Howdy, Stranger!

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


TeraFire, LLC || New location in Singapore - Page 3
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.

TeraFire, LLC || New location in Singapore

13

Comments

  • @gsrdgrdghd I'm getting 347ms to hetzner germany. Where in Germany are you located?

  • @netadmin The plans are live on our site, but we havent issued any coupon codes yet.

  • Its seem the server is on Softlayer network and IPs was assigned by ARIN not APNIC.

  • imperioimperio Member
    edited November 2013

    ~320ms from volia cable kiev,ukraine.

    traceroute to 192.71.144.254 (192.71.144.254), 64 hops max, 52 byte packets
     1  192.168.2.1 (192.168.2.1)  9.316 ms  1.568 ms  1.079 ms
     2  10.136.0.1 (10.136.0.1)  7.864 ms  8.352 ms  9.799 ms
     3  v90.amber.volia.net (82.144.194.142)  10.220 ms  7.678 ms  11.801 ms
     4  lag29-40g.agg-1.f17.kiev.volia.net (77.120.1.61)  11.161 ms  8.342 ms  9.488 ms
     5  be2-80g.cr-1.f17.kiev.volia.net (77.120.1.54)  11.589 ms  9.371 ms  9.956 ms
     6  be1.206.cr-2.g50.kiev.volia.net (77.120.1.130)  8.459 ms  11.623 ms  10.465 ms
     7  ae10-362.rt.ntl.kiv.ua.retn.net (87.245.247.101)  9.910 ms  9.936 ms  11.000 ms
     8  ae3-4.rt.eqx.fkt.de.retn.net (87.245.233.73)  40.492 ms
        ae2-3.rt.eqx.fkt.de.retn.net (87.245.233.58)  46.233 ms
        ae3-4.rt.eqx.fkt.de.retn.net (87.245.233.73)  40.933 ms
     9  * bbr01.xn01.fra01.networklayer.com (80.81.194.167)  47.804 ms  47.355 ms
    10  ae1.bbr01.tg01.lon01.networklayer.com (50.97.18.208)  59.828 ms  62.171 ms  60.775 ms
    11  * ae1.bbr02.tl01.nyc01.networklayer.com (50.97.18.204)  129.141 ms  126.446 ms
    12  * * *
    13  ae7.bbr02.eq01.chi01.networklayer.com (173.192.18.171)  159.400 ms  153.387 ms  150.684 ms
    14  ae1.bbr02.cs01.den01.networklayer.com (173.192.18.131)  179.303 ms  174.666 ms  176.178 ms
    15  ae1.bbr01.eq01.sjc02.networklayer.com (173.192.18.148)  198.143 ms  199.959 ms  201.708 ms
    16  ae7.bbr02.eq01.sjc02.networklayer.com (173.192.18.165)  206.807 ms  204.469 ms  209.117 ms
    17  ae0.bbr01.eq01.tok01.networklayer.com (50.97.18.161)  285.586 ms  321.530 ms  412.999 ms
    18  ae1.bbr01.eq01.sng02.networklayer.com (50.97.18.165)  314.538 ms  443.462 ms  405.179 ms
    19  ae5.dar01.sr03.sng01.networklayer.com (50.97.18.197)  409.532 ms
        ae5.dar02.sr03.sng01.networklayer.com (50.97.18.199)  348.102 ms  331.292 ms
    20  * po1.fcr01.sr03.sng01.networklayer.com (174.133.118.131)  321.586 ms
        po2.fcr01.sr03.sng01.networklayer.com (174.133.118.133)  410.918 ms
    21  * * *
    22  * * *
    23  * 192.71.144.3 (192.71.144.3)  326.729 ms  342.857 ms
    24  * 192.71.144.254 (192.71.144.254)  318.626 ms *
    
  • ^ What a route!

  • Also, the route will get better over the next week.

  • hi @terafire the vps was looking very promised, but about the bandwith, can you increase it ? maybe from 200GB to 500GB ? additional cost wasn't a big deal after all, maybe raise it to 7$ ? :D

  • @iSky yeah if you need something custom you can open up a ticket and ill gladly give you more bandwidth for a little more

  • I hope there will be 128MB plan

  • Hello everyone,

    Terafire has allowed me the pleasure of buying one of their plans, and it's time for a review!

