Howdy, Stranger!

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


Fiberia.io - KVM VPS, 4GB RAM, 50GB SSD, Snapshots, Custom ISO, Firewall - $2.90/Month | NL - Page 4
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.

Fiberia.io - KVM VPS, 4GB RAM, 50GB SSD, Snapshots, Custom ISO, Firewall - $2.90/Month | NL

1246

Comments

  • 100 IPv6?

  • ViridWebViridWeb Member, Host Rep

    @SeederKun said:
    100 IPv6?

    Yes

  • ViridWebViridWeb Member, Host Rep
    edited September 2021

    @dev_vps said:

    @skorupion said:
    it makes no sense because if I get this plan twice :

    1gbps port is shared … so you can’t add them
    same is the case with shared vCore … it could may be just 12.5% allocated

    1 vCore is equals to 50% HWT
    Which mean 2 vCore is 1 Dedicated Core

    Edited: It's clearly written here: https://fiberia.io/terms-of-service

  • @ViridWeb said:

    @dev_vps said:

    @skorupion said:
    it makes no sense because if I get this plan twice :

    1gbps port is shared … so you can’t add them
    same is the case with shared vCore … it could may be just 12.5% allocated

    1 vCore is equals to 50% HWT
    Which mean 2 vCore is 1 Dedicated Core

    Edited: It's clearly written here: https://fiberia.io/terms-of-service

    Thank you for the clarification that 2 vCore is a dedicated cpu core with both HWT. But, if pass through is not enabled, the cpu performance will be degraded.

    And adding to the fact, it is a weak cpu does not help either

  • ViridWebViridWeb Member, Host Rep

    @dev_vps said:

    @ViridWeb said:

    @dev_vps said:

    @skorupion said:
    it makes no sense because if I get this plan twice :

    1gbps port is shared … so you can’t add them
    same is the case with shared vCore … it could may be just 12.5% allocated

    1 vCore is equals to 50% HWT
    Which mean 2 vCore is 1 Dedicated Core

    Edited: It's clearly written here: https://fiberia.io/terms-of-service

    Thank you for the clarification that 2 vCore is a dedicated cpu core with both HWT. But, if pass through is not enabled, the cpu performance will be degraded.

    And adding to the fact, it is a weak cpu does not help either

    2vCore = 1 dedicated HWT core

    Yes passthrough is disabled by default and we have no plan to enable it for these Silver CPUs
    That's why the pricing of these VMs are so cheap even with High RAM and large SSD storage.

    We are planning to launch new plans with EPYC CPU and Nvme disk. We will try to enable Passthrough on those nodes by default.

  • dev_vpsdev_vps Member
    edited September 2021

    @ViridWeb said:

    2vCore = 1 dedicated HWT core

    Yes passthrough is disabled by default and we have no plan to enable it for these Silver CPUs
    That's why the pricing of these VMs are so cheap even with High RAM and large SSD storage.

    We are planning to launch new plans with EPYC CPU and Nvme disk. We will try to enable Passthrough on those nodes by default.

    I disagree with your observation that pricing of your plans is cheap, considering the cpu performance is so weak. of course, you are entitled to your opinion.

    My VPS
    2 dedicated CPU HWTs
    16 gb RAM
    80 gb SSD storage

    I can post YABS benchmark too, if you are interested.

  • ViridWebViridWeb Member, Host Rep
    edited September 2021

    @dev_vps said:

    @ViridWeb said:

    2vCore = 1 dedicated HWT core

    Yes passthrough is disabled by default and we have no plan to enable it for these Silver CPUs
    That's why the pricing of these VMs are so cheap even with High RAM and large SSD storage.

    We are planning to launch new plans with EPYC CPU and Nvme disk. We will try to enable Passthrough on those nodes by default.

    I disagree with your observation that pricing of your plans is cheap, considering the cpu performance is so weak. of course, you are entitled to your opinion.

    My VPS
    2 dedicated CPU HWTs
    16 gb RAM
    80 gb SSD storage

    I can post YABS benchmark too, if you are interested.

    Yes you can disagree, that's the best thing of democratic world.
    BTW, We are not comparing with others. But for us $2.90 monthly with a dedicated IPv4 and these resources are cheap and affordable.

