Howdy, Stranger!

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


EazyVPS 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.

EazyVPS Review

SimpleNodeSimpleNode Member
edited December 2012 in Reviews

@Arif257 Was kind enough to provide me with a free VPS for a week for me to test. This is their "Starter Plan"

NOTE: I am another provider, so I can't promise that this review is un-biased.

Ordering

ss1
The pricing/details page is simple, however it lacks details: What Hypervisor? Location? Port speed? Control Panel? CPU Cores?

ss2
Once we click one of the buttons, we are presented with a standard WHMCS interface. Starter? I thought it was called Bronze!

ss3
Not many OSes to choose from, but I'm assuming that there'll be more to choose from in the control panel.

ss4
Here is where I'm confused. This VPS comes with 2 IPv6 addresses. Does this really mean it comes with no IPv4? That's not very good, because I don't have IPv6 on my home connection, and all 4 VPSes I have access to don't have IPv6. This will make it hard to review if this is really the case.

ss5
Due to this, I decided to order an "extra" IPv4, just in case.

ss6
Mail went straight to spam.... google apps. Consider using SendGrid or similar.

ss7
Didn't get an activation email with SolusVM details, username, password etc, so had to log into WHMCS. Still no SolusVM details :/
You can also see that I was indeed provisioned 2 IPv6 and 1 IPv4. That means that their VPSes are IPv6 only by default, and IPv4 addresses are pretty expensive ($3)

VPS
ss8
Luckily I can SSH in, so no need for SolusVM at the moment, however it'll still be nice to see it.

root@complicated:~# df -h
Filesystem            Size  Used Avail Use% Mounted on
/dev/xvda1             50G  841M   46G   2% /
tmpfs                 256M     0  256M   0% /lib/init/rw
udev                  256M     0  256M   0% /dev
tmpfs                 256M  4.0K  256M   1% /dev/shm

About 850MB used disk space

procs -----------memory---------- ---swap-- -----io---- -system-- ----cpu----
 r  b   swpd   free   buff  cache   si   so    bi    bo   in   cs us sy id wa
 0  0      0 411888   3696  58580    0    0    16     8   34   26  0  0 100  0

VMStat

root@complicated:~# cat /proc/cpuinfo
processor   : 0
vendor_id   : GenuineIntel
cpu family  : 6
model       : 44
model name  : Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 CPU         970  @ 3.20GHz
stepping    : 2
cpu MHz     : 3199.998
cache size  : 12288 KB
physical id : 0
siblings    : 1
core id     : 0
cpu cores   : 1
fpu     : yes
fpu_exception   : yes
cpuid level : 11
wp      : yes
flags       : fpu de tsc msr pae cx8 apic sep cmov pat clflush acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss ht syscall lm constant_tsc pni ssse3 cx16 sse4_1 sse4_2 popcnt lahf_lm
bogomips    : 8002.08
clflush size    : 64
cache_alignment : 64
address sizes   : 36 bits physical, 48 bits virtual
power management:

CPUInfo shows 4 of the above CPU Cores

root@complicated:~# 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, 5.94045 s, 181 MB/s
root@complicated:~# 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, 5.27921 s, 203 MB/s
root@complicated:~# 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, 5.92476 s, 181 MB/s

Generic DD tests... pretty good scores. No idea how full/empty the node is though.

root@complicated:~# wget cachefly.cachefly.net/100mb.test -O /dev/null
--2012-12-03 22:02:45--  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 5.96M/s   in 18s     

2012-12-03 22:03:03 (5.71 MB/s) - `/dev/null' saved [104857600/104857600]

Cachefly wget...

FreeVPS.us Bench.sh:

root@complicated:~# sh bench.sh
CPU model :  Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 CPU         970  @ 3.20GHz
Number of cores : 4
CPU frequency :  3199.998 MHz
Total amount of ram : 512 MB
Total amount of swap : 0 MB
System uptime :   17 min,       
Download speed from CacheFly: 6.13MB/s 
Download speed from Linode, Atlanta GA: 2.04MB/s 
Download speed from Linode, Dallas, TX: 697KB/s 
Download speed from Linode, Tokyo, JP: 2.44MB/s 
Download speed from Linode, London, UK:  
Download speed from Leaseweb, Haarlem, NL: 10.7MB/s 
Download speed from Softlayer, Singapore: 325KB/s 
Download speed from Softlayer, Seattle, WA: 400KB/s 
Download speed from Softlayer, San Jose, CA: 532KB/s 
Download speed from Softlayer, Washington, DC: 917KB/s 
I/O speed :  217 MB/s

Took 25 minutes to run... :L

ServerBear is running. Please wait. It'll probably take a long, long time as the network tests will probable take ~30 minutes on it own :/.

