Howdy, Stranger!

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

Sign In Register

Quick Links


Categories

In this Discussion

› › ChicagoVPS has lost their mind(s) - Page 3
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.

ChicagoVPS has lost their mind(s)

13567…13

Comments

  • MaouniqueMaounique Host Rep, Veteran

    We do have monitoring on all nodes and dont rely only on alerts, we throw an eye from time to time, however, we only have just below 40 now, so it might be harder for those with 100+, but in this case might need to hire more people, no ?
    CVPS_Chris seems more reasonable now, I actually agree with him, except the monitoring part.

  • CoreyCorey Member

    I'm sure they enjoy the free advertising.

  • NekkiNekki Veteran

    I ran a Minecraft server for my nephew off a $7/month ChicagoVPS box for a while, I have to say the performance was solid all the way. There were some annoying spurious reboots of the container in my last month, but as I was cancelling anyway I never flagged it.

  • Ash_HawkridgeAsh_Hawkridge Member

    @jarland said: I don't see why not to, and I'm not saying this in a bragging way, I thought everyone did. I'll get text alerts in the middle of the night if the load reaches a number that bothers me.

    So what happens when customers run server bear etc and push the load for a short amount of time, doesn't it get annoying :P

  • curtisgcurtisg Banned

    @CVPS_Chris when you're not busy, mind stop spamming my junk mail with service down alert, even thought I don't have any notifications set up plus the server is up perfectly, thanks.

  • jarjar Patron Provider, Top Host, Veteran

    @GetKVM_Ash said: So what happens when customers run server bear etc and push the load for a short amount of time, doesn't it get annoying :P

    That it does, that it does. I'll sleep when I die ;)

  • blackblack Member

    Anyone willing to run some serverbear benchmarks on their ChicagoVPS? Hopefully at least 1 benchmark per location?

  • gubbytegubbyte Member
    edited January 2013

    @black said: Anyone willing to run some serverbear benchmarks on their ChicagoVPS? Hopefully at least 1 benchmark per location?

    http://serverbear.com/9772/chicagovps#view-benchmarks

    Here's a freevps benchmark from just now, though (Buffalo). Very nice download speeds, I must say.

    CPU model :  Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E3-1240 V2 @ 3.40GHz
Number of cores : 4
CPU frequency :  3401.000 MHz
Total amount of ram : 2048 MB
Total amount of swap : 0 MB
System uptime :   4:54,
Download speed from CacheFly: 13.9MB/s
Download speed from Linode, Atlanta GA: 11.2MB/s
Download speed from Linode, Dallas, TX: 9.10MB/s
Download speed from Linode, Tokyo, JP: 5.09MB/s
Download speed from Linode, London, UK: 5.91MB/s
Download speed from Leaseweb, Haarlem, NL: 14.1MB/s
Download speed from Softlayer, Singapore: 4.62MB/s
Download speed from Softlayer, Seattle, WA: 13.9MB/s
Download speed from Softlayer, San Jose, CA: 15.4MB/s
Download speed from Softlayer, Washington, DC: 28.4MB/s
I/O speed :  125 MB/s
  • JacobJacob Member

    The download I would consider the norm. I/O is pretty good for the price. The IOPS sucks on some benches.

    @gubbyte said: Very nice download speeds

  • geekalotgeekalot Member
    edited January 2013

    @pubcrawler said:

    I bet there are tons of folks on monthly plans who pay and sit idle. I have some of those :) They are for live spares, as needed.

    ^^This

  • djvdorpdjvdorp Member

    @CVPS_Chris is IRC allowed (server, small private one) ?

  • gubbytegubbyte Member

    @djvdorp said: @CVPS_Chris is IRC allowed (server, small private one) ?

    http://www.lowendbox.com/blog/chicagovps-5-95-512mb-openvz-vps-2/#comment-19637

  • NekkiNekki Veteran

    @black said: Anyone willing to run some serverbear benchmarks on their ChicagoVPS? Hopefully at least 1 benchmark per location?

    My LA basic benchmark: http://serverbear.com/benchmark/2013/01/30/dyOmVX8rip1Iukty

  • MiguelQMiguelQ Member
    edited January 2013

    @black said: Anyone willing to run some serverbear benchmarks on their ChicagoVPS? Hopefully at least 1 benchmark per location?

    Chicago: http://serverbear.com/benchmark/2013/01/30/cfiPI4j0YUf0pcqm

  • djvdorpdjvdorp Member

    @gubbyte said: http://www.lowendbox.com/blog/chicagovps-5-95-512mb-openvz-vps-2/#comment-19637

    Thanks, was on my phone, sorry.

  • ihatetonyyihatetonyy Member

    I didn't want to bite on this resurrected offer, since I managed to resist it the first time.

    I really, really didn't. And then I did.

    Do we still have the LEB Anonymous thread? I've slipped.

  • blackblack Member

    Seems like LA & Chicago has a gigabit port and NY only has 100 mbit?
    Thanks for the benchmarks by the way.

  • pubcrawlerpubcrawler Banned

    I still don't believe these promos are sustainable.

    $24 compared to $3 = 1/8th of the original price or 12%. That means an 87%+ reduction in price.

    If the model of 80%+ price reductions is sustainable, then just lower your regular prices to something much more believable, like the common $7.95/month CVPS has ran for years.

    As far as monitoring nodes, have to be a gazillion solutions for dealing with that and notifying admins when load over a set time (i.e. 15 minutes) exceeds threshold. Any mass account provider depending on customers to moan about performance is going about things backwards.

