Howdy, Stranger!

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


GreenValueHost - One Month Review
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.

GreenValueHost - One Month Review

badpatrickbadpatrick Member
edited March 2014 in Reviews

After reading here on LET that GreenValueHost was going to leave the dark side and become more transparent and lift some of the restrictions I decided to give them a try.

Plan: Mid-Jan LET Exclusive 1 - LET Link - $5.00 USD/mo

Promised Specs: 4gb ram/8gb vswap. 250gb Raid10 SSD, 100tb bandwidth, 1gbit port. 2 IPv4

Stability: There were a few down times at first lasting from 3 mins up to an hour. I then received a notice stating they were aware of the issues and were working with their upstream provider to fix it, stability has been pretty great since then. I am running a small photo site [depixation.com] and it appears to run pretty smooth. New site, new domain so the traffic is pretty low at this point, average is 80 unique views daily. Server up time is sitting at 99.2%.

Support: I signed up for Buffalo and was put on a Texas server, which I was okay with. Setup took three days, this was my first experience with a service that's not instant. I was a little bummed but accepted it for what it was. I opened two tickets and though I was answered within 15 minutes I was pretty disappointed with the feedback received. Reply's were short, poorly typed and came off a little arrogant but my questions were answered.

Overall: I'm actually happy with the service, the majority of my experiences have been positive. The tests posted below are lower than other providers I use, but it's more than enough to maintain my site. Up time has significantly improved since Feb 2nd. If you are a potential customer who is thick-skinned or not too concerned about staff friendliness I do recommend their service as they appear to be going in the right direction.

Stats:dd if=/dev/zero of=test bs=64k count=16k conv=fdatasync 16384+0 records in 16384+0 records out 1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB) copied, 16.7028 s, 64.3 MB/s

wget -O /dev/null http://cachefly.cachefly.net/100mb.test --2014-03-04 11:44:21-- http://cachefly.cachefly.net/100mb.test Resolving cachefly.cachefly.net... 205.234.175.175 Connecting to cachefly.cachefly.net|205.234.175.175|:80... connected. HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK Length: 104857600 (100M) [application/octet-stream] Saving to: /dev/null 100%[======================================>] 104,857,600 65.3M/s in 1.5s 2014-03-04 11:44:23 (65.3 MB/s) - /dev/null'saved [104857600/104857600]

Thanked by 3trexos Lee mpkossen

Comments

  • Sounds like a honest review thanks :)

  • akzakz Member

    review seems pretty accurate, John is always available to answer questions. I do agree with the review regarding the support however.

  • Your uptime looks a lot better than mine, that's for sure. Mine was down to 96% at one point.


    dd if=/dev/zero of=sb-io-test bs=64k count=16k conv=fdatasync 16384+0 records in 16384+0 records out 1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB) copied, 24.8469 s, 43.2 MB/s

  • Sounds about like my experience, main difference was at first i provisioned on what they referred to as their worst preforming node, with IO speeds of about 10MB/s. Took a few days of back and forth through tickets to get moved to another server.

    The new server i'm on has been fine, up time has been good. Network has been good. I do agree with the support kinda not up to par with some other hosts I've had for the same price on "un-managed" plans. In my opinion it's not about a providers first response time but how long they take to fix an issue.

  • Im glad you are having good experience with them.

    I have a box with them and other than minor things here and there, they've been pretty stable. After the whole restart thing, they have definitely improved.

  • Hi there everyone!

    To start off, I would like to sincerely thank everyone here who has taken the time out of their valuable day to contribute to this review and give us valuable feedback on our services.

    I would like to take some time here to address some of the issues that have been raised so far in this thread to clear some things up and give a little bit of insight on what we're currently working on to improve upon them.

    1. Dallas instability, downtime, etc.

    There are a lot of things that we still need to resolve for customers in our Dallas locations. The downtime that has been shown by graphs above have been caused by numerous issues, most prominently and notably issues with Eonix/ServerHub's network as well as DDoS attacks that have been targeting one of our customers on TX3.

    We actually have plans to discontinue our Dallas location. We've faced a variety of different problems in Dallas that we were unable to control, most notably our recent issue with our upstream provider Eonix/ServerHub -- We wanted them to announce a /24 block for us and we were told that they couldn't do it because a /20 block had priority (Although this is actually the opposite -- the /24 should have priority over the /20)

    Our premium Chicago location has proven it's ability to outperform all of our other locations in terms of both performance and connectivity to all parts of the United States. Our bandwidth carriers in Chicago consist of Level 3, Zayo, nLayer, and Internap. We're working on planning things out internally to reach a permanent solution for our Dallas customers. A potential outcome is that we're going to be deploying Dual L5649s (these are really nice virtualization servers) with bonded 1gbps ports in Chicago. We have the ability to greatly influence our network mix in Chicago so if we do move Dallas clients to Chicago, we will make 100% sure that our Chicago networks trumps our Dallas network in terms of connectivity (Although at the moment we're confident that it already does)

    2. Delayed provisioning

    We have reconfigured our systems to now automatically provision VPS orders. Orders are now instantly activated, given that automated fraud checks are passed and that we have stock in the location that you're ordering in.

    3. Short replies

    I deeply apologize if anyone has been affected or inconvenienced for; Customer satisfaction is truly our main focus and we do our best to be as informative and as blunt as possible without "sugar coating" any of our responses, emails, or anything we communicate to our clients. We've recently switched from having an outsourced team of staff to our very own dedicated internal team of staff (non outsourced) and we're still working things out in terms of schedules, etc. As time goes by, support will continue to improve for clients and this is something that we're very confident in us improving upon because as we've said in many of our public statements, emails, etc, over the past few weeks, we have a renewed focus on customer satisfaction, hence our new slogan "Customer satisfaction is our ethos!"

    If anyone else has any questions or concerns that they would like to be addressed, please do not hesitate to contact us or email me directly at [email protected] and our team and/or myself will always be more than happy to assist you.

    Thank you and have a wonderful day everyone! :)

    • Jon
  • Give Dallas some love

  • @concerto49 said:
    Give Dallas some love

    I don't think Dallas is the issue. It's more an issue with Serverhub. I did advise John against launching with SH.

  • @badpatrick What's the name of this uptime program? Is that uptimerobot?

  • @IceCream said:
    badpatrick What's the name of this uptime program? Is that uptimerobot?

    Yes it is.

    Thanked by 1IceCream
  • @GreenValueHost said:
    A potential outcome is that we're going to be deploying Dual L5649s

    Do you mean L5639 or E5649?

Sign In or Register to comment.