«1

Comments

  • HalfEatenPieHalfEatenPie Veteran
    edited December 2012

    @SimpleNode said: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 CPU 970 @ 3.20GHz

    image

    This image should speak for itself.

    Only 3 OSes

    Network to west coast USA seems HORRIBLE.

    I/O looks great.

    Also the IPv4/6 thing is 100% just BAD.

    Personally, I wouldn't buy. But thanks for taking the time @SimpleNode

  • Awmusic12635Awmusic12635 Member, Host Rep

    Very detailed

  • @HalfEatenPie said: Also the IPv4/6 thing is 100% just BAD.

    I agree. IPv6 Only is fine, but you should make that big and bold, so customers don't get confused.

    Basically everyone assumes 1 IPv4 comes free.

  • Hi there,

    Sorry to say, we are being a little delayed with this. The update hasn't been made yet. This will be delayed until further notice.

    Thank You

  • Providers reviewing providers. Well, I guess this works when a provider doesn't have any real customers.

    image

  • Awmusic12635Awmusic12635 Member, Host Rep

    @Arif257 What update are you referring to?

  • HalfEatenPieHalfEatenPie Veteran
    edited December 2012

    @marcm said: Providers reviewing providers. Well, I guess this works when a provider doesn't have any real customers.

    I personally don't find any issues in this really. I mean I'd prefer @SimpleNode do it than some other random individual who the community doesn't know. Now he did state in the beginning that he is a provider and that his answers can (and probably will) be biased.

    I don't have any issues with it as long as the reader understands where it's coming from.

  • @SimpleNode

    Secretly that gif hijacks your brain and rootkits it, be careful...

  • @HalfEatenPie - I don't have any issue with that either, I just thought it sounded funny. We're all part of the same community, so it's more like an inside joke, lol.

  • @SimpleNode - Is he using HostBill?

  • HalfEatenPieHalfEatenPie Veteran
    edited December 2012

    @marcm said: @HalfEatenPie - I don't have any issue with that either, I just thought it sounded funny. We're all part of the same community, so it's more like an inside joke, lol.

    Gotcha. Yeah... didn't get that at the moment.

    @marcm said: Is he using HostBill?

    nah its WHMCS

  • @marcm said: Is he using HostBill?

    No, HostBill looks far more fancier (that's why we use it), however it can be buggy at times >:D

  • So a cheap i7 950 from Snelservers. 3USD for IP when it's .90 euros per ip when you order more than 4,

    Yeah, I'll stick to CVPS/Hostigation.

  • *970

    @Kairus said: Yeah, I'll stick to CVPS/Hostigation.

    No EU location though. :P

  • @SimpleNode

    I fell in love with Hostbill, it's more mature, better price, more modules, less fucking exploits and looks great indeed.
    WHMCS is for skidies that want to sell uber leet shared webhosting, but evolved a little to support SolusVM and some worthless crap...

  • InfinityInfinity Member, Host Rep

    @SimpleNode said: No EU location though. :P

    There are many awesome European providers e.g. Inception [minus the recent issues], Prometeus etc.

  • @HalfEatenPie - HostBill is really cool, but if you don't start out with it then don't try and migrate hundreds of customers from WHMCS over because it's a pain in the but. We've tried to do it, finally gave up and purchased an owned license for WHMCS. If we would have started with HostBill from the beginning, it would have been a different story. You can't import tickets or any additional info into HostBill over. It also doesn't have any kind of support for mobile devices. As far as bang for the buck, HostBill wins hands down. Just from the top of my head:

    1) Comes with Stripe module built in - $45 on WHMCS
    2) Comes with Live Chat app - $145 to get PHP Live! or ~$15/mo. to $30/mo. for other solutions
    3) Comes with PowerDNS module - ~$180 WHMCS module
    4) It comes with a boat load of modules that support anything from OpenStack to Proxmox.

