Howdy, Stranger!

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


Any experience with OVH VPS? - Page 2
New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.

Any experience with OVH VPS?

24

Comments

  • fitvpn said: Heh.. I use old OpenVZ for six months never got a problem with it

    I guess it depends what you do with it, and whether your use case even lets you notice a few minutes of network flap or not.

  • ClouviderClouvider Member, Provider

    @singsing it was hours in our case, not a few minutes :)

    Clouvider Limited - Leading Hosting & Connectivity Partner || Dedicated Server Sale from £39/m - Our Latest LET Offer
    Cloud Web Hosting | SSD & SAS HA OnApp VPS | US, UK, NL & DE Dedicated Servers | Network Services | Colocation | Managed Services

  • Clouvider said: @singsing it was hours in our case, not a few minutes :)

    Oh yeah, I remember I did notice one longer outage.

  • OVH BHS VPS 2016

    [email protected]:~# wget freevps.us/downloads/bench.sh -O - -o /dev/null|bash
    CPU model :  Intel Xeon E312xx (Sandy Bridge)
    Number of cores : 1
    CPU frequency :  2394.450 MHz
    Total amount of ram : 1962 MB
    Total amount of swap : 0 MB
    System uptime :   1 day, 23:19,       
    Download speed from CacheFly: 12.0MB/s 
    Download speed from Coloat, Atlanta GA: 10.3MB/s 
    Download speed from Softlayer, Dallas, TX: 10.0MB/s 
    Download speed from Linode, Tokyo, JP: 8.42MB/s 
    Download speed from i3d.net, Rotterdam, NL: 10.1MB/s
    Download speed from Leaseweb, Haarlem, NL: 7.81MB/s 
    Download speed from Softlayer, Singapore: 5.97MB/s 
    Download speed from Softlayer, Seattle, WA: 10.9MB/s 
    Download speed from Softlayer, San Jose, CA: 10.9MB/s 
    Download speed from Softlayer, Washington, DC: 11.7MB/s 
    I/O speed :  341 MB/s
    

    http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench3/3347570

    It's ok I think, it feels fast. Better than their old Vz nodes for sure.

    Thanked by 2sin howardsl2
  • ClouviderClouvider Member, Provider

    ElixantTechnology said: They've got a pretty rock solid network over there.. Definitely an option.

    With 41 outages over a week that no one takes care about.

    Clouvider Limited - Leading Hosting & Connectivity Partner || Dedicated Server Sale from £39/m - Our Latest LET Offer
    Cloud Web Hosting | SSD & SAS HA OnApp VPS | US, UK, NL & DE Dedicated Servers | Network Services | Colocation | Managed Services

  • singsing said: I guess it depends what you do with it, and whether your use case even lets you notice a few minutes of network flap or not

    I use monitoring tool. No downtimes detected.

    Yes, I can boogie

  • @Clouvider said:
    With 41 outages over a week that no one takes care about.

    You don't seem to understand that the old (OpenVZ) VPSes and the new (KVM) ones are completely different. The new ones use the same infrastructure as RunAbove, which has been extremely reliable.

    The whole reason for the drastically changed offerings is because the old ones weren't up to par and they knew it. You ought to give them some credit for trying to fix things.

    Thanked by 2sin rm_
  • ClouviderClouvider Member, Provider

    From my point of view, Customer pays, they don't care. It's their responsibility to deliver good service, not their Customers.

    If 'old Openvz' platform went downhill like this, any of their platforms can go downhill the same way, and they may ignore it the same way. They are simply not trustworthy for anything in production for me.

    Clouvider Limited - Leading Hosting & Connectivity Partner || Dedicated Server Sale from £39/m - Our Latest LET Offer
    Cloud Web Hosting | SSD & SAS HA OnApp VPS | US, UK, NL & DE Dedicated Servers | Network Services | Colocation | Managed Services

  • BTW: Told about CA location. May be Europe locations has a bad uptime.

    Yes, I can boogie

  • singsingsingsing Member
    edited September 2015

    @singsing said:
    Customer of OVH OpenVZ VPS. Does what I need, but would -not- recommend for anything production. Connections drop occasionally for no apparent reason and take minutes to recover. Occasional OOM kills of your processes even when you aren't consuming your plan size in RAM. Sluggish. I doubt these issues are all gone in their KVM offering, except possibly the OOM kills converting into additional sluggishness rather than outright kill.