    In all fairness, Serverbear numbers seem as problematic as CVPS itself. But getting clarification about Serverbear is another thread for later. One reason why CVPS appears ranked so lowly in Serverbear is due to their high $24.95 plan. If the pricing in there was $3.50/mo then the rank would be much higher.

  • bobbybobby Member

    Well, I had to try the 2gb one (Buffalo), wont run anything on it, but uptime/performance isnt worse than most other ovz providers. I flamed them before, but kudos :)

  • 花伞菌花伞菌 Member

    its so cheap

  • laaevlaaev Member

    @djvdorp said: is IRC allowed (server, small private one) ?

    Yes, this is allowed =)

    @gubbyte said: (Buffalo). Very nice download speeds, I must say.

    @Nekki said: I ran a Minecraft server for my nephew off a $7/month ChicagoVPS box for a while, I have to say the performance was solid all the way.

    @Zeno said: I have 2 vpss with them

    Working good so far

    @Nekki said: My LA basic benchmark: http://serverbear.com/benchmark/2013/01/30/dyOmVX8rip1Iukty

    @MiguelQ said: Chicago: http://serverbear.com/benchmark/2013/01/30/cfiPI4j0YUf0pcqm

    @bobby said: uptime/performance isnt worse than most other ovz providers. I flamed them before, but kudos :)

    Thanks everyone for sharing benchmarks and for your kind words, highly appreciated! We may not be perfect, but for the large number of physical servers we manage (150+) I would say we do a decent job in keeping things stable for the most part.

    We appreciate your trust and business.

    Best,
    Kevin

  • BK_BK_ Member

    I've got a $30/yr and haven't had any major issues with it.

  • mojedamojeda Member
    edited January 2013

    I had ~5 2GB plans and was running at least 2 32 player slot TF2 servers on all of them and had no problems.

    Although not OpenVZ my ChicagoVPS Xen server would have been up for over a year had I not done a centralized backup. I've never had any issues with this server other than planned downtime.

  • jcalebjcaleb Member

    @CVPS_Kevin @CVPS_Chris what DC is your LA?

  • ihatetonyyihatetonyy Member
    edited January 2013

    @jcaleb said: what DC is your LA?

    They're with CC in QuadraNet, or so it seems (on mobile BB at the moment, so excuse the horrendous latency)

    C:\Users\Me>tracert 198.23.251.999

Tracing route to host.colocrossing.com [198.23.251.999]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

  1     *        *        *     Request timed out.
  2    36 ms    44 ms    59 ms  10.41.229.209
  3    47 ms    52 ms    62 ms  71.22.8.161
  4    35 ms    64 ms    44 ms  71.22.8.253
  5   517 ms   428 ms   324 ms  71.22.8.174
  6   863 ms  1262 ms  1037 ms  xe-0-3-0.er2.sjc2.us.above.net [64.124.196.101]

  7   733 ms   519 ms   119 ms  xe-1-3-0.cr2.sjc2.us.above.net [64.125.28.58]
  8   558 ms   389 ms   294 ms  xe-0-1-0.mpr4.sjc7.us.above.net [64.125.30.178]

  9   162 ms   124 ms   119 ms  ge5-3.br02.sjo01.pccwbtn.net [63.218.7.33]
 10    78 ms    49 ms    65 ms  dbtransit.ge9-6.br02.lax05.pccwbtn.net [63.218.7
3.174]
 11    83 ms    93 ms    88 ms  96.44.180.34.internal.quadranet.com [96.44.180.3
4]
 12   199 ms     *       58 ms  67.215.251.214.static.quadranet.com [67.215.251.
214]
 13    60 ms    58 ms    69 ms  host.colocrossing.com [198.23.251.2]
 14   663 ms   917 ms  1569 ms  host.colocrossing.com [198.23.251.999]

Trace complete.
  • jcalebjcaleb Member

    @ihatetonyy said: They're with CC in QuadraNet,

    I already have 2 quadranet. hostigation and urpad. Hoping it is with another DC =)

  • laaevlaaev Member

    @BK_ said: I've got a $30/yr and haven't had any major issues with it.

    @mojeda said: I had ~5 2GB plans and was running at least 2 32 player slot TF2 servers on all of them and had no problems.

    Although not OpenVZ my ChicagoVPS Xen server would have been up for over a year had I not done a centralized backup. I've never had any issues with this server other than planned downtime.

    Glad to hear! Thanks for choosing ChicagoVPS.

    @jcaleb said: what DC is your LA?

    We are in the QuadraNet facility located at 530 W 6th St., excellent facility and network!

    Thanks for the interest,

    Kevin

  • ihatetonyyihatetonyy Member

    @jcaleb said: I already have 2 quadranet.

    Pretty sure most of the LA providers are, for better or worse, in Quadranet. The only exception with the ones I have are with NodeDeploy (WebNX) and BlueVM with Colo@.

  • jcalebjcaleb Member

    @ihatetonyy said: Pretty sure most of the LA providers are, for better or worse, in Quadranet. The only exception with the ones I have are with NodeDeploy (WebNX) and BlueVM with Colo@.

    Thanks for the info. Perhaps I will just look at other California locations then.

  • pubcrawlerpubcrawler Banned

    Quadranet just is awful for latency back to the east coast. Now this is with their default network supposedly.

    Saw someone show me a new provider upstream out of that facility (in past days) and was quite an improvement.

This discussion has been closed.