Howdy, Stranger!

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


Inception Hosting - The sales strike back - Part II (Triple BW + double disk) - 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.

Inception Hosting - The sales strike back - Part II (Triple BW + double disk)

24

Comments

  • InceptionHostingInceptionHosting Member, Patron Provider

    @jsg said: My own interest in UK and NL VPSs is quite limited and saturated anyway and I still dislike A. Smith as a person, but I can't but laud these VPSs/his offer here. Kudos, recommended.

    Fiar enough, just for clarity, this is a shared account for the sales team, it is not AnthonySmith.

  • jsgjsg Member, Resident Benchmarker

    @InceptionHosting said:

    @jsg said: My own interest in UK and NL VPSs is quite limited and saturated anyway and I still dislike A. Smith as a person, but I can't but laud these VPSs/his offer here. Kudos, recommended.

    Fiar enough, just for clarity, this is a shared account for the sales team, it is not AnthonySmith.

    As long as that person is related to InceptionHosting my dislike includes the company too. That's me as a private person.
    Me as a benchmarker aim for objectivity and fairness, no matter what, so in that function (which I took on as a service to our LET community) my personal views are put in the back seat and my objective view is that the products offered in this thread are really great and a very good value.

    Thanked by 2bulbasaur kalimov622
  • @jsg said:
    As many here probably know I strongly dislike Anthony Smith because he attempted to bleed LET dry and to all but kill it.

    But I now got access (via a friend) to one of the small NL 1 GB VPSs InceptionHosting offers in this thread and as a benchmarker I must (and want to) be fair and objective no matter what, so here is my first impression based on a few benchmark runs:

    Great product, seriously!
    The processor and memory is really fast (SC 415 MB/s, MC 770 MB/s) and one really gets 2 (shared) vCores. The only grain of salt is that there is no hardware AES support. The disk also is a nice and fast NVMe. And the connectivity is among the best I've ever seen on LET. And all that for €15/yr. Yay!

    My own interest in UK and NL VPSs is quite limited and saturated anyway and I still dislike A. Smith as a person, but I can't but laud these VPSs/his offer here. Kudos, recommended.

    See this about the CPU AES-NI issue.
    https://www.lowendtalk.com/discussion/comment/3213699/#Comment_3213699


    @InceptionHosting Is the disk using RAID? If yes which RAID level?

    Thanked by 1jsg
  • heLL_bOyheLL_bOy Member
    edited March 2021

    @InceptionHosting said:

    @heLL_bOy said:
    do you accept asian customer?

    as far i know you non-accept china customer, how about the rest asia region?

    Pop a ticket in, if we can help we will.

    has opened up the ticket, but get rejected by your company :(

    i feel very disappointed on it and its first time been rejected.

  • stupid service

    When I go through the ticket method for identity verification and then stop less than two hours after payment, who says it must be the same as the payer information and my registration information, I don't have a credit card, what's so strange about that?

  • InceptionHostingInceptionHosting Member, Patron Provider

    @Chocoweb said: See this about the CPU AES-NI issue.

    https://www.lowendtalk.com/discussion/comment/3213699/#Comment_3213699

    To repeat again for everyone else, install via template and you will get full CPU passthrough/ instruction sets, you can then immediately install via ISO if you wish, this just saves having to use a ticket in to request cpu passthrough.

    Just a limitation of the SolusVM (VPS) control panel

  • jsgjsg Member, Resident Benchmarker

    I'll partially quote

    @InceptionHosting said:
    I agree it is ridiculous but it is what it is

    Yes, it's indeed ridiculous and why should I delete the installation, install some template and then reinstall my VPS? Won't happen - and shouldn't be needed; The IH team has clearly demonstrated that they are well capable to do a good job and I expect them to really solve that problem.
    That said, I mentioned AES only because I know that many want to have hardware AES support. I personally don't care and think that the VPSs offered in this thread are great with or without AES anyway.

  • InceptionHostingInceptionHosting Member, Patron Provider

    @mcgree said: who says it must be the same as the payer information and my registration information,

    You confirmed you understood this explicitly during the order process, 3 times, you cannot continue with the order unless you confirm you understand this.

    There were many risk factors with your order including IP origin, the name being different from the account, the address being different from the account, the card is registered to someone else from a different country.

    Sorry if you feel that is stupid, but it is a very high business risk.

    We also take PayPal, and debit cards, and crypto.

  • @mcgree said: When I go >through the ticket method for identity verification and then stop less than two hours >after payment, who says it must be the same as the payer information and my >registration information

    See their KB. Some providers don't want to take any risk at all. I couldn't crack this deal either due to this issue. Can anyone match this deal?