    Updating to add that I just signed up for VPS SSD 2. While several notches up price-wise from their old OpenVZ, it seems to be quite zippy. Absolutely no comparison in terms of performance. Too early to report on connection drop issues, but there's reason to be optimistic for now.

  • @Clouvider said:
    With 41 outages over a week that no one takes care about.

    We have a few enterprise servers in their North American location (BHS) for candian accessibility, 100% uptime over the last 16 months. I'd say they are pretty rock solid.

  • ElixantTechnology said: We have a few enterprise servers in their North American location (BHS) for candian accessibility, 100% uptime over the last 16 months. I'd say they are pretty rock solid.

    I'm pretty sure the network of their enterprise servers is managed a bit differently than their budget OpenVZ.

  • If you want to have a solid, cheap OVH VPS, runabove.com is still the way to go.

  • tr1cky said: If you want to have a solid, cheap OVH VPS, runabove.com is still the way to go.

    Any justification to that? The new VPS-SSD are based on the same tech and not any less solid than Runabove (arguable more as they come with SLA), also they are unmetered.

    As another difference, on some RunAbove instances I saw quite a bit of CPU contention with other customers (the "st" value in top), and nearly always zero at VPS-SSD.

  • rm_ said: Any justification to that?

    • runabove is cheaper
    • 20GB SSD vs 10GB SSD
    • 1gbps vs 100mbps
    • runabove istances still get a 3.7Ghz E3 core, even if there's more cpu steal, cpu performance is better

    The only pro I can think of for the OVH VPS SSD is unlimited traffic (vs 1TB on runabove) and maybe their SLA, but since it's the same technology, runabove should be pretty stable aswell.

    Can't say bad things about the uptime on runabove aswell:

  • rm_rm_ Member
    edited September 2015

    Mkay,

    tr1cky said: 1gbps vs 100mbps

    Actually Runabove is 10 Gbps, people get 2-5 Gbit in iperf.

    runabove istances still get a 3.7Ghz E3 core, even if there's more cpu steal, cpu performance is better

    Not necessarily, only depending on how bad it is (some nodes were worse than others), although you can delete and recreate the VPS until you land on a lightly loaded node.

    Also I believe you can control the VPS-SSD IPs in api.ovh.com regarding firewall/antiDDoS, and at Runabove you can only request those things via tickets.

    So it's not that Runabove is hands down better, more a case of "pick one or another depending on what you need".

  • I signed up yesterday with OVH for one of their 2016 VPSes; I really like it

  • @AshleyUk said:

    Is it possible to downgrade ?

    "The quieter you become, the more you are able to listen" dgprasetya.com

  • @dgprasetya said:
    Is it possible to downgrade ?

    Not that I am aware, due to the fact its not OpenVZ, so downgrades of a disk/file system is not an automated task (Which is what OVH rely on to keep costs low)

  • Benchmark for the OVH VPS SSD 2016 located in Gravelines:

    CPU model :  Intel Xeon E312xx (Sandy Bridge)
    Number of cores : 1
    CPU frequency :  2394.442 MHz
    Total amount of ram : 1962 MB
    Total amount of swap : 0 MB
    System uptime :   5:13,
    Download speed from CacheFly: 12.1MB/s
    Download speed from Coloat, Atlanta GA: 2.49MB/s
    Download speed from Softlayer, Dallas, TX: 9.87MB/s
    Download speed from Linode, Tokyo, JP: 5.81MB/s
    Download speed from i3d.net, Rotterdam, NL: 11.9MB/s
    Download speed from Leaseweb, Haarlem, NL: 11.9MB/s
    Download speed from Softlayer, Singapore: 4.96MB/s
    Download speed from Softlayer, Seattle, WA: 8.41MB/s
    Download speed from Softlayer, San Jose, CA: 9.09MB/s
    Download speed from Softlayer, Washington, DC: 10.7MB/s
    I/O speed :  447 MB/s
    

    Network traceroutes when the firewall has been set to permanent mitigation (traceroute from DigitalOcean NL to the OVH VPS):

    Before (traceroute):