    We are almost charging nothing for resources if you see the latest pricing of IPv4

    And yes we are totally with you that the CPU performance is relatively low.

    But it's not that bad for that price (Our opinion ofcourse)

    Anyway it's totally fine. Hope you will try our service once we launch our EPYC Nvme series in future. :smile:

  • henixhenix Member
    edited September 2021

    Custom ISO?

    ///nvm i'm blind

    @ViridWeb said: If you still want to use a custom ISO you can directly upload from our console, There's no need to contact support for that.

    Thanked by 1ViridWeb
  • ViridWebViridWeb Member, Host Rep

    @henix said:
    Custom ISO?

    ///nvm i'm blind

    @ViridWeb said: If you still want to use a custom ISO you can directly upload from our console, There's no need to contact support for that.

    Yes you can upload your own ISO anytime you want.

  • @ViridWeb said:

    Hope you will try our service once we launch our EPYC NVMe series in future. :smile:

    definitely, if the price is right.
    Wishing you the very best for upcoming upgrade and expansion

  • ViridWebViridWeb Member, Host Rep

    @dev_vps said:

    @ViridWeb said:

    Hope you will try our service once we launch our EPYC NVMe series in future. :smile:

    definitely, if the price is right.
    Wishing you the very best for upcoming upgrade and expansion

    Thank you so much. We will try to do our best

  • adlyadly Veteran

    @ViridWeb said:
    Yes passthrough is disabled by default and we have no plan to enable it for these Silver CPUs

    Why? Also the kvm32/kvm64 CPU models are not recommended and only supported for compatibility with ancient versions of qemu.

  • @adly said:

    @ViridWeb said:
    Yes passthrough is disabled by default and we have no plan to enable it for these Silver CPUs

    Why? Also the kvm32/kvm64 CPU models are not recommended and only supported for compatibility with ancient versions of qemu.

    one of the possible reasons could be that the max cpu performance is limited for every VPS user. with high memory and bigger ssd, VPS could be still use case for some of the users, even with single core geekbench5 score of less than 360

    Thanked by 1adly
  • ViridWebViridWeb Member, Host Rep

    @adly said:

    @ViridWeb said:
    Yes passthrough is disabled by default and we have no plan to enable it for these Silver CPUs

    Why? Also the kvm32/kvm64 CPU models are not recommended and only supported for compatibility with ancient versions of qemu.

    We appreciate your feedback. We did some changes,

    # ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## #
    #              Yet-Another-Bench-Script              #
    #                     v2021-06-05                    #
    # https://github.com/masonr/yet-another-bench-script #
    # ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## #
    
    Mon Oct  4 17:13:36 UTC 2021
    
    Basic System Information:
    ---------------------------------
    Processor  : Intel(R) Xeon(R) Silver 4110 CPU @ 2.10GHz
    CPU cores  : 1 @ 2100.004 MHz
    AES-NI     : ✔ Enabled
    VM-x/AMD-V : ✔ Enabled
    RAM        : 3.8 GiB
    Swap       : 0.0 KiB
    Disk       : 48.4 GiB
    
    fio Disk Speed Tests (Mixed R/W 50/50):
    ---------------------------------
    Block Size | 4k            (IOPS) | 64k           (IOPS)
      ------   | ---            ----  | ----           ----
    Read       | 43.43 MB/s   (10.8k) | 426.60 MB/s   (6.6k)
    Write      | 43.51 MB/s   (10.8k) | 428.85 MB/s   (6.7k)
    Total      | 86.94 MB/s   (21.7k) | 855.45 MB/s  (13.3k)
               |                      |
    Block Size | 512k          (IOPS) | 1m            (IOPS)
      ------   | ---            ----  | ----           ----
    Read       | 1.27 GB/s     (2.4k) | 1.26 GB/s     (1.2k)
    Write      | 1.34 GB/s     (2.6k) | 1.35 GB/s     (1.3k)
    Total      | 2.61 GB/s     (5.1k) | 2.61 GB/s     (2.5k)
    
