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.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
[Somagu] 512 MB KVM (NAT based) in South Korea, Asia @ $0.64/month .
vCPU: 1 core
Memory: 512 MB
Disk: 20 GB
Traffic: Pay-Per-Traffic (In / Out 0.08 USD)
Network: IP 59.22.167.217 - Korea Telecom line with 1 GBits uplink.
IP: NAT (Network Address Translation) based.
Pricing: Hourly based billing, 720 KRW ($0.64 USD) / month
Homepage:
Order specs are also available. If you're first to use NAT based VPS, please check https://www.somagu.com/docs/en/login.html#how-to-access-to-ssh-server-of-your-vps link about how to access your box using SSH from the remote.
Please feel free to test 2 hours with trial credits which be available when you sign up. And let me know or leave a topic at https://www.somagu.com/forums/10 link if there's an issue or your feedbacks. :-)
Comments
No traffic included, sucks.
How about free 100GB 50GB per month for LET users?
interesting pricing
IPv6 available?
20 enough)
any download speedtest file ?
Hmm, looks like the test IP has 100% loss from anywhere in China. Is that normal?
http://ping.pe/59.22.167.217
0.08 usd for what?
From their site: "Please note that the network bandwidth is 90 KRW per 1 GiB. And both input and output bytes are charged."
That would add up pretty quickly: 1TB of traffic = 80 USD...
and that doesn't even include a good route to China (judging by the test IP, none at all)
So less than 80gb of traffic per month to keep this below 7 usd. That is input+output summed.
https://www.somagu.com/docs/en/pricing.html
"Please note that the network bandwidth is 90 KRW per 1 GiB. And both input and output bytes are charged."
You did not get my point.
The trial credit is too small, I haven't finish setup the VPS and get suspended for out of credit.
I used to have one preconfigured OpenVPN server with them for about half a year while I was in Seoul. Their control panel was user friendly and bug-free. Back then I paid a little more than $2 for 400GB bandwidth per month if I remember it correctly. I couldn't find anything cheaper than that in South Korea. The network speed was pretty fast for me, I didn't have any problems streaming videos or downloading large files. I was pretty satisfied with their service.
But now, $30 for 400GB bandwidth?
Seriously?
just blocked
Actually, in South Korea, provider who is the most cost efficient is AWS Lightsail, giving 1TB of bandwidth (although they calculate both in and out for the allowance) for $3.5. Even local companies are more expensive then that. Although it would have been nice if they at least included some traffice allowance for usable service...
Definitely correct, though AWS uses ChinaNet, not CN2 (so speeds to China, especially Unicom, are not good).
0 enough
Iwinv could be an option which will give you 10GB/day of traffic (rolls over for that month) for 4000KRW(~3.55USD), dunno if it supports foreign credit cards though.
You can't blame the price. But pay/traffic? c'mon
Well, KT does have quite an expensive internet for business customers. It costs around 5000USD/mo for a dedicated 1Gbit/s line according to this, although not sure if this is the one their using..
That's quite neat, and 10GB is (comparatively) a lot of traffic. Do they have a test IP?
Not that i know of, but their website is hosted in their network so you can ping/mtr their website (iwinv.kr).
They're not blocked in China and latency is extremely low (~40ms Unicom / ~100 Telecom). Definitely will spin up a VM when I go to China again.
Edit: if current currency conversions hold, they actually beat Lightsail price-wise by a wide margin too..
0 already too much.
Before he had 400GB included for 3.18$/mo.
I would say, a decent price increase.
Yes.
-5
You need to give the host 5GB free wifi at home, or pay them before using the server, so you can be at 0 and start from there.
Should be all blocked by GFW already..
chances that the only ipv4 being blacklisted is high when too many users behind NAT doing illegal things
it would be good if there's a cap to the quota (i.e drop all connections when quota has reached)