    1  188.166.64.254 (188.166.64.254)  0.690 ms  0.657 ms  0.663 ms
     2  5.101.110.233 (5.101.110.233)  0.317 ms 5.101.110.237 (5.101.110.237)  0.259 ms 5.101.110.229 (5.101.110.229)  0.240 ms
     3  * * 5.101.110.249 (5.101.110.249)  0.308 ms
     4  * * gra-g2-a9.fr.eu (213.251.128.28)  9.254 ms
     5  gra-z1g1-a70.fr.eu (37.187.232.79)  7.419 ms gra-g2-a9.fr.eu (213.251.128.28)  9.201 ms  9.199 ms
     6  gra-z1g1-a70.fr.eu (37.187.232.79)  7.359 ms  7.316 ms gra-z1b5-a70.fr.eu (92.222.61.116)  7.257 ms
     7  92.222.61.42 (92.222.61.42)  7.309 ms gra-z1b5-a70.fr.eu (92.222.61.116)  7.462 ms 92.222.61.42 (92.222.61.42)  7.597 ms
     8  92.222.61.42 (92.222.61.42)  7.589 ms  7.550 ms  7.517 ms
     9  149.202.255.4 (149.202.255.4)  8.109 ms xx.ip-149-202-59.eu (149.202.59.xx)  8.467 ms 149.202.255.4 (149.202.255.4)  8.085 ms
    

    After (traceroute):

     1  188.166.64.253 (188.166.64.253)  0.309 ms  0.331 ms 188.166.64.254 (188.166.64.254)  0.243 ms
     2  5.101.110.229 (5.101.110.229)  0.272 ms 5.101.110.241 (5.101.110.241)  0.199 ms 5.101.110.237 (5.101.110.237)  0.245 ms
     3  5.101.110.249 (5.101.110.249)  0.232 ms *  0.200 ms
     4  * rbx-g2-a9.fr.eu (94.23.122.78)  6.307 ms *
     5  vac1-0-a9.fr.eu (178.33.100.151)  6.626 ms  6.861 ms  7.315 ms
     6  vac1-1-n7.fr.eu.firewall (178.33.100.152)  6.520 ms  6.608 ms vac1-0-a9.fr.eu (178.33.100.151)  6.612 ms
     7  vac1-2-n7.fr.eu.tilera (37.187.36.245)  6.234 ms vac1-1-n7.fr.eu.firewall (178.33.100.152)  6.973 ms  6.948 ms
     8  vac1-3-n7.fr.eu (91.121.215.13)  6.691 ms vac1-2-n7.fr.eu.tilera (37.187.36.245)  6.580 ms  6.935 ms
     9  * vac1-3-n7.fr.eu (91.121.215.13)  7.146 ms  6.794 ms
    10  * * *
    11  * * *
    12  * gra-z1b5-a70.fr.eu (92.222.61.116)  9.563 ms  9.453 ms
    13  gra-z1b5-a70.fr.eu (92.222.61.116)  9.459 ms 92.222.61.42 (92.222.61.42)  9.562 ms  9.499 ms
    14  149.202.255.4 (149.202.255.4)  9.966 ms 92.222.61.42 (92.222.61.42)  9.573 ms 149.202.255.4 (149.202.255.4)  9.918 ms
    15  xx.ip-149-202-59.eu (149.202.59.xx)  10.444 ms  9.706 ms 149.202.255.4 (149.202.255.4)  9.529 ms
    

    Clearly a pretty big difference with the firewall turned off and on (but that's expected xD)

    Speedtests (from FreeVPS Bench):

    Before:

    Download speed from CacheFly: 12.1MB/s
    Download speed from Coloat, Atlanta GA: 2.49MB/s
    Download speed from Softlayer, Dallas, TX: 9.87MB/s
    Download speed from Linode, Tokyo, JP: 5.81MB/s
    Download speed from i3d.net, Rotterdam, NL: 11.9MB/s
    Download speed from Leaseweb, Haarlem, NL: 11.9MB/s
    Download speed from Softlayer, Singapore: 4.96MB/s
    Download speed from Softlayer, Seattle, WA: 8.41MB/s
    Download speed from Softlayer, San Jose, CA: 9.09MB/s
    Download speed from Softlayer, Washington, DC: 10.7MB/s
    

    After:

    Download speed from CacheFly: 12.0MB/s
    Download speed from Coloat, Atlanta GA: 2.69MB/s
    Download speed from Softlayer, Dallas, TX: 8.87MB/s
    Download speed from Linode, Tokyo, JP: 5.97MB/s
    Download speed from i3d.net, Rotterdam, NL: 11.9MB/s
    Download speed from Leaseweb, Haarlem, NL: 11.9MB/s
    Download speed from Softlayer, Singapore: 5.58MB/s
    Download speed from Softlayer, Seattle, WA: 7.39MB/s
    Download speed from Softlayer, San Jose, CA: 9.33MB/s
    Download speed from Softlayer, Washington, DC: 10.1MB/s
    

    No noticeable changes/differences here with the speedtests.

    ioping tests (3x)

    1.
    
    ~# ioping -c 5 /
    4 KiB from / (ext3 /dev/vda1): request=1 time=3.13 ms
    4 KiB from / (ext3 /dev/vda1): request=2 time=596 us
    4 KiB from / (ext3 /dev/vda1): request=3 time=661 us
    4 KiB from / (ext3 /dev/vda1): request=4 time=663 us
    4 KiB from / (ext3 /dev/vda1): request=5 time=600 us
    
    --- / (ext3 /dev/vda1) ioping statistics ---
    5 requests completed in 4.01 s, 884 iops, 3.45 MiB/s
    min/avg/max/mdev = 596 us / 1.13 ms / 3.13 ms / 1.00 ms
    
    2.
    
    ~# ioping -c 5 /
    4 KiB from / (ext3 /dev/vda1): request=1 time=2.82 ms
    4 KiB from / (ext3 /dev/vda1): request=2 time=621 us
    4 KiB from / (ext3 /dev/vda1): request=3 time=639 us
    4 KiB from / (ext3 /dev/vda1): request=4 time=730 us
    4 KiB from / (ext3 /dev/vda1): request=5 time=647 us
    
    --- / (ext3 /dev/vda1) ioping statistics ---
    5 requests completed in 4.01 s, 916 iops, 3.58 MiB/s
    min/avg/max/mdev = 621 us / 1.09 ms / 2.82 ms / 863 us
    
    
    3.
    
    ~# ioping -c 5 /
    4 KiB from / (ext3 /dev/vda1): request=1 time=2.96 ms
    4 KiB from / (ext3 /dev/vda1): request=2 time=633 us
    4 KiB from / (ext3 /dev/vda1): request=3 time=612 us
    4 KiB from / (ext3 /dev/vda1): request=4 time=621 us
    4 KiB from / (ext3 /dev/vda1): request=5 time=682 us
    
    --- / (ext3 /dev/vda1) ioping statistics ---
    5 requests completed in 4.01 s, 906 iops, 3.54 MiB/s
    min/avg/max/mdev = 612 us / 1.10 ms / 2.96 ms / 931 us
    

    CPU Information:

    :~# cat /proc/cpuinfo
    processor       : 0
    vendor_id       : GenuineIntel
    cpu family      : 6
    model           : 42
    model name      : Intel Xeon E312xx (Sandy Bridge)
    stepping        : 1
    microcode       : 0x1
    cpu MHz         : 2394.442
    cache size      : 4096 KB
    physical id     : 0
    siblings        : 1
    core id         : 0
    cpu cores       : 1
    apicid          : 0
    initial apicid  : 0
    fpu             : yes
    fpu_exception   : yes
    cpuid level     : 13
    wp              : yes
    flags           : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36 clflush mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss syscall nx pdpe1gb rdtscp lm constant_tsc rep_good nopl eagerfpu pni pclmulqdq vmx ssse3 fma cx16 pcid sse4_1 sse4_2 x2apic movbe popcnt tsc_deadline_timer aes xsave avx f16c rdrand hypervisor lahf_lm abm xsaveopt vnmi ept fsgsbase bmi1 avx2 smep bmi2 erms invpcid
    bogomips        : 4788.88
    clflush size    : 64
    cache_alignment : 64
    address sizes   : 40 bits physical, 48 bits virtual
    power management:
    

    UnixBench (via serverbear, link below):

       #    #  #    #  #  #    #          #####   ######  #    #   ####   #    #
       #    #  ##   #  #   #  #           #    #  #       ##   #  #    #  #    #
       #    #  # #  #  #    ##            #####   #####   # #  #  #       ######
       #    #  #  # #  #    ##            #    #  #       #  # #  #       #    #
       #    #  #   ##  #   #  #           #    #  #       #   ##  #    #  #    #
        ####   #    #  #  #    #          #####   ######  #    #   ####   #    #
    