  • using this product is the biggest risk, you don't know when your service will be suspended, deleted, and the reason may be your privacy they don't know.

  • InceptionHostingInceptionHosting Member, Patron Provider

    @mcgree said:
    using this product is the biggest risk, you don't know when your service will be suspended, deleted, and the reason may be your privacy they don't know.

    There is no risk, despite you being fully refunded already your data has been preserved as you know already and we have even offered to move it to a location of your choosing for you.

    I appreciate you are not happy about the situation but consistently miss representing facts is really not very mature.

  • @Boogeyman said:

    @mcgree said: When I go >through the ticket method for identity verification and then stop less than two hours >after payment, who says it must be the same as the payer information and my >registration information

    See their KB. Some providers don't want to take any risk at all. I couldn't crack this deal either due to this issue. Can anyone match this deal?

    In fact, it's such a ridiculous RULE that probably only Europeans and manual audits to confirm that the server is used for IDLE can buy it.

  • jsgjsg Member, Resident Benchmarker

    @Boogeyman said:

    @mcgree said: When I go >through the ticket method for identity verification and then stop less than two hours >after payment, who says it must be the same as the payer information and my >registration information

    See their KB. Some providers don't want to take any risk at all. I couldn't crack this deal either due to this issue. Can anyone match this deal?

    I'm afraid chances are slim, not because the price is so low but because one gets a really nice VPS for the low price.
    Maybe @seriesn could and would help you out. From what I see he is the only provider who sells good, even great VPSs for a low price. There are of course others with cheap offers (some even cheaper than the current IS offer) but none of those gets even close to the performance and quality of the current IH offer (other than seriesn) that I know of. Theoretically @cociu might have a sweet e5-26xxv4 deal for you too but he has no NL location afaik.

    Thanked by 1seriesn
  • @jsg said: but he has no NL location afaik.

    I don't have any preferred location. Anywhere is fine in this config and budget range.

  • jsgjsg Member, Resident Benchmarker
    edited March 2021

    Here is a quick benchmark, based on only 5 runs though.

    Machine: amd64, Arch.: amd64, Model: QEMU Virtual CPU version 2.5+
    OS, version: FreeBSD 12.2, Mem.: 988 MB
    CPU - Cores: 2, Family/Model/Stepping: 6/13/3
    Cache: 32K/32K L1d/L1i, 2M L2, 16M L3
    Std. Flags: fpu de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36
              cflsh mmx fxsr sse sse2 sse3 cx16 x2apic hypervisor
    Ext. Flags: syscall nx lm lahf_lm
    ----- Processor and Memory -----
    
    ProcMem SC [MB/s]: avg 420.7 - min 418.0 (99.4 %), max 423.8 (100.7 %)
    ProcMem MC [MB/s]: avg 786.2 - min 769.1 (97.8 %), max 820.4 (104.3 %)
    
    --- Disk - Buffered ---
    Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 1639.14 - min 1470.64 (89.7%), max 1773.30 (108.2%)
    Write rnd. [MB/s]: avg 6356.89 - min 4200.47 (66.1%), max 8174.21 (128.6%)
    Read seq. [MB/s]:  avg 2083.41 - min 2019.84 (96.9%), max 2131.44 (102.3%)
    Read rnd. [MB/s]:  avg 3473.03 - min 2687.65 (77.4%), max 5528.81 (159.2%)
    --- Disk - Sync/Direct ---
    Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 109.91 - min 96.76 (88.0%), max 115.87 (105.4%)
    Write rnd. [MB/s]: avg 188.73 - min 165.26 (87.6%), max 220.94 (117.1%)
    Read seq. [MB/s]:  avg 2356.22 - min 2130.00 (90.4%), max 2541.97 (107.9%)
    Read rnd. [MB/s]:  avg 230.51 - min 188.79 (81.9%), max 384.86 (167.0%)
    
    --- Network ---
    US LAX lax.download.datapacket.com
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 43.66 - min 39.60 (90.7%), max 46.39 (106.3%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 147.7 - min 146.4 (99.1%), max 151.0 (102.2%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 148.9 - min 146.4 (98.3%), max 153.3 (103.0%)
    
    NO OSL speedtest.osl01.softlayer.com
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 185.79 - min 180.59 (97.2%), max 191.07 (102.8%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 27.4 - min 26.9 (98.3%), max 27.8 (101.6%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 27.4 - min 26.9 (98.3%), max 27.8 (101.6%)
    
