Howdy, Stranger!

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


VPSNodeBox.com - Xen VPS 512 - Detailed UnixBench / ServerBear Benchmark Results - Page 2
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.

VPSNodeBox.com - Xen VPS 512 - Detailed UnixBench / ServerBear Benchmark Results

2»

Comments

  • @miTgiB you wanted argued that we don't have an VPS plan for LET members, but we do. It's not a new offer by any means, it's been posted.
    I am not surprised at all about your comments because you are a provider as well, and for some strange reason you feel like you need to attack us.

    The bottom line is that we are here at the pleasure of the forum owener(s)/moderator(s). They can at any time remove this topic or even kick us out. The same goes for everyone else, including you.

  • @toratekdotnet said: strange reason you feel like you need to attack us.

    How is it strange when you failed to follow the guidelines? You are offering people the opportunity to join your affiliate program, which is an offer, but you are not free to make an offer until the 27th of this month.

    I don't really worry about being removed from the community, since I am capable of following simple rules without the need to skirt on the edge in this sketchy manner.

  • @toratekdotnet said: I am not surprised at all about your comments because you are a provider as well, and for some strange reason you feel like you need to attack us.

    Not really, at least not at LowEndTalk.

    Although we may have some inter-host banter over here, it's usually in good taste. Moreover, a lot of providers are not only providers, but also clients of other providers on this very forum - The distinction between 'just a host' and 'just a client' is very thin.

    LowEndTalk is also fairly unmoderated, whereby, threads are allowed to derail and unless things are getting malicious, and arguments occur frequently.
    If you don't like that, head on to WHT. You'll probably like it more there.

    Anyway, back on topic, I guess.

    I too would see this as more of an 'offer'. Personally, I'd define the offers section as more of a 'where-people-try-to-make-you-buy-stuff-or-do-something-for-commercial-gain' section. It's not strictly VPS offers.

  • @miTgiB @ElliotJ Thread changed, we will update it with benchmarks soon. Thank you for your consideration.

  • @toratekdotnet said: Thread changed

    Almost changed, you are showing your feelings are hurt while still attempting to shill your referral program in your newly edited first post. Add in a dash of personal attack for good measure.

  • TazTaz Member

    Sorry to say @OP but grow up and leave your emotions behind.

  • @miTgiB there is no personal attack, you kept beating the issue to death so I thought I would clarify why I am changing the thread. I removed everything do, I hope that you're happy now.

    @Taz_NinjaHawk No personal feelings here of any kind. By the way, nice signature, I guess that's allowed. Why didn't I think of it?

  • @serverbear Thanks allot, I will remove a couple of cores from the 512MB test VPS and try to run the test again.

  • @serverbear OK, I've cut the cores in half - 2 cores, 4 threads. If it fails again, I will half them again. Maybe I should change this plan by cutting the cores and increasing their priority instead. What do you think?

  • @toratekdotnet We can see if it runs this time, feel free to PM me & we can discuss in more detail. 4 Cores on 512mb should really be fine.

  • @serverbear Thanks allot for your helo, I really appreciate it.

  • @serverbear failed again, going to try with 1 core and 2 threads now.
    http://serverbear.com/benchmark/2012/08/18/B5OjBKS1fjZNW4Hh

  • @toratekdotnet said: failed again

    Which distro are you using? I found it works best with centos 32bit but did not notice any difference between 5 and 6

  • @miTgiB Debian 6.0 32bit. Like @serverbear said, it fails because it runs out of RAM. I am now running it with 1 core, if this fails I'll try it with CentOS 6. Thanks for the suggestion btw.

  • @toratekdotnet said: it fails because it runs out of RAM.

    Increase swap?

  • PhoenixVPSPhoenixVPS Member
    edited August 2012

    @miTgiB SWAP is set at 512MB

  • @miTgiB @serverbear Switched to CentOS 6.3 and the benchmark went trough. I will update the thread with detailed results.

  • So it was failing on Debian 6 x86? I tested a heap of that distro yesterday, I'll log a ticket & see if we can figure out anything from the logs.

Sign In or Register to comment.