Howdy, Stranger!

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


[Review] ContraWeb €8.50/year KVM
New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.

All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.

[Review] ContraWeb €8.50/year KVM

ucxoucxo Member
edited February 2017 in Reviews

I recently stumbled across a really enticing offer from a new LET member: @ContraWeb offers a 512 MB KVM VPS in the Netherlands for €8.50/year.
I didn't know anything about them yet, but at 8.50€, there wasn't much to lose.

Apparently I wasn't the only one thinking that — they got absolutely slammed with orders and didn't have enough capacity to provision them right away.
Now, 10 days after my order, things have settled down and I thought I'd share my experience:

  • Like I said, they had a bit of a hiccup when they got slammed with orders and had to set up a new host node to compensate — the ETA for my server was pushed back twice, and only when I explicitly asked for an update. Ordered on Feb 7th, got the server on 15th. Oh well, for a €0.71/month server I can wait a few days.

  • I ran the usual tests when the server was provisioned; results below.
    Note that the server isn't installed automatically, so it won't be reachable until you select and install your OS via SolusVM!

  • The server comes with a single IPv6 by default, but you can request a /64 subnet via ticket (for free).

  • SolusVM doesn't support setting reverse DNS (IPv4 and v6) yet, but it's on the roadmap and until then you can open a ticket for it.

  • Now that the "host node crisis" is over, ticket reply times are impressive: All my tickets except one were answered (and solved!) within 1 to 10 minutes. Brian is very friendly and seems to know what he's doing.

  • And finally, there are also options to upgrade the €8.50 plan, e.g. double the resources for double the price, or additional storage for €3/year per 10 GB.

Bottom line: really impressed so far, would recommend.

Edit: Apparently it wasn't obvious enough, so I'll state it clearly: I've had the server for 2 days so far, so I can't judge its long-time stability yet, only the service and performance I've seen so far.

And no, I don't get anything for writing this review. :(
Unless @ContraWeb would like to … ;)

ioping -R /dev/vda

--- /dev/vda (block device 10 GiB) ioping statistics ---
min/avg/max/mdev = 29 us / 158 us / 3.33 ms / 66 us

bench.sh -46

System Info
-----------
Processor   : QEMU Virtual CPU version (cpu64-rhel6)
CPU Cores   : 1
Frequency   : 2099.998 MHz
Memory      : 494 MB
Swap        : 1023 MB
Uptime      : 1 day, 15:28,

OS      : Debian GNU/Linux 8
Arch        : x86_64 (64 Bit)
Kernel      : 3.16.0-4-amd64


Speedtest (IPv4 only)
---------------------
Your public IPv4 is 185.166.238.x

Location        Provider    Speed
CDN         Cachefly    43.4MB/s

Atlanta, GA, US     Coloat      9.95MB/s 
Dallas, TX, US      Softlayer   12.5MB/s 
Seattle, WA, US     Softlayer   10.3MB/s 
San Jose, CA, US    Softlayer   9.66MB/s 
Washington, DC, US  Softlayer   2.40MB/s 

Tokyo, Japan        Linode      6.59MB/s 
Singapore       Softlayer   5.15MB/s 

Rotterdam, Netherlands  id3.net     104MB/s
Haarlem, Netherlands    Leaseweb    72.9MB/s 


Speedtest (IPv6 only)
---------------------
Your public IPv6 is 2a06:7a01:12:0:x

Location        Provider    Speed
Atlanta, GA, US     Linode      17.7MB/s
Dallas, TX, US      Linode      4.90MB/s
Newark, NJ, US      Linode      19.8MB/s
Fremont, CA, US     Linode      208KB/s
Chicago, IL, US     Steadfast   11.7MB/s

Tokyo, Japan        Linode      6.56MB/s
Singapore       Linode      6.17MB/s

Frankfurt, Germany  Linode      603KB/s
London, UK      Linode      49.7MB/s
Haarlem, Netherlands    Leaseweb    54.7MB/s


Disk Speed
----------
I/O (1st run)   : 300 MB/s
I/O (2nd run)   : 306 MB/s
I/O (3rd run)   : 314 MB/s
Average I/O : 306.667 MB/s
Thanked by 3dedicados jvnadr joeri
«134

Comments

  • ucxo said: And no, I don't get anything for writing this review. :(

    You should! I just bought one to test it because of this thread! :P

  • Nice review. ContraWeb looks very promising so far. Do you know if it's run by one person?

