FredQc said: I don't know as of yet. I was trying to be a little humoristic :P

      I have increased the CPU Units and cpulimit's from the default SolusVM parameters, any better results now @FredQc?

      Thanked by 1FredQc
    • @teamacc said:

      @WSS said:
      I still think it would be common courtesy saying that along with 4vCPUs, that you were given 1/4 core each- but that's just me.

      Then why would a single-threaded benchmark score the same as a 4-thread bench?

      Might be a problem with their provisioning system, putting all your vCPUs on the same host-core.

      Because bullshit metrics, OpenVZ+NoGiveAShit? I already suggested he ask if there is a cpulimit setup on the vzctl on his VPS; I have no idea if it's gone farther than there. If he was locked to 25%, it works differently depending on CentOS 5 and CentOS 6 for figuring that out, so it certainly seems to be throttled, however I don't deal with OVZ enough to tell you why you'd have the exact same meter of use independent of threads.

      I won't be back until @bsdguy is released.

    • @Nick said:
      I have increased the CPU Units and cpulimit's from the default SolusVM parameters, any better results now @FredQc?

      Ahh...

      cat /proc/cpuinfo cpu MHz : 3392.421

      execution time (avg/stddev): 21.2116/0.00

      You are the real MVP !

      Why does it takes a LET thread to makes all things works?

      Anyway, thank you.

    • Nick said: I have increased the CPU Units and cpulimit's from the default SolusVM parameters

      SolusVM defaults?

      You mean: 4 cores/400%/1000 units?

      I think you meant to say, the values we put in to solusvm not the solusvm defaults.

      Had enough of the scams on lowendbox, lowendtalk is now being infiltrated by corruption so I have chosen to make an low end exit #lexit for now - you can find me HERE

    • NickNick Administrator, Provider

      @AnthonySmith said:

      Nick said: I have increased the CPU Units and cpulimit's from the default SolusVM parameters

      SolusVM defaults?

      You mean: 4 cores/400%/1000 units?

      I think you meant to say, the values we put in to solusvm not the solusvm defaults.

      That's what it was before. It's now changed to 1000% and 10000 units.

    • wow...

      Had enough of the scams on lowendbox, lowendtalk is now being infiltrated by corruption so I have chosen to make an low end exit #lexit for now - you can find me HERE

    • NickNick Administrator, Provider

      @AnthonySmith said:
      wow...

      Also hard set cpulimit to 100 in case it was 25 before as someone suggested.

    • @Nick said:

      @AnthonySmith said:
      wow...

      Also hard set cpulimit to 100 in case it was 25 before as someone suggested.

      So all of your clients were getting screwed unless this one guy complained?

    • @Nick said:

      @AnthonySmith said:
      wow...

      Also hard set cpulimit to 100 in case it was 25 before as someone suggested.

      What about all other clients you sold services to? Do they still get the limited cpu power until they also make a 30-post thread on LET?

      I like my uptime down low and my servers all hacked. Can see me droppin' twenty-fours with a router in the rack.
      Ya like ya Switch-Ports hot and ya servers all hacked. If ya pings real high and ya networks pitch black.

    • WSSWSS Member
      edited February 2017

      Just for giggles, I decided to sysbench my own service similar to the $5 special from the LEB front page on January 6th:

      `./sysbench --num-threads=1 --test=cpu --cpu-max-prime=50000 run
      sysbench 0.4.12: multi-threaded system evaluation benchmark

      Running the test with following options:
      Number of threads: 1

      Doing CPU performance benchmark

      Threads started!
      Done.

      Maximum prime number checked in CPU test: 50000

      Test execution summary:
      total time: 86.9962s
      total number of events: 10000
      total time taken by event execution: 86.9922
      per-request statistics:
      min: 8.50ms
      avg: 8.70ms
      max: 13.86ms
      approx. 95 percentile: 8.98ms

      Threads fairness:
      events (avg/stddev): 10000.0000/0.00
      execution time (avg/stddev): 86.9922/0.00`

      OK, so...