    US SJC speedtest.sjc01.softlayer.com
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 39.85 - min 38.65 (97.0%), max 40.58 (101.8%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 155.8 - min 155.5 (99.8%), max 156.2 (100.3%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 156.6 - min 155.5 (99.3%), max 159.3 (101.7%)
    
    AU MEL speedtest.c1.mel1.dediserve.com
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 20.79 - min 18.45 (88.7%), max 21.87 (105.2%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 293.8 - min 290.3 (98.8%), max 306.6 (104.3%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 295.0 - min 290.5 (98.5%), max 306.6 (103.9%)
    
    JP TOK speedtest.tokyo2.linode.com
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 25.17 - min 20.08 (79.8%), max 27.56 (109.5%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 227.3 - min 226.9 (99.8%), max 227.8 (100.2%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 233.6 - min 228.7 (97.9%), max 241.0 (103.2%)
    
    IT MIL speedtest.mil01.softlayer.com
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 182.47 - min 169.93 (93.1%), max 190.13 (104.2%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 28.2 - min 27.9 (98.8%), max 28.5 (100.9%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 28.3 - min 27.9 (98.6%), max 28.6 (101.1%)
    
    TR_UNK  185.65.204.169
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 16.11 - min 0.00 (0.0%), max 59.80 (371.2%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 51.7 - min 46.9 (90.8%), max 67.9 (131.4%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 51.7 - min 46.9 (90.7%), max 67.9 (131.3%)
    
    FR PAR speedtest.par01.softlayer.com
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 466.83 - min 450.75 (96.6%), max 508.48 (108.9%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 10.0 - min 9.6 (95.8%), max 10.3 (102.8%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 11.7 - min 10.3 (87.7%), max 12.4 (105.6%)
    
    SG SGP mirror.sg.leaseweb.net
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 36.54 - min 36.09 (98.8%), max 36.88 (100.9%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 160.8 - min 159.9 (99.4%), max 162.7 (101.2%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 160.8 - min 159.9 (99.4%), max 162.7 (101.2%)
    
    BR SAO speedtest.sao01.softlayer.com
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 26.55 - min 24.92 (93.9%), max 27.84 (104.9%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 200.6 - min 200.3 (99.8%), max 201.0 (100.2%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 200.6 - min 200.3 (99.8%), max 201.0 (100.2%)
    
    IN CHN speedtest.che01.softlayer.com
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 26.82 - min 26.09 (97.3%), max 27.70 (103.3%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 187.2 - min 187.0 (99.9%), max 187.4 (100.1%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 193.8 - min 192.2 (99.2%), max 196.0 (101.1%)
    
    US WDC mirror.wdc1.us.leaseweb.net
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 39.72 - min 0.00 (0.0%), max 69.46 (174.9%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 85.7 - min 85.0 (99.2%), max 87.0 (101.5%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 86.0 - min 85.1 (98.9%), max 87.0 (101.1%)
    
    RU MOS speedtest.hostkey.ru
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 111.11 - min 99.99 (90.0%), max 120.53 (108.5%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 41.1 - min 40.4 (98.3%), max 41.5 (101.0%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 46.6 - min 41.5 (89.1%), max 51.5 (110.6%)
    
    US DAL speedtest.dal05.softlayer.com
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 49.07 - min 47.86 (97.5%), max 50.51 (102.9%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 124.8 - min 124.5 (99.7%), max 125.3 (100.4%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 124.9 - min 124.5 (99.7%), max 125.3 (100.4%)
    
    UK LON speedtest.lon02.softlayer.com
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 575.47 - min 481.24 (83.6%), max 681.35 (118.4%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 8.7 - min 8.4 (96.3%), max 9.1 (104.4%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 9.5 - min 8.6 (90.9%), max 10.1 (106.8%)
    
    US NYC nyc.download.datapacket.com
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 87.13 - min 82.29 (94.4%), max 89.87 (103.1%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 74.4 - min 73.8 (99.2%), max 74.7 (100.4%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 74.5 - min 73.8 (99.1%), max 74.8 (100.5%)
    
    RO BUC 185.183.99.8
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 148.26 - min 142.73 (96.3%), max 154.88 (104.5%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 44.8 - min 44.3 (99.0%), max 45.8 (102.3%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 44.8 - min 44.3 (99.0%), max 45.8 (102.3%)
    
    CN_HK  mirror.hk.leaseweb.net
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 26.36 - min 0.00 (0.0%), max 33.51 (127.1%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 182.6 - min 182.3 (99.8%), max 183.3 (100.4%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 182.8 - min 182.3 (99.7%), max 183.3 (100.3%)
    
    DE FRA fra.lg.core-backbone.com
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 597.26 - min 443.35 (74.2%), max 683.22 (114.4%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 6.8 - min 6.3 (92.9%), max 7.1 (104.7%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 7.1 - min 6.4 (90.7%), max 7.8 (110.5%)
    

    So we are talking about a processor and memory in the higher end Xeon or the Zen regions. Can't get much better than that.