  • @Wicked said:
    Nice review. ContraWeb looks very promising so far. Do you know if it's run by one person?

    We are with 2 people total. :)

  • @ContraWeb said:

    @Wicked said:
    Nice review. ContraWeb looks very promising so far. Do you know if it's run by one person?

    We are with 2 people total. :)

    Can you provide a test IP?

  • @jvnadr said:

    ucxo said: And no, I don't get anything for writing this review. :(

    You should! I just bought one to test it because of this thread! :P

    I would like to give people something for writing reviews but some people will call it unfair, and others will be mad because i don't give everyone who writes a good review about us something in return for it... =)

    Thanked by 1Maounique
  • qq7119 said: Can you provide a test IP?

    They seem to be pretty forthcoming with handing out 1-hour test VPSs, but I guess you can also ping their hostnode: 185.166.238.2

  • @ucxo said:

    qq7119 said: Can you provide a test IP?

    They seem to be pretty forthcoming with handing out 1-hour test VPSs, but I guess you can also ping their hostnode: 185.166.238.2

    If that's their host node, why is ssh enabled on port 22...

  • mfsmfs Banned, Member

    uh? port 22 looks pretty closed to me here

  • @mfs said:
    uh? port 22 looks pretty closed to me here

    It is now :)

  • Too bad, I can resist last time, but cannot after reading this. Ordered 1 to test and might add it to idle list later :-)

    Nice review then ...

    Thanked by 1ucxo
  • Yay, I've already convinced two people to buy new idle VMs! Now I feel like a proper member of LET! :D

  • If you're missing a operating systems please open a ticket, we are adding most missing operating systems tonight.

    This node has been up since yesterday thats why we don't have all operating systems on it yet.

    Thanked by 1ucxo
  • probably forgot this on the last post, can't remember if I did already: https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/1883954

    so far no problems, yet it only have been a few weeks since the offer first came up. IO seems to keep on being stable so far, as does the network freshly checked:

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    CPU model            : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
    Number of cores      : 1
    CPU frequency        : 2099.998 MHz
    Total amount of ram  : 492 MB
    Total amount of swap : 255 MB
    System uptime        : 9days, 23:37:26
    Load average         : 0.00, 0.00, 0.00
    OS                   : Debian GNU/Linux 9
    Arch                 : x86_64 (64 Bit)
    Kernel               : 4.9.0-1-amd64
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Node Name           IPv4 address        Download Speed
    CacheFly            205.234.175.175     38.9MB/s
    Vultr, Tokyo, JP        108.61.201.151      5.28MB/s
    Linode, Tokyo, JP       2400:8900::4b       5.88MB/s
    DO, Bangalore, IN       2400:6180:100:d0::8:9001        8.88MB/s
    Softlayer, Chennai, IN      2401:c900:1501:14::4        5.08MB/s
    Vultr, Singapore, SG        45.32.100.168       4.89MB/s
    DO, Singapore, SG       2400:6180:0:d0::31:6001     8.41MB/s
    Linode, Singapore, SG       2400:8901::4b       5.08MB/s
    Softlayer, Singapore, SG    2401:c900:1101:8::2     4.92MB/s
    Leaseweb, Singapore, SG     103.254.153.18      4.90MB/s
    Softlayer, HongKong, CN     119.81.130.170      301KB/s
    Leaseweb, HongKong, CN      2001:df1:801:a002::3649     3.62MB/s
    Vultr, Sydney, AUS      108.61.212.117      4.44MB/s
    Softlayer, Sydney, AUS      2401:c900:1401:2d::4        2.77MB/s
    Softlayer, Melbourne, AUS   2401:c900:1301:2f::4        3.75MB/s
    Tele2, Gothenberg, SE       2a00:800:1010:1::2      35.1MB/s
    Tele2, Kista, SE        2a00:800:1010:3::2      39.2MB/s
    Softlayer, Milan, IT        2a03:8180:1501:27::4        66.8MB/s
    Prometeus, Milan, IT        37.247.53.10        33.2MB/s
    Tele2, Riga, LV     2a00:800:1010:9::2      18.9MB/s
    Tele2, Vilnius, LT      2a00:800:1010:6::2      33.9MB/s
    Server.LU, Luxembourg, LU   94.242.192.2        57.5MB/s
    Tele2, Frankfurt, DE        2a00:800:1010:2::2      70.6MB/s
    Vultr, Frankfurt, DE        108.61.210.117      78.0MB/s
    Linode, Frankfurt, DE       2a01:7e01::4b       16.7MB/s
    Softlayer, Frankfurt, DE    2a03:8180:1201:45::4        59.2MB/s
    Leaseweb, Frankfurt, DE     2a00:c98:2030:a034::21      81.0MB/s
    DO, Frankfurt, DE       2a03:b0c0:3:d0::1f:4001     48.0MB/s
    Vultr, Paris, FR        108.61.209.127      57.4MB/s
    OVH, Gravelines, FR     2001:41d0:a:79c8::1     29.1MB/s
    OVH, Strasbourg, FR     2001:41d0:8:a051::1     20.1MB/s
    OVH, Roubaix, FR        2001:41d0:2:876a::1     72.9MB/s
    Online.Net, Paris, FR       62.210.18.40        67.4MB/s
    Tele2, Amsterdam, NL        2a00:800:1010:8::2      75.9MB/s
    Vultr, Amsterdam, NL        108.61.198.102      64.8MB/s
    DO 2, Amsterdam, NL     2a03:b0c0:0:1010::d:8001        52.4MB/s
    DO 3, Amsterdam, NL     2a03:b0c0:2:d0::19:f001     60.5MB/s
    Leaseweb, Amsterdam, NL     2001:1af8:4700:b210::33     70.8MB/s
    i3d, Amsterdam, NL      2a00:1630:1:13d::13d        75.8MB/s
    Vultr, London, UK       108.61.196.101      54.7MB/s
    DO, London, UK      2a03:b0c0:1:a1::55e:4001        99.5MB/s
    Linode, London, UK      2a01:7e00::4b       82.1MB/s
    Softlayer, London, UK       2a03:8180:1101:5::4     53.6MB/s
    Softlayer, Mexico, MX       2607:f0d0:1c01::4       8.76MB/s
    Softlayer, Brazil, BR       2607:f0d0:1d01:12::4        7.24MB/s
    DO 1, NYC, USA      2604:a880:400:d0::1:2001        11.6MB/s
    DO 2, NYC, USA      2604:a880:0:1010::c:f001        19.9MB/s
    DO 3, NYC, USA      2604:a880:800:10::69:e001       19.4MB/s
    Vultr, New Jersey, USA      108.61.149.182      13.2MB/s
    Linode, Newark, USA     2600:3c03::4b       18.6MB/s
    Vultr, Illinois, USA        107.191.51.12       9.94MB/s
    Vultr, Atlanta, USA     108.61.193.166      14.1MB/s
    Linode, Atlanta, USA        2600:3c02::4b       15.3MB/s
    Vultr, Miami, USA       104.156.244.232     12.2MB/s
    Vultr, Washington, USA      108.61.194.105      9.32MB/s
    Softlayer, Seattle, USA     2607:f0d0:2001:3::2     9.33MB/s
    Leaseweb, Washington, USA   2604:9a00:2010:a001:1:face:bad:c0de     2.12MB/s
    Vultr, Dallas, USA      108.61.224.175      10.1MB/s
    Linode, Dallas, USA     2600:3c00::4b       13.2MB/s
    Softlayer, Dallas, USA      2607:f0d0:1101:4::2     11.9MB/s
    Leaseweb, Dallas, USA       2606:9880:2100:b010::1531       12.9MB/s
    Vultr, Los Angeles, USA     108.61.219.200      6.96MB/s
    DO, San Francisco, USA      2604:a880:2:d0::3:1001      9.77MB/s
    DO, San Francisco, USA      2604:a880:1:20::dd8:3001        10.1MB/s
    Linode, Fremont, USA        2600:3c01::4b       7.17MB/s
    Leaseweb, San Francisco, USA    2605:fe80:2100:b001::5187       10.4MB/s
    DO, Toronto, CA     2604:a880:cad:d0::5001      13.1MB/s
    OVH, Beauharnois, CA        2607:5300:60:44a5::1        4.22MB/s
    EastLink, Canada, CA        24.222.0.194        5.90MB/s
    Softlayer, Montreal, CA     2607:f0d0:3701:16::4        15.5MB/s
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    I/O speed(1st run) : 330 MB/s
    I/O speed(2nd run) : 322 MB/s
    I/O speed(3rd run) : 319 MB/s
    Average I/O speed  : 323.667 MB/s
    

    so far I like it, haven't put any work on it though. just don't know what to use it for. simply needed to have one, as long as they are available ^^

    Thanked by 1ucxo
  • Falzo said: so far no problems, yet it only have been a few weeks since the offer first came up. IO seems to keep on being stable so far, as does the network freshly checked:

    >

    simply needed to have one, as long as they are available ^^

    Heck, if it went down to half the performance, it would still be a great deal! :)

  • NekkiNekki Veteran
    edited February 2017

    ucxo said: Ordered on Feb 7th, got the server on 15th.