    CPU Info:

    root@sg:~# cat /proc/cpuinfo
    processor       : 0
    vendor_id       : GenuineIntel
    cpu family      : 15
    model           : 6
    model name      : Common KVM processor
    stepping        : 1
    microcode       : 0x1
    cpu MHz         : 2260.998
    cache size      : 4096 KB
    fpu             : yes
    fpu_exception   : yes
    cpuid level     : 5
    wp              : yes
    flags           : fpu de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36 clflush mmx fxsr sse sse2 syscall nx lm constant_tsc up nopl pni cx16 x2apic hypervisor
    bogomips        : 4521.99
    clflush size    : 64
    cache_alignment : 128
    address sizes   : 40 bits physical, 48 bits virtual
    power management:
    

    Memory Info:

    root@sg:~# cat /proc/meminfo
    MemTotal:         121896 kB
    MemFree:           68764 kB
    Buffers:            5856 kB
    Cached:            23576 kB
    SwapCached:            0 kB
    Active:            21216 kB
    Inactive:          16784 kB
    Active(anon):       8588 kB
    Inactive(anon):      160 kB
    Active(file):      12628 kB
    Inactive(file):    16624 kB
    Unevictable:           0 kB
    Mlocked:               0 kB
    SwapTotal:        258044 kB
    SwapFree:         258044 kB
    Dirty:                 0 kB
    Writeback:             0 kB
    AnonPages:          8592 kB
    Mapped:             4868 kB
    Shmem:               184 kB
    Slab:               9860 kB
    SReclaimable:       3104 kB
    SUnreclaim:         6756 kB
    KernelStack:         416 kB
    PageTables:         1208 kB
    NFS_Unstable:          0 kB
    Bounce:                0 kB
    WritebackTmp:          0 kB
    CommitLimit:      318992 kB
    Committed_AS:      40924 kB
    VmallocTotal:   34359738367 kB
    VmallocUsed:         632 kB
    VmallocChunk:   34359737467 kB
    HardwareCorrupted:     0 kB
    AnonHugePages:         0 kB
    HugePages_Total:       0
    HugePages_Free:        0
    HugePages_Rsvd:        0
    HugePages_Surp:        0
    Hugepagesize:       2048 kB
    DirectMap4k:       40952 kB
    DirectMap2M:       90112 kB
    

    FreeVPS Bench:

    root@sg:~# wget freevps.us/downloads/bench.sh -O - -o /dev/null|bash
    CPU model :  Common KVM processor
    Number of cores : 1
    CPU frequency :  2260.998 MHz
    Total amount of ram : 119 MB
    Total amount of swap : 251 MB
    System uptime :   10 min,
    Download speed from CacheFly: 1.41MB/s
    Download speed from Coloat, Atlanta GA: 250KB/s
    Download speed from Softlayer, Dallas, TX: 276KB/s
    Download speed from Linode, Tokyo, JP: 674KB/s
    Download speed from i3d.net, NL:
    Download speed from Leaseweb, Haarlem, NL: 220KB/s
    Download speed from Softlayer, Singapore: 8.28MB/s
    Download speed from Softlayer, Seattle, WA: 295KB/s
    Download speed from Softlayer, San Jose, CA: 269KB/s
    Download speed from Softlayer, Washington, DC: 189KB/s
    I/O speed :  61.9 MB/s
    

    Inodes:

    root@sg:~# df -i
    Filesystem                                             Inodes IUsed  IFree IUse% Mounted on
    rootfs                                                 640224 20342 619882    4% /
    udev                                                    13749   340  13409    3% /dev
    tmpfs                                                   15237   251  14986    2% /run
    /dev/disk/by-uuid/395ab0cd-38dd-46f0-ab27-7bb239aeac7c 640224 20342 619882    4% /
    tmpfs                                                   15237     1  15236    1% /run/lock
    tmpfs                                                   15237     2  15235    1% /run/shm
    

    Disk Space:

    root@sydney:~# df -h
    Filesystem            Size  Used Avail Use% Mounted on
    /dev/vda1             9.4G  3.0G  6.0G  33% /
    tmpfs                 252M     0  252M   0% /lib/init/rw
    udev                  247M  112K  247M   1% /dev
    tmpfs                 252M  4.0K  252M   1% /dev/shm
    

    Cachefly everything!

    root@sg:~# wget  cachefly.cachefly.net/100mb.bin
    --2013-11-10 08:03:44--  http://cachefly.cachefly.net/100mb.bin
    Resolving cachefly.cachefly.net (cachefly.cachefly.net)... 205.234.175.175
    Connecting to cachefly.cachefly.net (cachefly.cachefly.net)|205.234.175.175|:80..                                                                                       . connected.
    HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK
    Length: 104857600 (100M) [application/octet-stream]
    Saving to: `100mb.bin'
    