    So yeah, get HostBill if you're just starting out :-)

  • @BronzeByte

    Problem is when customers start emailing you, complaining that your site looks like this;
    ss

    Still prefer HostBill though :D

  • @marcm

    It's so lovely

  • @marcm said: So yeah, get HostBill if you're just starting out :-)

    We migrated ~100 customers from BoxBilling -> HostBill. It wasn't too bad, but that's because we have an amazing php dev who can write a amazing migration script - even migrates SolusVM integration :D

  • @SimpleNode

    Ah, the CSS doesn't really like you I assume?

  • @BronzeByte said: Ah, the CSS doesn't really like you I assume?

    Hitting refresh a few times fixes it... no idea why.

  • MOAR RESULTS ARE IN (what is this, we're actually talking about EazyVPS, not HostBill? How is that possible?)

    Benchmarking download from Cachefly (http://cachefly.cachefly.net/100mb.test)
    Got 6.52MB/s
    Benchmarking download from Linode, Atlanta, GA, USA (http://atlanta1.linode.com/100MB-atlanta.bin)
    Got 1.58MB/s
    Benchmarking download from Linode, Dallas, TX, USA (http://dallas1.linode.com/100MB-dallas.bin)
    Got 1005KB/s
    Benchmarking download from Linode, Tokyo, JP (http://tokyo1.linode.com/100MB-tokyo.bin)
    Got 2.59MB/s
    Benchmarking download from Linode, London, UK (http://speedtest.london.linode.com/100MB-london.bin)
    Got 9.17MB/s
    Benchmarking download from OVH, Paris, France (http://proof.ovh.net/files/100Mio.dat)
    Got 1.28MB/s
    Benchmarking download from SmartDC, Rotterdam, Netherlands (http://mirror.i3d.net/100mb.bin)
    Got 7.19MB/s
    Benchmarking download from Hetzner, Nuremberg, Germany (http://hetzner.de/100MB.iso)
    Got 4.52MB/s
    Benchmarking download from iiNet, Perth, WA, Australia (http://ftp.iinet.net.au/test100MB.dat)
    Got 2.26MB/s
    Benchmarking download from MammothVPS, Sydney, Australia (http://www.mammothvpscustomer.com/test100MB.dat)
    Got 406KB/s
    Benchmarking download from Leaseweb, Haarlem, NL, USA (http://mirror.leaseweb.com/speedtest/100mb.bin)
    Got 10.9MB/s
    Benchmarking download from Softlayer, Singapore (http://speedtest.sng01.softlayer.com/downloads/test100.zip)
    Got 307KB/s
    Benchmarking download from Softlayer, Seattle, WA, USA (http://speedtest.sea01.softlayer.com/downloads/test100.zip)
    Got 679KB/s
    Benchmarking download from Softlayer, San Jose, CA, USA (http://speedtest.sjc01.softlayer.com/downloads/test100.zip)
    Got 484KB/s
    Benchmarking download from Softlayer, Washington, DC, USA (http://speedtest.wdc01.softlayer.com/downloads/test100.zip)
    Got 1.16MB/s
    
  • HalfEatenPieHalfEatenPie Veteran
    edited December 2012

    @marcm: I wasn't getting into a discussion about HostBill. You asked if that was HostBill, instead I just stated it was WHMCS (which it is).

    I agree with you to an extent on that though, but I absolutely detest the entire company that HostBill is. The way that they couldn't make up their mind if they wanted a rented/owned license, etc. and their limitation in support and just in general lack of telling us what they're doing. This is why I prefer WHMCS (as much as I hate to say it).

    @BronzeByte said: less fucking exploits

    This can be debatable due to the fact that WHMCS is more commonly used than HostBill, and also the entire fact that finding an exploit in WHMCS is probably more profitable than to find one in HostBill, but that's for another discussion.

    Edit:

    @SimpleNode said: Benchmarking download from Softlayer, Seattle, WA, USA (http://speedtest.sea01.softlayer.com/downloads/test100.zip)

    Got 679KB/s
    Benchmarking download from Softlayer, San Jose, CA, USA (http://speedtest.sjc01.softlayer.com/downloads/test100.zip)
    Got 484KB/s

    Those got me.

  • @SimpleNode said: Hitting refresh a few times fixes it... no idea why.

    @SimpleNode - Sounds like a caching issue or other PHP related opcode caching issue. I am just guessing. I would recommend that if you're using APC for instance to check if "stat" is set to "1" or "0". I would recommend setting it to "1" so that APC for instance will check the PHP script first before serving from cache.