      `./sysbench --num-threads=4 --test=cpu --cpu-max-prime=50000 run
      sysbench 0.4.12: multi-threaded system evaluation benchmark

      Running the test with following options:
      Number of threads: 4

      Doing CPU performance benchmark

      Threads started!
      Done.

      Maximum prime number checked in CPU test: 50000

      Test execution summary:
      total time: 86.6999s
      total number of events: 10000
      total time taken by event execution: 346.7389
      per-request statistics:
      min: 11.53ms
      avg: 34.67ms
      max: 59.69ms
      approx. 95 percentile: 40.40ms

      Threads fairness:
      events (avg/stddev): 2500.0000/0.71
      execution time (avg/stddev): 86.6847/0.01
      `

      Interesting that a special for 25% of the usual price gives you.. 25% of the service. Cancelling out of general principle.

      I can't get this damn formatting to work. Anyhow- I paid more than $5/mo for this deal, I got the "Self-Managed 300GB VPS" deal on this one.

      I won't be back until @bsdguy is released.

    • NickNick Administrator, Provider
      edited February 2017

      @teamacc said:

      @Nick said:

      @AnthonySmith said:
      wow...

      Also hard set cpulimit to 100 in case it was 25 before as someone suggested.

      What about all other clients you sold services to? Do they still get the limited cpu power until they also make a 30-post thread on LET?

      Or anyone can drop me a PM with issues. No core speed was advertised and they are vCPU's, not full cores as advertised on the KVM plan from the same offer. Same 4gb plan offered for years.

    • @Nick said:

      @teamacc said:

      @Nick said:

      @AnthonySmith said:
      wow...

      Also hard set cpulimit to 100 in case it was 25 before as someone suggested.

      What about all other clients you sold services to? Do they still get the limited cpu power until they also make a 30-post thread on LET?

      Or anyone can drop me a PM with issues. No core speed was advertised and they are vCPU's, not full cores as advertised on the KVM plan from the same offer.

      One would assume that if one vCPU can obtain a certain benchmark, 4 vCPUs can at least obtain double that benchmark score, if not 4x.

      The current design seems broken, and given that you admit such by altering settings for one client, why not alter them for all your clients?

      I like my uptime down low and my servers all hacked. Can see me droppin' twenty-fours with a router in the rack.
      Ya like ya Switch-Ports hot and ya servers all hacked. If ya pings real high and ya networks pitch black.

    • MikePTMikePT Member, Provider
      edited February 2017

      @Nick said:

      @teamacc said:

      @Nick said:

      @AnthonySmith said:
      wow...

      Also hard set cpulimit to 100 in case it was 25 before as someone suggested.

      What about all other clients you sold services to? Do they still get the limited cpu power until they also make a 30-post thread on LET?

      Or anyone can drop me a PM with issues. No core speed was advertised and they are vCPU's, not full cores as advertised on the KVM plan from the same offer. Same 4gb plan offered for years.

      CPU Governator / CPU Dynamic Scale, can be disabled in the nodes.

      You shouldn't set a limit for 1000% / 10000.
      Note that the solusvm's limits aren't that good, it doesn't limit properly. It sucks.

    • NickNick Administrator, Provider

      @MikePT said:

      @Nick said:

      @teamacc said:

      @Nick said:

      @AnthonySmith said:
      wow...

      Also hard set cpulimit to 100 in case it was 25 before as someone suggested.

      What about all other clients you sold services to? Do they still get the limited cpu power until they also make a 30-post thread on LET?

      Or anyone can drop me a PM with issues. No core speed was advertised and they are vCPU's, not full cores as advertised on the KVM plan from the same offer. Same 4gb plan offered for years.

      CPU Governator / CPU Dynamic Scale, can be disabled in the nodes.

      You shouldn't set a limit for 1000% / 10000.
      Note that the solusvm's limits aren't that good, it doesn't limit properly. It sucks.

      Thanks @MikePT - I will check into that.

    • WSS said: I can't get this damn formatting to work. Anyhow- I paid more than $5/mo for this deal, I got the "Self-Managed 300GB VPS" deal on this one.

      So you got the same vps as me, but managed? Interesting.