    100%[=======================================>] 104,857,600 1.46M/s   in 69s
    
    2013-11-10 08:04:57 (1.46 MB/s) - `100mb.bin' saved [104857600/104857600]
    
    root@sg:~# ping -c 10 cachefly.cachefly.net
    PING vip1.g.cachefly.net (205.234.175.175) 56(84) bytes of data.
    64 bytes from vip1.G-anycast1.cachefly.net (205.234.175.175): icmp_req=1 ttl=54 time=56.3 ms
    64 bytes from vip1.G-anycast1.cachefly.net (205.234.175.175): icmp_req=2 ttl=54 time=40.5 ms
    64 bytes from vip1.G-anycast1.cachefly.net (205.234.175.175): icmp_req=3 ttl=54 time=56.1 ms
    64 bytes from vip1.G-anycast1.cachefly.net (205.234.175.175): icmp_req=4 ttl=54 time=40.8 ms
    64 bytes from vip1.G-anycast1.cachefly.net (205.234.175.175): icmp_req=5 ttl=54 time=56.4 ms
    64 bytes from vip1.G-anycast1.cachefly.net (205.234.175.175): icmp_req=6 ttl=54 time=40.8 ms
    64 bytes from vip1.G-anycast1.cachefly.net (205.234.175.175): icmp_req=7 ttl=54 time=41.3 ms
    64 bytes from vip1.G-anycast1.cachefly.net (205.234.175.175): icmp_req=8 ttl=54 time=40.5 ms
    64 bytes from vip1.G-anycast1.cachefly.net (205.234.175.175): icmp_req=9 ttl=54 time=40.9 ms
    64 bytes from vip1.G-anycast1.cachefly.net (205.234.175.175): icmp_req=10 ttl=54 time=40.5 ms
    
    --- vip1.g.cachefly.net ping statistics ---
    10 packets transmitted, 10 received, 0% packet loss, time 17154ms
    rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 40.526/45.457/56.463/7.122 ms
    

    Yeah so there you go!

  • @psycholyzern we're considering it, not sure if we're going to end up doing plans that low. We might run a limited sign up special.

  • I think Singapore VPS is only for companies in Singapore, connection to other parts of the world is slow...

  • We'll switch you to VirtIO so the IO speeds should be much better.

  • aglodekaglodek Member
    edited November 2013

    @jcaleb said: Manila

    >

    PING 192.71.144.254 (192.71.144.254) 56(84) bytes of data.
    

    >

    64 bytes from 192.71.144.254: icmp_req=1 ttl=47 time=248 ms
    64 bytes from 192.71.144.254: icmp_req=2 ttl=47 time=249 ms
    64 bytes from 192.71.144.254: icmp_req=3 ttl=47 time=247 ms
    64 bytes from 192.71.144.254: icmp_req=4 ttl=47 time=248 ms
    64 bytes from 192.71.144.254: icmp_req=5 ttl=47 time=249 ms
    64 bytes from 192.71.144.254: icmp_req=6 ttl=47 time=249 ms
    

    Manila to Singapore? Really? That's pretty bad! I get better from behind the "Internet Great Wall" of China...

  • Routing is eventually going to get better, but as of right now everything was just put up.

  • What the hell!? Who merged my thread! It's a review....

  • @CastleServers said:
    What the hell!? Who merged my thread! It's a review....

    Now i know why i'm confused. -_-

  • @CastleServers said:
    What the hell!? Who merged my thread! It's a review....

    Provider review of a provider ? Kinda stupid, isn't it ?

  • He is in no way affiliated with our organization. I'm not sure why they merged it either.

  • SpiritSpirit Member
    edited November 2013

    @terafire said:
    I'm not sure why they merged it either.

    • You opened marketing thread about new location - fine.
    • A bit later you opened another marketing thread about this new location.
    • And then a bit later your "tester" opened another thread about this location just to let us know what's benchmark of this new product.

    Really? 3 threads within 30 hours about same thing and now you're wondering why those frontpage threads are merged? Use some common sense in your advertisement campaign please.

    @CastleServers said:
    What the hell!? Who merged my thread! It's a review....

    You're calling this a review? It's just fast benchmark of a new product perfectly suitable for this thread.

    Thanked by 1NanoG6
  • I understand how the poll thread was merged with this one, which is fine, however I was unable to edit the thread without deleting the poll.
    So, it was two threads.