    The disk is on a decent NVMe level and quite consistent, breaking in somewhat only (funnily) when random reading and writing. Also note that it's one of the rather few disks in LET offers that stays in the 3 digit MB/s region even in unbuffered writes.

    As for the network, I've already summarized it: some of the best results I ever saw at LET. Just one example: 85+ Mb/s cross-Atlantic to NYC! Hell, I've seen quite a few american providers who can't achieve that within their own country.

    TL;DR Even the smallest VPS on offer would be easily sufficient for say medium WP sites and the 4GB VPS will outperform quite a few of the cheap older Xeon dedis. Example: a 2450L or a 26xxv2 typically achieves just about 1/3 of what these VPSs here achieve - and for a ridiculously lower price at that. I'm impressed (and will nag @seriesn to offer something that outclasses these VPSs g).
    Also kudos to @Clouvider in case this runs on his network.

    In closing, sorry that I couldn't/can't do more runs but it's a friends VPS and he needs it back.

    Well done, @InceptionHosting.

    Thanked by 2seriesn Clouvider
  • seriesnseriesn Member
    edited March 2021

    Thanks @jsg! 10/10 agreed. @Clouvider probably has one of the "best" network I have seen in this community. The deals @InceptionHosting hosting providing here are not only awesome and fantastic, but also impossible to provide at their current price point, within the same dc, without the backing of the dc.

    Gobble up these deals folks, great bang for the bucks if you are a data hog!

  • Interested in the 15/year plan. Possible to mount custom iso or are there any windows templates as I want to install windows server.
    30GB space is more than enough for my needs.

  • @Wythej said:
    Interested in the 15/year plan. Possible to mount custom iso or are there any windows templates as I want to install windows server.
    30GB space is more than enough for my needs.

    there are windows server 2016/2019 iso to mount

    Thanked by 1InceptionHosting
  • @wii747 said:

    @Wythej said:
    Interested in the 15/year plan. Possible to mount custom iso or are there any windows templates as I want to install windows server.
    30GB space is more than enough for my needs.

    there are windows server 2016/2019 iso to mount

    Thanks. May I know if custom iso is supported?

  • InceptionHostingInceptionHosting Member, Patron Provider

    @Wythej said:

    @wii747 said:

    @Wythej said:
    Interested in the 15/year plan. Possible to mount custom iso or are there any windows templates as I want to install windows server.
    30GB space is more than enough for my needs.

    there are windows server 2016/2019 iso to mount

    Thanks. May I know if custom iso is supported?

    Not as standard, as long as it is something we can get from an official repository or site we can consider permanently adding it though.

  • ClouviderClouvider Member, Patron Provider
    edited March 2021

    @seriesn said:
    but also impossible to provide at their current price point, within the same dc, without the backing of the dc.

    Reach out and you might be surprised :-) we have been historically doing deals with providers in LE* market to make the sort of pricing possible. We are very supportive in wholesale.

  • jsgjsg Member, Resident Benchmarker

    @Clouvider on its path to become the new (and better) CC? g

  • ClouviderClouvider Member, Patron Provider

    @jsg said:
    @Clouvider on its path to become the new (and better) CC? g

    That’s not the target but we like to have diverse Customer base :-)

    Thanked by 1WSCallum
  • @jsg - @Clouvider and @InceptionHosting already have Ipv6 and clean IPs, I think its CC that has to catch up

  • serv_eeserv_ee Member
    edited March 2021

    @InceptionHosting said: Well BW wise, maybe, although it is actually triple for disk, it is allocated at the time of provisioning so less of a gimmick as it's literally allocated, you. get get it and it is a tangible thing rather than BW which you may never use.

    Like I said, nothing against it. But lets be fair, most providers offer "unlimited" traffic to begin with (most don't even use a fraction of a few TB's I guess) and you've already taken into account the double disk space while doing the promo :)

    It's a nice gesture but even more it's just marketing. Now..lets say you got a few of "old" customers sitting on their plans and you just upgrade their disk space without saying anything, now thats something you don't see any day.