    • WSSWSS Member
      edited February 2017

      @FredQc said:

      WSS said: I can't get this damn formatting to work. Anyhow- I paid more than $5/mo for this deal, I got the "Self-Managed 300GB VPS" deal on this one.

      So you got the same vps as me, but managed? Interesting.

      Self-Managed. It wasn't one of the $5 specials, but the specs were pretty much precisely the same. I don't disagree with their practice of keeping any random retard from pegging the CPU, but if I am told I have 4 cores, I don't generally expect to be limited to using (the equivalent to) one of them.

      Thanked by 1Nick

      I won't be back until @bsdguy is released.

    • WSS said: Self-Managed.

      I've read too fast, sorry. Well, if I order one vps with 4 cores, I want to be able to burst that 4 cores (400%). If not then I would order a vps with just one core :P

      Thanked by 1WSS
    • @FredQc said:

      WSS said: Self-Managed.

      I've read too fast, sorry. Well, if I order one vps with 4 cores, I want to be able to burst that 4 cores (400%). If not then I would order a vps with just one core :P

      So, we're in agreement. :)

      I won't be back until @bsdguy is released.

    • @Nick I suggest to have it more clear in your advertisement that a vCPU is not a full node core but a capped one. And rise a little the speed cap to something more than ~800MHz with fair share, of course. This way, you will not have any other troubles with your clients. Anyway, 5$ per month for 300GB hard disk, 5TB bandwidth and 4GB of memory, even with the speed of a single full core, couldn't be stated as a bad deal...

      In any case, most of providers that do advertise vCPU, do not offer the full speed of a plain core but a capped one. If speed is critical, then, any potential byuer should ask the provider what are the hard limits of the core's speed.

      • If a program actually fits in memory and has enough disk space, it is guaranteed to crash.
      • If such a program has not crashed yet, it is waiting for a critical moment before it crashes.

    • WSSWSS Member
      edited February 2017

      Also, interestingly enough, my VPS seems to have me locked down to 1.00 CPU time, which I expect to not be as well managed for the hard bursting numerics.

      top - 03:33:35 up 63 days, 4:52, 1 user, load average: 1.01, 1.05, 1.00

      I won't be back until @bsdguy is released.

    • AnthonySmithAnthonySmith Top Provider
      edited February 2017

      Nick said: No core speed was advertised

      So typical of a CC company, its what you don't tell people that is actually important, this thread is so completely ridiculous.

      Those of you who know why, know; those of you who don't, have no reason to know better or you know... work for HVH.

      I am pretty shocked this is the standard we have slipped too these days.

      First it was the 'dedicated' servers that turned out to be KVM VM's, now this.

      Thanked by 4Darwin Riz WSS PremiumN

      Had enough of the scams on lowendbox, lowendtalk is now being infiltrated by corruption so I have chosen to make an low end exit #lexit for now - you can find me HERE

    • @AnthonySmith said:
      I am pretty shocked this is the standard we have slipped too these days.

      First it was the 'dedicated' servers that turned out to be KVM VM's, now this.

      Ya know, I've been toying with making lower-and-lower end VPS just to amuse myself, but so far I can't find anyone who will give me an ne2k and VNC so I can setup Lantastic.. I don't think I'd ever need more than a quarter-CPU..

      I won't be back until @bsdguy is released.

    • AnthonySmith said: this thread is so completely ridiculous.

      When I thought about opening this thread or not I thought exactly about this, that it would become a mess and a CC bashing thread etc. It was not my intention anyhow. But thanks to me now, it as been resolved :) Well, thanks @teamacc in first place

    • @FredQc said:

      AnthonySmith said: this thread is so completely ridiculous.

      When I thought about opening this thread or not I thought exactly about this, that it would become a mess and a CC bashing thread etc. It was not my intention anyhow. But thanks to me now, it as been resolved :) Well, thanks @teamacc in first place

      There will always be CC bashing, and the reason for doing so is pretty clear in this case. Someone has to call them on their shit.

      Thanked by 3ATHK FredQc WSS
    Sign In or Register to comment.