       Version 5.1.3                      Based on the Byte Magazine Unix Benchmark
    
       Multi-CPU version                  Version 5 revisions by Ian Smith,
                                          Sunnyvale, CA, USA
       January 13, 2011                   johantheghost at yahoo period com
    
    
    1 x Dhrystone 2 using register variables  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
    
    1 x Double-Precision Whetstone  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
    
    1 x Execl Throughput  1 2 3
    
    1 x File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks  1 2 3
    
    1 x File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks  1 2 3
    
    1 x File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks  1 2 3
    
    1 x Pipe Throughput  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
    
    1 x Pipe-based Context Switching  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
    
    1 x Process Creation  1 2 3
    
    1 x System Call Overhead  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
    
    1 x Shell Scripts (1 concurrent)  1 2 3
    
    1 x Shell Scripts (8 concurrent)  1 2 3
    
    1 x Dhrystone 2 using register variables  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
    
    1 x Double-Precision Whetstone  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
    
    1 x Execl Throughput  1 2 3
    
    1 x File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks  1 2 3
    
    1 x File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks  1 2 3
    
    1 x File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks  1 2 3
    
    1 x Pipe Throughput  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
    
    1 x Pipe-based Context Switching  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
    
    1 x Process Creation  1 2 3
    
    1 x System Call Overhead  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
    
    1 x Shell Scripts (1 concurrent)  1 2 3
    
    1 x Shell Scripts (8 concurrent)  1 2 3
    
    ========================================================================
       BYTE UNIX Benchmarks (Version 5.1.3)
    
       System: ******************
       OS: GNU/Linux -- 3.16.0-4-amd64 -- #1 SMP Debian 3.16.7-ckt11-1+deb8u3 (2015-08-04)
       Machine: x86_64 (unknown)
       Language: en_US.utf8 (charmap="UTF-8", collate="UTF-8")
       CPU 0: Intel Xeon E312xx (Sandy Bridge) (4788.9 bogomips)
              x86-64, MMX, Physical Address Ext, SYSENTER/SYSEXIT, SYSCALL/SYSRET, Intel virtualization
       19:41:09 up  6:31,  1 user,  load average: 0.00, 0.01, 0.05; runlevel 5
    
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Benchmark Run: Sat Sep 05 2015 19:41:09 - 20:09:14
    1 CPU in system; running 1 parallel copy of tests
    
    Dhrystone 2 using register variables       35378232.0 lps   (10.0 s, 7 samples)
    Double-Precision Whetstone                     4510.9 MWIPS (9.8 s, 7 samples)
    Execl Throughput                               6360.9 lps   (30.0 s, 2 samples)
    File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks       1361558.6 KBps  (30.0 s, 2 samples)
    File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks          369757.9 KBps  (30.0 s, 2 samples)
    File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks       3960826.0 KBps  (30.0 s, 2 samples)
    Pipe Throughput                             2578918.2 lps   (10.0 s, 7 samples)
    Pipe-based Context Switching                 468435.7 lps   (10.0 s, 7 samples)
    Process Creation                              14374.8 lps   (30.0 s, 2 samples)
    Shell Scripts (1 concurrent)                   9600.2 lpm   (60.0 s, 2 samples)
    Shell Scripts (8 concurrent)                   1254.6 lpm   (60.0 s, 2 samples)
    System Call Overhead                        5008377.8 lps   (10.0 s, 7 samples)
    
    System Benchmarks Index Values               BASELINE       RESULT    INDEX
    Dhrystone 2 using register variables         116700.0   35378232.0   3031.6
    Double-Precision Whetstone                       55.0       4510.9    820.2
    Execl Throughput                                 43.0       6360.9   1479.3
    File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks          3960.0    1361558.6   3438.3
    File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks            1655.0     369757.9   2234.2
    File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks          5800.0    3960826.0   6829.0
    Pipe Throughput                               12440.0    2578918.2   2073.1
    Pipe-based Context Switching                   4000.0     468435.7   1171.1
    Process Creation                                126.0      14374.8   1140.9
    Shell Scripts (1 concurrent)                     42.4       9600.2   2264.2
    Shell Scripts (8 concurrent)                      6.0       1254.6   2091.0
    System Call Overhead                          15000.0    5008377.8   3338.9
                                                                       ========
    System Benchmarks Index Score                                        2124.4
    