    iperf3 Network Speed Tests (IPv4):
    ---------------------------------
    Provider        | Location (Link)           | Send Speed      | Recv Speed
                    |                           |                 |
    Clouvider       | London, UK (10G)          | 862 Mbits/sec   | 926 Mbits/sec
    Online.net      | Paris, FR (10G)           | 907 Mbits/sec   | 923 Mbits/sec
    WorldStream     | The Netherlands (10G)     | busy            | 927 Mbits/sec
    Performing IPv4 iperf3 send test to Biznet (Attempt #3 of 5)...
    Biznet          | Jakarta, Indonesia (1G)   | busy            | busy
    Clouvider       | NYC, NY, US (10G)         | 569 Mbits/sec   | 685 Mbits/sec
    Velocity Online | Tallahassee, FL, US (10G) | 122 Mbits/sec   | 489 Mbits/sec
    Clouvider       | Los Angeles, CA, US (10G) | 813 Mbits/sec   | 452 Mbits/sec
    Iveloz Telecom  | Sao Paulo, BR (2G)        | 596 Mbits/sec   | 388 Mbits/sec
    
    iperf3 Network Speed Tests (IPv6):
    ---------------------------------
    Provider        | Location (Link)           | Send Speed      | Recv Speed
                    |                           |                 |
    Clouvider       | London, UK (10G)          | 909 Mbits/sec   | 917 Mbits/sec
    Online.net      | Paris, FR (10G)           | 903 Mbits/sec   | 917 Mbits/sec
    WorldStream     | The Netherlands (10G)     | 898 Mbits/sec   | 919 Mbits/sec
    Clouvider       | NYC, NY, US (10G)         | 858 Mbits/sec   | 272 Mbits/sec
    Clouvider       | Los Angeles, CA, US (10G) | 818 Mbits/sec   | 408 Mbits/sec
    
    Geekbench 5 Benchmark Test:
    ---------------------------------
    Test            | Value
                    |
    Single Core     | 327
    Multi Core      | 323
    Full Test       | https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/10237513
    
    Thanked by 2adly Warkos
  • dev_vpsdev_vps Member
    edited October 2021

    @ViridWeb said:

         Geekbench 5 Benchmark Test:
         ---------------------------------
         Test            | Value
                         |
         Single Core     | 327
         Multi Core      | 323
         Full Test       | https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/10237513
         

    This Geekbench 5 score is pretty low, in my opinion.

  • WarkosWarkos Member
    edited October 2021

    It's nice you finally enabled aes-ni and virtualization. Could I get them enabled in my vps by opening a ticket?

  • ViridWebViridWeb Member, Host Rep

    @dev_vps said:

    @ViridWeb said:

    >      Geekbench 5 Benchmark Test:
    >      ---------------------------------
    >      Test            | Value
    >                      |
    >      Single Core     | 327
    >      Multi Core      | 323
    >      Full Test       | https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/10237513
    >      

    This Geekbench 5 score is pretty low, in my opinion.

    Yes it's low if you compare with other CPUs.
    But we are always transparent and mentioned that these budget VMs are not for CPU intensive tasks.

    We will definitely add more powerful processors in future to improve the performance

    @Warkos said:
    It's nice you finally enabled aes-ni and virtualization. Could I get them enabled in my vps by opening a ticket?

    Of course we will enable it for you. Rules are same for all.

    Kindly please open a ticket. :smile:

    Thanked by 1Warkos
  • dev_vpsdev_vps Member
    edited October 2021

    @ViridWeb said:

    @dev_vps said:

    @ViridWeb said:

    > >      Geekbench 5 Benchmark Test:
    > >      ---------------------------------
    > >      Test            | Value
    > >                      |
    > >      Single Core     | 327
    > >      Multi Core      | 323
    > >      Full Test       | https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/10237513
    > >      

    This Geekbench 5 score is pretty low, in my opinion.

    Yes it's low if you compare with other CPUs.
    But we are always transparent and mentioned that these budget VMs are not for CPU intensive tasks.

    You are missing the main point.

    The geekbench 5 score for Xeon Silver 4110 2.1 dedicated core thread should be in the range of 650-680. But we are seeing score around 330 (even after enabling both the flags)

    That means, most likely, overloaded node.

    Thanked by 1adly
  • ViridWebViridWeb Member, Host Rep

    @dev_vps said:

    @ViridWeb said:

    @dev_vps said:

    @ViridWeb said:

    > > >      Geekbench 5 Benchmark Test:
    > > >      ---------------------------------
    > > >      Test            | Value
    > > >                      |
    > > >      Single Core     | 327
    > > >      Multi Core      | 323
    > > >      Full Test       | https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/10237513
    > > >      

    This Geekbench 5 score is pretty low, in my opinion.