    Still, good luck with the new venture, wish you all the best.

    As for people comparing Racknerd with Clouvider...please don't. Just don't. The more days go by the more "unstable" that thing seems. Free shit all around including VPS's...thats not sustainable in the long run no matter how you look at it.

  • jsgjsg Member, Resident Benchmarker
    edited March 2021

    @DataGizmos said:
    @jsg - @Clouvider and @InceptionHosting already have Ipv6 and clean IPs, I think its CC that has to catch up

    With emphasis for you

    @jsg said:
    @Clouvider on its path to become the new (and better) CC? g

    Anyway it was half cheek in tongue and half grinning friendly.

    Oh, and: I don't care about IPv6 AT ALL. That would certainly not be a criterion for me and btw @Clouvider is clearly better and in fact in another league than CC anyway from what I see; one reason being that "being with Clouvider" isn't smelly (as in "serial hosting scammers").

    Thanked by 1Clouvider
  • @Clouvider said:

    @seriesn said:
    but also impossible to provide at their current price point, within the same dc, without the backing of the dc.

    Reach out and you might be surprised :-) we have been historically doing deals with providers in LE* market to make the sort of pricing possible. We are very supportive in wholesale.

    Thanks brother. I have considered that idea in the past and still did till your recent awesome acquisition. Competing with house brand and upstream is a suicide mission and self harm is prohibited in my religion 😂. I will continue to drool though. Cause boi that network is thicc.

    Thanked by 1Clouvider
  • tomletomle Member, LIR

    Funny thing re the network:
    I was considering moving a PBX from myLoc to InceptionHosting, but while myLoc has direct peering with AS8657 over DE-CIX FRA, traffic from InceptionHosting bounces over both 1299 and 6939 before reaching 8657.
    Yes latency is lower but more hops and networks, more potential issues.
    @Clouvider , any specific reason why that happens instead of over AMS-IX/DE-CIX?

    traceroute to 85.243.139.1 (85.243.139.1), 30 hops max, 60 byte packets
    1 * * *
    2 po15.core1-dus3.bb.as24961.net (62.141.47.26) 0.108 ms 0.152 ms 0.127 ms
    3 po7.core1-dus-ix.bb.as24961.net (62.141.47.87) 0.362 ms 0.368 ms po8.core1-dus-ix.bb.as24961.net (62.141.47.21) 0.336 ms
    4 ipv4.de-cix.fra.de.as8657.cprm.net (80.81.192.38) 6.702 ms 6.760 ms 6.786 ms
    5 lis2-cr1-te8-0-1.cprm.net (195.8.0.233) 45.897 ms 45.986 ms 46.067 ms

    traceroute to 85.243.139.1 (85.243.139.1), 30 hops max, 60 byte packets
    1 * * *
    2 194.127.172.2 (194.127.172.2) 0.165 ms 0.171 ms 0.164 ms
    3 adm-b1-link.ip.twelve99.net (62.115.191.88) 0.829 ms * 0.806 ms
    4 adm-bb3-link.ip.twelve99.net (62.115.136.194) 31.748 ms adm-bb4-link.ip.twelve99.net (62.115.137.64) 30.142 ms 30.142 ms
    5 prs-bb2-link.ip.twelve99.net (213.155.136.166) 31.886 ms 32.080 ms prs-bb1-link.ip.twelve99.net (62.115.134.97) 31.641 ms
    6 * mad-b3-link.ip.twelve99.net (62.115.123.221) 29.337 ms 29.332 ms
    7 hurricane-svc071966-ic358923.ip.twelve99-cust.net (213.155.141.54) 54.958 ms 54.555 ms 54.408 ms
    8 100ge5-2.core1.lis1.he.net (184.104.193.150) 38.506 ms 39.421 ms 40.259 ms
    9 meo-serv-comunicacpera-mult-sa.100gigabitethernet5-1.core1.lis1.he.net (184.104.204.234) 36.589 ms 36.734 ms 36.703 ms
    10 telepac13-hsi.cprm.net (195.8.30.238) 36.712 ms 36.704 ms 38.314 ms

  • ClouviderClouvider Member, Patron Provider

    @tomle no specific reason, we have our policies regarding routing.
    Equally I see no technical reason to adjust this specific route, especially that as you say, latency is lower over the Transit and we have, and can afford capacity. Peering is not always better than transit.

    Thanked by 1tomle
  • Clouvider's AMS is actually connected to AMS-IX but packets are hardly routed to it. Also want to know if there's any reason about it.

Sign In or Register to comment.