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Benchmark Run: Sat Sep 05 2015 20:09:14 - 20:37:18
    1 CPU in system; running 1 parallel copy of tests
    
    Dhrystone 2 using register variables       35837005.3 lps   (10.0 s, 7 samples)
    Double-Precision Whetstone                     4554.1 MWIPS (9.8 s, 7 samples)
    Execl Throughput                               6392.2 lps   (29.6 s, 2 samples)
    File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks       1335788.5 KBps  (30.0 s, 2 samples)
    File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks          373193.4 KBps  (30.0 s, 2 samples)
    File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks       3476162.7 KBps  (30.0 s, 2 samples)
    Pipe Throughput                             2585616.8 lps   (10.0 s, 7 samples)
    Pipe-based Context Switching                 478237.9 lps   (10.0 s, 7 samples)
    Process Creation                              16043.5 lps   (30.0 s, 2 samples)
    Shell Scripts (1 concurrent)                   9667.3 lpm   (60.0 s, 2 samples)
    Shell Scripts (8 concurrent)                   1264.4 lpm   (60.0 s, 2 samples)
    System Call Overhead                        5043687.3 lps   (10.0 s, 7 samples)
    
    System Benchmarks Index Values               BASELINE       RESULT    INDEX
    Dhrystone 2 using register variables         116700.0   35837005.3   3070.9
    Double-Precision Whetstone                       55.0       4554.1    828.0
    Execl Throughput                                 43.0       6392.2   1486.5
    File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks          3960.0    1335788.5   3373.2
    File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks            1655.0     373193.4   2254.9
    File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks          5800.0    3476162.7   5993.4
    Pipe Throughput                               12440.0    2585616.8   2078.5
    Pipe-based Context Switching                   4000.0     478237.9   1195.6
    Process Creation                                126.0      16043.5   1273.3
    Shell Scripts (1 concurrent)                     42.4       9667.3   2280.0
    Shell Scripts (8 concurrent)                      6.0       1264.4   2107.4
    System Call Overhead                          15000.0    5043687.3   3362.5
                                                                       ========
    System Benchmarks Index Score                                        2131.8

    ServerBear.com benchmark: http://serverbear.com/benchmark/2015/09/05/JsoQf3jep7ISpwq8

  • Is it possible to order additional IPs (Failover IPs)?

  • No - it says they aren't available for 2016 vpses

  • @boernd said:
    Is it possible to order additional IPs (Failover IPs)?

    Your be able to order/use Fail-over IP's/Subnets with them soon however.

  • Since @joodle forgot a geekbench (more detailed) here it is

    http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench3/3370533

    I AM BACK :)
    Working Windows Server 2012 R2 on 6GB! Beat that!

  • sinsin Member
    edited September 2015

    I'm probably going to purchase the $8.99/month OVH VPS Cloud 2016 later this week...do the regular 2016 SSD ones (that start at $3.49) have an SLA too?

  • @sin said:
    I'm probably going to purchase the $8.99/month OVH VPS Cloud 2016 later this week...do the regular 2016 SSD ones (that start at $3.49) have an SLA too?

    Nothing on the site says there is, very much doubt there is any, as there not using a HA environment on the standard one's.

    Thanked by 1sin
  • DylanDylan Member
    edited September 2015

    rm_ said: So it's not that Runabove is hands down better, more a case of "pick one or another depending on what you need".

    Apparently the new OVH lines are going to replace their RunAbove equivalents. They've already limited new RA accounts and at some point they're going to transition existing users over too (maybe once the 2016 line is rolled out worldwide?). The RunAbove brand will be "repositioned" for short-term Labs stuff.




  • LeeLee Member
    edited September 2015

    I wonder how this will affect VPS providers out of OVH, the price vs resource point is good, even if you are not a fan of OVH it's likely better to go direct than around.

  • Lee said: the price vs resource point is good

    At least for now, while they are populating the new service and the advertised resources seem to be dedicated for the most part.

Sign In or Register to comment.