    Yes it's low if you compare with other CPUs.
    But we are always transparent and mentioned that these budget VMs are not for CPU intensive tasks.

    You are missing the main point.

    The geekbench 5 score for Xeon Silver 4110 2.1 dedicated core thread should be in the range of 650-680. But we are seeing score around 330 (even after enabling both the flags)

    That means, most likely, overloaded node.

    Nodes are not even full yet..
    So it's strange to see these score level..
    We are still looking for the issue to fix it..

    Thank you again for your feedback

  • dev_vpsdev_vps Member
    edited October 2021

    @ViridWeb said:

    @dev_vps said:

    @ViridWeb said:

    @dev_vps said:

    @ViridWeb said:

    > > > >      Geekbench 5 Benchmark Test:
    > > > >      ---------------------------------
    > > > >      Test            | Value
    > > > >                      |
    > > > >      Single Core     | 327
    > > > >      Multi Core      | 323
    > > > >      Full Test       | https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/10237513
    > > > >      

    This Geekbench 5 score is pretty low, in my opinion.

    Yes it's low if you compare with other CPUs.
    But we are always transparent and mentioned that these budget VMs are not for CPU intensive tasks.

    You are missing the main point.

    The geekbench 5 score for Xeon Silver 4110 2.1 dedicated core thread should be in the range of 650-680. But we are seeing score around 330 (even after enabling both the flags)

    That means, most likely, overloaded node.

    Nodes are not even full yet..
    So it's strange to see these score level..
    We are still looking for the issue to fix it..

    Thank you again for your feedback

    If you prefer, I can take one VPS for 5-day trial and run benchmark tests. You are free to assign me the VPS on the best possible node.

  • ViridWebViridWeb Member, Host Rep
    edited October 2021

    @dev_vps said:

    @ViridWeb said:

    @dev_vps said:

    @ViridWeb said:

    @dev_vps said:

    @ViridWeb said:

    > > > > >      Geekbench 5 Benchmark Test:
    > > > > >      ---------------------------------
    > > > > >      Test            | Value
    > > > > >                      |
    > > > > >      Single Core     | 327
    > > > > >      Multi Core      | 323
    > > > > >      Full Test       | https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/10237513
    > > > > >      

    This Geekbench 5 score is pretty low, in my opinion.

    Yes it's low if you compare with other CPUs.
    But we are always transparent and mentioned that these budget VMs are not for CPU intensive tasks.

    You are missing the main point.

    The geekbench 5 score for Xeon Silver 4110 2.1 dedicated core thread should be in the range of 650-680. But we are seeing score around 330 (even after enabling both the flags)

    That means, most likely, overloaded node.

    Nodes are not even full yet..
    So it's strange to see these score level..
    We are still looking for the issue to fix it..

    Thank you again for your feedback

    If you prefer, I can take one VPS for 5-day trial and run benchmark tests. You are free to assign me the VPS on the best possible node.

    After testing for few hours we have found there's no issue on our servers and Geekbench score is fine.

    Let me explain.

    As you know our vCore is 50% of HTW power,
    and the lowest plan $2.90 vServer-S has only 1 core

    That's why the Geekbench score is showing 320-335

    So yes for 50% of CPU 327 score is expected as we already said. There's no issue with node

    # For users who is looking for powerful CPU we would recommend to use at least from vServer-M plan

    Here's a test we have done recently on the same machine but with 100% CPU power.

    # ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## #
    #              Yet-Another-Bench-Script              #
    #                     v2021-06-05                    #
    # https://github.com/masonr/yet-another-bench-script #
    # ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## #
    
    Tue Oct  5 12:35:34 UTC 2021
    
    Basic System Information:
    ---------------------------------
    Processor  : Intel(R) Xeon(R) Silver 4110 CPU @ 2.10GHz
    CPU cores  : 1 @ 2100.004 MHz
    AES-NI     : ✔ Enabled
    VM-x/AMD-V : ✔ Enabled
    RAM        : 3.8 GiB
    Swap       : 0.0 KiB
    Disk       : 48.4 GiB
    
    fio Disk Speed Tests (Mixed R/W 50/50):
    ---------------------------------
    Block Size | 4k            (IOPS) | 64k           (IOPS)
      ------   | ---            ----  | ----           ----
    Read       | 92.28 MB/s   (23.0k) | 982.45 MB/s  (15.3k)
    Write      | 92.53 MB/s   (23.1k) | 987.62 MB/s  (15.4k)
    Total      | 184.81 MB/s  (46.2k) | 1.97 GB/s    (30.7k)
               |                      |
    Block Size | 512k          (IOPS) | 1m            (IOPS)
      ------   | ---            ----  | ----           ----
    Read       | 2.89 GB/s     (5.6k) | 3.42 GB/s     (3.3k)
    Write      | 3.04 GB/s     (5.9k) | 3.65 GB/s     (3.5k)
    Total      | 5.94 GB/s    (11.6k) | 7.08 GB/s     (6.9k)
    
    iperf3 Network Speed Tests (IPv4):
    ---------------------------------
    Provider        | Location (Link)           | Send Speed      | Recv Speed
                    |                           |                 |
    Clouvider       | London, UK (10G)          | 913 Mbits/sec   | 926 Mbits/sec
    Online.net      | Paris, FR (10G)           | 920 Mbits/sec   | 932 Mbits/sec
    WorldStream     | The Netherlands (10G)     | 912 Mbits/sec   | 934 Mbits/sec
    Biznet          | Jakarta, Indonesia (1G)   | busy            | busy
    Clouvider       | NYC, NY, US (10G)         | 886 Mbits/sec   | 663 Mbits/sec
    Velocity Online | Tallahassee, FL, US (10G) | 849 Mbits/sec   | 654 Mbits/sec
    Clouvider       | Los Angeles, CA, US (10G) | 827 Mbits/sec   | 385 Mbits/sec
    Iveloz Telecom  | Sao Paulo, BR (2G)        | 589 Mbits/sec   | 235 Mbits/sec
    
    iperf3 Network Speed Tests (IPv6):
    ---------------------------------
    Provider        | Location (Link)           | Send Speed      | Recv Speed
                    |                           |                 |
    Clouvider       | London, UK (10G)          | 908 Mbits/sec   | 922 Mbits/sec
    Online.net      | Paris, FR (10G)           | 902 Mbits/sec   | 918 Mbits/sec
    WorldStream     | The Netherlands (10G)     | 902 Mbits/sec   | 924 Mbits/sec
    Clouvider       | NYC, NY, US (10G)         | 872 Mbits/sec   | 604 Mbits/sec
    Clouvider       | Los Angeles, CA, US (10G) | 822 Mbits/sec   | 497 Mbits/sec
    
    Geekbench 5 Benchmark Test:
    ---------------------------------
    Test            | Value
                    |
    Single Core     | 697
    Multi Core      | 702
    Full Test       | https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/10251760
    
  • cybertechcybertech Member
    edited October 2021

    i think to prevent future misunderstandings its better to either:

    • mention it explicitly in product and order pages
    • post valid GB4 and GB5 links or
    • both

    Instead of fine prints in AUP.

    I think it would be naive to assume customers would not expect full HWT power given that it's advertised as silver/epyc.

    Thanked by 3ViridWeb dev_vps adly
  • @ViridWeb said:

    As you know our vCore is 50% of HTW power,
    and the lowest plan $2.90 vServer-S has only 1 core

    That's why the Geekbench score is showing 320-335

    vCore has 50% power of single cpu hw thread
    This should be clearly mentioned both in the ad here as well as on the order page

    Transparency requires that.

    Thanked by 2ViridWeb adly
  • ViridWebViridWeb Member, Host Rep

    @cybertech said:
    i think to prevent future misunderstandings its better to either:

    • mention it explicitly in product and order pages
    • post valid GB4 and GB5 links or
    • both

    Instead of fine prints in AUP.

    I think it would be naive to assume customers would not expect full HWT power given that it's advertised as silver/epyc.

    Thank you for your suggestions.

    TOS page have all informations but yes we will definitely consider to put them on our order page too.

    And we are testing EPYC servers right now. But as it's not launched yet so we will definitely remove that from the order page as it's misleading our customers.

