Howdy, Stranger!

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


Recommend a cheap VPS with CyberWurx (Atlanta)
New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.

Recommend a cheap VPS with CyberWurx (Atlanta)

PauloPaulo Member
edited December 2012 in Help

Hi, could anyone recommend me a cheap VPS with CyberWurx (Atlanta)?

Comments

  • Nick_ANick_A Top Provider

    RamNode is in CyberWurx but we run our own network and hardware :)

  • PauloPaulo Member
    edited December 2012

    QuickPacket now pass the traffic through nLayer that's why I'm looking for another VPS.

    My friend uses RamNode but traffic to 66.150.54.55 passes by tinet.net, not cyberwurx.

  • IshaqIshaq Member, Provider

    We have Atlanta in [email protected]

    Any reason for CyberWurx?

  • Nick_ANick_A Top Provider

    What are you looking for in terms of transit then?

  • Better route and stability with the IP 66.150.54.55.

  • Atlanta locations are becoming rare.

  • Unfortunately.

  • @Paulo said: Better route and stability with the IP 66.150.54.55.

    Hm. I've tried tracing that IP from a number of locations; it hits border6.pc2-bbnet2.acs.pnap.net then dies.

    From RamNode, here's the ping results for the above address.

    64 bytes from 64.94.0.75: icmp_seq=1 ttl=251 time=0.572 ms
    64 bytes from 64.94.0.75: icmp_seq=2 ttl=251 time=0.523 ms
    64 bytes from 64.94.0.75: icmp_seq=3 ttl=251 time=1.08 ms
    64 bytes from 64.94.0.75: icmp_seq=4 ttl=251 time=0.531 ms
    64 bytes from 64.94.0.75: icmp_seq=5 ttl=251 time=1.35 ms
    64 bytes from 64.94.0.75: icmp_seq=6 ttl=251 time=0.648 ms
    64 bytes from 64.94.0.75: icmp_seq=7 ttl=251 time=0.844 ms
    64 bytes from 64.94.0.75: icmp_seq=8 ttl=251 time=0.540 ms
    64 bytes from 64.94.0.75: icmp_seq=9 ttl=251 time=0.538 ms
    64 bytes from 64.94.0.75: icmp_seq=10 ttl=251 time=0.542 ms
    
    
  • @klikli said: Have you tried this?

    Interesting. Could you recommend me a reseller?

    @ElliotJ said: Hm. I've tried tracing that IP from a number of locations; it hits border6.pc2-bbnet2.acs.pnap.net then dies.

    From RamNode, here's the ping results for the above address.

    Yes, this IP usually only accepts packets on port 7171.
    RamNode is good most of the time, but sometimes the ping fluctuates greatly. Meanwhile the CyberWurx is more stable.

  • Our commitment to deliver the highest quality products and services to our customers brought us to our home at 55 Marietta. 55 Marietta is a 390,000 square foot, twenty-one story building dedicated to telecommunications located in the heart of the Central Business District in Downtown Atlanta. 55 Marietta sits atop one of the nation's most wired telecom grids, which gives us convenient access to every major telecommunications provider in the country.

    QuickPacket

  • qpsqps Member, Provider
    edited December 2012

    Can you provide an IP address that doesn't have a firewall that blocks ICMP? Even the router before it appears to have a rate limit on ICMP, which causes the fluctuations.

    QuickPacket recently started peering with nLayer, and overall customer feedback has been positive. We are planning to bring another carrier online in the coming weeks which should improve things even further.

    We own our hardware and run our network - AS46261.

  • Nick_ANick_A Top Provider

    @qps what part of 55 are you in?

  • Not a fan of nLayer @Paulo or something else entirely?

  • qpsqps Member, Provider
    edited December 2012

    @Nick_A said: @qps what part of 55 are you in?

    Most of our equipment is in the same suite you are. We also have space on another floor. We've been with CyberWurx for nearly 8 years now.

  • I use the VPS as proxy tunneling, so any fluctuation in latency causes me problems.

    I used QuickPacket and the route to the IP 66.150.54.55 passed through CyberWurx without any problem, but now is going through nLayer and unfortunately, for me, isn't good. The latency varies greatly in certain moments.

    I have nothing against nLayer. My only problem is that it is not stable as I need it to be.

  • @qps said: Can you provide an IP address that doesn't have a firewall that blocks ICMP? Even the router before it appears to have a rate limit on ICMP, which causes the fluctuations.

    Maybe 66.150.54.254?

  • ramnetramnet Member, Provider
    edited December 2012

    Hello,

    We are not in CyberWurx although we are 0.8 ms away from CyberWurx's network.

    You can ping us in Atlanta on 199.180.249.1 - we have IP transit links thru PacketExchange/Mzima Abovenet Cogent Tinet nLayer WVFiber and lots of peering on the TIE AIX exchange.

    We regularly get praise from our clients about the quality of our our Atlanta network, so I should expect you'll find it good for you, too.

  • qpsqps Member, Provider
    edited December 2012

    @Paulo We are adding a connection to Cogent (ETA January 1) which should improve the routing to your IP address since Internap peers with Cogent directly.

  • @qps I don't know if the connection with Cogent is already active, but the traceroute, right now, is the same as before.

    @ramnet Thanks for the info.

  • qpsqps Member, Provider

    @Paulo said: I don't know if the connection with Cogent is already active, but the traceroute, right now, is the same as before.

    Cogent delayed the turn up (they couldn't meet our original install date), but it should be sometime this month, hopefully.

  • PauloPaulo Member
    edited January 2013

    @qps Is not working yet. But thanks for the info.

  • qpsqps Member, Provider

    @Paulo - Cogent is online. Check it out now and let me know. Thanks!

  • In some moments all have the same ping 0.1-0.9ms, but now...

    Host Loss% Last Avg Best Wrst StDev 2. gi3-48.mag02.atl01.atlas.cogentco.com 0.0% 16.0 12.9 0.3 192.7 42.0 3. te0-3-0-4.mpd22.atl01.atlas.cogentco.com 0.0% 0.7 0.6 0.5 1.0 0.1 4. te0-1-0-3.ccr21.atl04.atlas.cogentco.com 0.0% 0.9 0.8 0.7 1.4 0.1 5. 38.104.182.242 0.0% 14.7 14.0 13.9 14.7 0.1 6. border6.pc2-bbnet2.acs.pnap.net 0.0% 13.9 18.4 13.8 184.4 20.9 border6.pc1-bbnet1.acs.pnap.net

  • qpsqps Member, Provider

    Routers frequently have rate limits on ICMP, so it could be related to that. When I ran the traceroute to www.internap.com, it looked fine (under 1 ms).

  • @Paulo said: now pass the traffic through nLayer

    What's wrong with nLayer?

  • qpsqps Member, Provider

    @dnwk said: What's wrong with nLayer?

    It's not that there's anything wrong with nLayer. Internap does not peer with nLayer in Atlanta, so it routes through other providers, which adds latency.

    Regardless, the issue is resolved now since we turned up Cogent so that latency is under 1 ms again.

  • @qps said: Routers frequently have rate limits on ICMP, so it could be related to that. When I ran the traceroute to www.internap.com, it looked fine (under 1 ms).

    Like I said, I use the VPS as proxy tunneling to play a game, and when the game lags I look putty and the ping is increased, sometimes with packet loss. But, with Cogent is better than with nLayer. Thanks for your attention to the problem, @qps!

Sign In or Register to comment.