  • @simplenode I got a blank looking site experience after you migrated...I assumed it was a homage to Steve Jobs. Forced a refresh and all was good :)

  • @HalfEatenPie

    We'll never know if the following statement is true as it's IonCubed:
    WHMCS coding is sloppy and shit and that sloppyness causes errors to sneak in which result in exploits

  • @HalfEatenPie said: I agree with you to an extent on that though, but I absolutely detest the entire company that HostBill is. The way that they couldn't make up their mind if they wanted a rented/owned license, etc. and their limitation in support and just in general lack of telling us what they're doing. This is why I prefer WHMCS (as much as I hate to say it).

    @HalfEatenPie - I wasn't trying to derail the thread either. As far as your comments about HostBill as a company, I agree. That, and the fact that the same person is answering most tickets, does sales and is on the forums all the time has me worried. I would hate it to stay locked into a piece of software if the company goes belly up tomorrow. So I have considered that as well. Their product is nice do, I wish they would be better at being transparent. The fact that HostBill as a company is indecisive shows that only one person is in charge there.

  • More results.

    root@complicated:~# mtr --report lg.simpleno.de
    HOST: complicated.vps             Loss%   Snt   Last   Avg  Best  Wrst StDev
      1. snelis.com                    0.0%    10    3.3   1.8   0.7   5.2   1.5
      2. 100ge.cr1.smartdc.i3d.net     0.0%    10    0.5   1.1   0.5   4.1   1.3
      3. cr1-cr0.smartdc.i3d.net       0.0%    10    0.5   1.8   0.5  11.6   3.5
      4. ethernet11-2.ar9.lon3.gblx.n  0.0%    10    8.9   8.8   8.7   8.9   0.0
      5. ae6.scr4.LON3.gblx.net        0.0%    10    8.8  10.1   8.7  21.5   4.0
      6. te2-1-10G.asr1.DAL2.gblx.net  0.0%    10  113.6 134.2 113.5 227.7  43.8
      7. highwinds-network-group.teng  0.0%    10  113.5 125.6 113.4 169.1  21.2
      8. premium-network.incero.com    0.0%    10  114.1 114.8 113.9 116.1   0.9
      9. 23.29.112.74                  0.0%    10  114.4 114.6 114.4 115.0   0.2
     10. 23.29.127.98                 10.0%    10  114.1 114.1 114.1 114.2   0.0
    
    root@complicated:~# mtr --report speedtest.sjc01.softlayer.com
    HOST: complicated.vps             Loss%   Snt   Last   Avg  Best  Wrst StDev
      1. snelis.com                    0.0%    10   11.4   3.8   0.8  11.4   3.8
      2. 100ge.cr1.smartdc.i3d.net     0.0%    10    0.6   0.6   0.5   1.2   0.2
      3. 109.200.218.85                0.0%    10    6.9   3.5   2.0  11.3   3.2
      4. bbr01.eq01.ams01.networklaye  0.0%    10    2.4   3.6   2.4  14.9   3.9
      5. ae7.bbr02.eq01.ams02.network  0.0%    10    2.7   3.5   2.5  11.2   2.7
      6. ae0.bbr02.tg01.lon01.network  0.0%    10    8.0   8.0   8.0   8.1   0.0
      7. ae7.bbr01.tg01.lon01.network  0.0%    10    8.0   8.0   8.0   8.1   0.0
      8. ae1.bbr02.tl01.nyc01.network  0.0%    10   75.9  77.6  75.7  94.2   5.8
      9. ae1.bbr01.eq01.chi01.network  0.0%    10   98.3  98.2  98.2  98.4   0.1
     10. ae7.bbr02.eq01.chi01.network  0.0%    10  115.5 104.9  98.1 147.5  16.0
     11. ae1.bbr02.cs01.den01.network  0.0%    10  123.6 133.4 123.3 173.4  21.1
     12. ae1.bbr01.eq01.sjc02.network  0.0%    10  148.6 148.5 148.4 148.7   0.1
     13. ae5.dar01.sr01.sjc01.network  0.0%    10  148.9 149.0 148.9 149.0   0.0
     14. po1.fcr01.sr01.sjc01.network 10.0%    10  150.6 154.5 150.6 172.8   7.2
     15. speedtest.sjc01.softlayer.co 10.0%    10  149.6 149.6 149.4 149.7   0.1
    
Sign In or Register to comment.