    Feb 2017?

  • Nekki said:

    Feb 2017?

    I think so. In the order thread they posted that their original node had gotten full and that people could preorder if they wanted to wait for a new node to come up. It sounds like that happened here.

    I got one on the original node and it worked very nicely after original setup (probably while everyone else was slamming it with tests too). Per the usual LET lifecycle it's been idling since then, but I just ssh'd in and it's still up and doing fine.

  • ContraWeb said: I would like to give people something for writing reviews but some people will call it unfair, and others will be mad because i don't give everyone who writes a good review about us something in return for it... =)

    I was joking, definitely do not follow this route...

  • @Nekki said:

    ucxo said: Ordered on Feb 7th, got the server on 15th.

    Feb 2017?

    Yup.

  • @ucxo said:

    @Nekki said:

    ucxo said: Ordered on Feb 7th, got the server on 15th.

    Feb 2017?

    Yup.

    So you've had the server less than 2 days?

    Thanked by 1vimalware
  • Nekki said: So you've had the server less than 2 days?

    Correct.

  • @ucxo said:

    Nekki said: So you've had the server less than 2 days?

    Correct.

    Could you summarise what you've learned in that time, briefly?

  • Nekki said: Could you summarise what you've learned in that time, briefly?

    Friendly and competent support, good hardware and network performance.

  • @ucxo said:

    Nekki said: Could you summarise what you've learned in that time, briefly?

    Friendly and competent support, good hardware and network performance.

    Would it be fair to say that the latter two points are somewhat anecdotal assessments, based on the short period of time so far?

  • @Nekki It's pretty obvious what you're aiming at.

    I never claimed I could judge their longevity (contraweb.net was registered on 2016-09-28, by the way). We'll see about that in due time and you can bet your bottom that I'll chew them out on here if they kick the bucket in any non-graceful way.

  • ucxoucxo Member
    edited February 2017

    ↑ Oops, race condition there.

    Nekki said: Would it be fair to say that the latter two points are somewhat anecdotal assessments, based on the short period of time so far?

    As in, what will happen when their node fills up? Yeah, guess you're right about that.

    On the other hand, I've seen long-established providers (I'm looking at you, Netcup) that had admirable performance for years — which then suddenly went to hell.
    That's left me with the opinion that benchmarks are only ever small snapshots that can give you a rough idea, but that you need to personally try out a service for a while before you run anything productive on it.

  • @ucxo said:
    @Nekki It's pretty obvious what you're aiming at.

    I never claimed I could judge their longevity (contraweb.net was registered on 2016-09-28, by the way). We'll see about that in due time and you can bet your bottom that I'll chew them out on here if they kick the bucket in any non-graceful way.

    I'd like to ask if you feel it's right to recommend a provider to other members of the forum based on less than 48 hours experience?

    It's fine saying that you'll 'chew them out', but by that time the damage may have been done and people have purchased off the back of your thread.

    To me, it feels somewhat irresponsible, but I'm interested in your thoughts on the matter.

    Thanked by 2Yura vimalware
  • ucxo said: On the other hand, I've seen long-established providers (I'm looking at you, Netcup) that had admirable performance for years — which then suddenly went to hell.

    That's left me with the opinion that benchmarks are only ever small snapshots that can give you a rough idea, but that you need to personally try out a service for a while before you run anything productive on it.

  • @ucxo said:

    ucxo said: On the other hand, I've seen long-established providers (I'm looking at you, Netcup) that had admirable performance for years — which then suddenly went to hell.

    That's left me with the opinion that benchmarks are only ever small snapshots that can give you a rough idea, but that you need to personally try out a service for a while before you run anything productive on it.

    Have you seen many long-established providers go to shit? Anyone aside from Netcup?

  • @Nekki said:
    Have you seen many long-established providers go to shit? Anyone aside from Netcup?

    Off topic, but what's so bad about Netcup?

Sign In or Register to comment.