    The "tester" is not my personal tester, but actually a customer who approached me for a plan personally, and paid for one. So I don't see what the issue is with him posting on his own thread is.

  • 0xdragon0xdragon Member
    edited November 2013

    @Spirit said:
    You're calling this a review? It's just fast benchmark of a new product perfectly suitable for this thread.

    In which case, half of the "reviews" tagged as so are not actually reviews and should be merged with their parent offers.

    I AM NOT AFFILIATED WITH TERAFIRE. I PAID FOR A SERVER AND APPROACHED TERAFIRE FOR IT.

    I was not paid or forced in any way to do what I did and, to be perfectly honest, if you're going to ignore original content like that, I would rather have said content removed completely.

    Thanks.

  • bad route to my isp :/

    traceroute to 202.152.199.133 (202.152.199.133), 30 hops max, 60 byte packets
     1  192.71.144.3 (192.71.144.3)  0.035 ms  0.007 ms  0.006 ms
     2  * * *
     3  * 119.81.0.201-static.reverse.softlayer.com (119.81.0.201)  4.334 ms *
     4  ae11.dar02.sr03.sng01.networklayer.com (174.133.118.132)  4.320 ms  4.313 ms  4.326 ms
     5  ae9.bbr01.eq01.sng02.networklayer.com (50.97.18.198)  5.538 ms  5.554 ms  4.994 ms
     6  ae-4.r00.sngpsi02.sg.bb.gin.ntt.net (116.51.17.53)  5.918 ms  5.513 ms  5.608 ms
     7  ae-1.r20.sngpsi05.sg.bb.gin.ntt.net (129.250.3.146)  5.659 ms  5.953 ms  5.944 ms
     8  ae-3.r20.snjsca04.us.bb.gin.ntt.net (129.250.3.48)  175.911 ms  175.914 ms  186.626 ms
     9  ae-1.r06.snjsca04.us.bb.gin.ntt.net (129.250.5.13)  185.137 ms  185.136 ms  189.001 ms
    10  ix-10-0.tcore2.SQN-SanJose.as6453.net (209.58.116.21)  238.218 ms  246.761 ms  246.758 ms
    11  if-1-2.tcore1.SQN-SanJose.as6453.net (63.243.205.1)  245.033 ms  223.878 ms  240.849 ms
    12  if-3-2.tcore2.LVW-LosAngeles.as6453.net (63.243.205.14)  237.994 ms  249.447 ms  237.104 ms
    13  if-7-2.tcore2.SVW-Singapore.as6453.net (180.87.15.25)  235.609 ms  234.515 ms  253.917 ms
    14  116.0.71.70 (116.0.71.70)  237.045 ms  237.093 ms  228.515 ms
    15  202.152.207.6 (202.152.207.6)  246.203 ms  246.192 ms  222.231 ms
    16  * * *
    17  * * *
    -- Traceroute timed out --
  • XSXXSX Member, Host Rep
    edited November 2013

    @eLohkCalb Hey miemie, I want to know how much bandwidth of China to Japan

    china Unicom 
    HOST: cn-pek-mos-e      Loss%   Snt   Last   Avg  Best  Wrst StDev
      1.|-- 106.3.46.33                0.0%     1    2.0   2.0   2.0   2.0   0.0
      2.|-- 172.28.0.17                0.0%     1    1.1   1.1   1.1   1.1   0.0
      3.|-- 123.125.128.177            0.0%     1   22.8  22.8  22.8  22.8   0.0
      4.|-- 123.126.6.77               0.0%     1    2.5   2.5   2.5   2.5   0.0
      5.|-- 124.65.57.57               0.0%     1    5.0   5.0   5.0   5.0   0.0
      6.|-- 123.126.0.89               0.0%     1    2.3   2.3   2.3   2.3   0.0
      7.|-- 219.158.101.42             0.0%     1    4.1   4.1   4.1   4.1   0.0
      8.|-- 219.158.101.70             0.0%     1    3.6   3.6   3.6   3.6   0.0
      9.|-- ???                       100.0     1    0.0   0.0   0.0   0.0   0.0
     10.|-- 129.250.5.29               0.0%     1   97.9  97.9  97.9  97.9   0.0
     11.|-- ???                       100.0     1    0.0   0.0   0.0   0.0   0.0
     12.|-- 50.97.18.165               0.0%     1   95.0  95.0  95.0  95.0   0.0
     13.|-- 50.97.18.197               0.0%     1   93.3  93.3  93.3  93.3   0.0
     14.|-- ???                       100.0     1    0.0   0.0   0.0   0.0   0.0
     15.|-- ???                       100.0     1    0.0   0.0   0.0   0.0   0.0
     16.|-- ???                       100.0     1    0.0   0.0   0.0   0.0   0.0
     17.|-- 192.71.144.3               0.0%     1   97.0  97.0  97.0  97.0   0.0
     18.|-- 192.71.144.254             0.0%     1   99.2  99.2  99.2  99.2   0.0
    kevin@cn-pek-mos-e:~$ ping 192.71.144.254 -c10
    PING 192.71.144.254 (192.71.144.254) 56(84) bytes of data.
    64 bytes from 192.71.144.254: icmp_req=1 ttl=48 time=98.8 ms
    64 bytes from 192.71.144.254: icmp_req=2 ttl=48 time=98.4 ms
    64 bytes from 192.71.144.254: icmp_req=3 ttl=48 time=98.5 ms
    64 bytes from 192.71.144.254: icmp_req=4 ttl=48 time=98.5 ms
    64 bytes from 192.71.144.254: icmp_req=5 ttl=48 time=98.5 ms
    64 bytes from 192.71.144.254: icmp_req=6 ttl=48 time=98.7 ms
    64 bytes from 192.71.144.254: icmp_req=7 ttl=48 time=98.6 ms
    64 bytes from 192.71.144.254: icmp_req=8 ttl=48 time=98.5 ms
    64 bytes from 192.71.144.254: icmp_req=9 ttl=48 time=98.9 ms
    64 bytes from 192.71.144.254: icmp_req=10 ttl=48 time=98.7 ms
    