    Thank you again for your feedbacks and suggestions.

    @dev_vps said:

    @ViridWeb said:

    As you know our vCore is 50% of HTW power,
    and the lowest plan $2.90 vServer-S has only 1 core

    That's why the Geekbench score is showing 320-335

    vCore has 50% power of single cpu hw thread
    This should be clearly mentioned both in the ad here as well as on the order page

    Transparency requires that.

    We are transparent from the beginning and always said 1 vCore is 50% HWT.

    It's also clearly mentioned on our TOS page. And customers should read them as they are accepting our TOS during order process.

    But we fully respect your opinion and we are always open to suggestions.

    We will definitely consider to add these details on order page too untill the EPYC launch. :smile:

    Thanked by 1dev_vps
  • @ViridWeb said:

    It's also clearly mentioned on our TOS page. And customers should read them as they are accepting our TOS during order process.

    Transparency, in my opinion, means mention of all key bullet points (especially if something is different from norm such as vCore is allotted 50% of hwt). Reputation is built that way.

    About reading TOS pages, you are right, but we all know most customers just skim the TOS details.

    +1 for you for taking the time and explaining your viewpoint.

    If I may offer a suggestion, I would personally prefer $3.90 plan with features of $2.90 plan with 2 vCores instead of one. And, on similar lines, $6.90 plan with features of $5.90 plan + extra 2 vCores. (Total of four vCores)

    Best wishes for your expansion and business growth.

  • ViridWebViridWeb Member, Host Rep
    edited October 2021

    @dev_vps said:

    @ViridWeb said:

    It's also clearly mentioned on our TOS page. And customers should read them as they are accepting our TOS during order process.

    Transparency, in my opinion, means mention of all key bullet points (especially if something is different from norm such as vCore is allotted 50% of hwt). Reputation is built that way.

    About reading TOS pages, you are right, but we all know most customers just skim the TOS details.

    +1 for you for taking the time and explaining your viewpoint.

    If I may offer a suggestion, I would personally prefer $3.90 plan with features of $2.90 plan with 2 vCores instead of one. And, on similar lines, $6.90 plan with features of $5.90 plan + extra 2 vCores. (Total of four vCores)

    Best wishes for your expansion and business growth.

    Thank you for your reply.

    Viridweb always happy to hear feedbacks no matter if it's negative or positive.

    We have decided to update our order page and add information about our vCore there within next few days.

    For your suggestion about pricing, it's not possible to give 2 vCore even at $3.90 as it's not worth it considering server pricing but we will try to increase CPU limits (Of course fair share and not 24/7) at the $2.90.

    if you have any suggestion or feedback, we are always here and will listen :smile:

  • @ViridWeb
    As a customer, I will look for value element along with quality and customer service.

    Just on value part, I see better options.

    I am sure your marketing team is evaluating competition as well.

    Best wishes.

  • ViridWebViridWeb Member, Host Rep

    @dev_vps said:
    @ViridWeb
    As a customer, I will look for value element along with quality and customer service.

    Just on value part, I see better options.

    I am sure your marketing team is evaluating competition as well.

    Best wishes.

    fair enough.. will try our best. :smile:

    Regards

  • @ViridWeb said:
    but we will try to increase CPU limits (Of course fair share and not 24/7) at the $2.90.

    if this decision can be approved within the next 10 days i will cancel my cancellation.

    apart from CPU limit everything is great. for me its taking really long to install a low end web panel for staging purposes. my guess is if its throttled to 50% of a HWT, the typical processing time isnt just doubled, but somehow more than that.

  • ViridWebViridWeb Member, Host Rep

    @cybertech said:

    @ViridWeb said:
    but we will try to increase CPU limits (Of course fair share and not 24/7) at the $2.90.

    if this decision can be approved within the next 10 days i will cancel my cancellation.

    apart from CPU limit everything is great. for me its taking really long to install a low end web panel for staging purposes. my guess is if its throttled to 50% of a HWT, the typical processing time isnt just doubled, but somehow more than that.

    Thank you for your reply.
    We have removed the restriction and the Fair Share policy already updated on our TOS page.

    We have also send emails to all our client to inform about these changes.

    Regards,

    Thanked by 2cybertech Warkos
Sign In or Register to comment.