    --- 192.71.144.254 ping statistics ---
    10 packets transmitted, 10 received, 0% packet loss, time 9013ms
    rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 98.482/98.661/98.992/0.289 ms
  • I would go if $3/m or $3,5/m 128MB OVZ

  • How are you going to improve the routes when its two level ups, 100tb then softlayer? Have Softlayer actually notified you of new peering or transit in SG? (for the record Softlayer seems to be pretty good in SG)

  • WilliamWilliam Member
    edited November 2013

    As this is a new announced space the routes adjust themself over a few weeks while whitelisting on all upstreams is running through, it's the same as EDIS does.

  • I fucking love falafels.

    A quick test suggests that routing to the UK isn't great.

    Traceroute:

    traceroute to 192.71.144.254 (192.71.144.254), 64 hops max, 52 byte packets
    1  10.58.120.1 (10.58.120.1)  17.565 ms  8.849 ms  8.883 ms
    2  popl-core-2a-ae4-3503.network.virginmedia.net (82.2.51.9)  8.267 ms  7.942 ms  14.273 ms
    3  popl-bb-1c-ae15-0.network.virginmedia.net (82.14.127.241)  9.654 ms  19.066 ms  10.590 ms
    4  tele-ic-5-ae0-0.network.virginmedia.net (213.105.159.117)  8.399 ms  11.859 ms  8.705 ms
    5  te13-4.br02.ldn01.pccwbtn.net (195.66.236.167)  30.420 ms  27.327 ms  24.515 ms
    6  softlayer.te7-5.br02.sin02.pccwbtn.net (63.218.213.174)  373.351 ms  408.620 ms  409.667 ms
    7  ae6.dar01.sr03.sng01.networklayer.com (50.97.18.201)  409.521 ms
        ae6.dar02.sr03.sng01.networklayer.com (50.97.18.203)  408.974 ms  409.164 ms
    8  po2.fcr01.sr03.sng01.networklayer.com (174.133.118.133)  330.758 ms  320.379 ms *
    9  * * *
    10  * * *
    11  192.71.144.3 (192.71.144.3)  386.472 ms  389.471 ms *
    12  * 192.71.144.254 (192.71.144.254)  332.261 ms  396.240 ms

    Ping:

    ping 192.71.144.254
    PING 192.71.144.254 (192.71.144.254): 56 data bytes
    64 bytes from 192.71.144.254: icmp_seq=0 ttl=52 time=343.438 ms
    64 bytes from 192.71.144.254: icmp_seq=1 ttl=52 time=407.048 ms
    64 bytes from 192.71.144.254: icmp_seq=2 ttl=52 time=429.960 ms
    64 bytes from 192.71.144.254: icmp_seq=3 ttl=52 time=452.895 ms
    64 bytes from 192.71.144.254: icmp_seq=4 ttl=52 time=373.459 ms
    64 bytes from 192.71.144.254: icmp_seq=5 ttl=52 time=396.837 ms
    ^C
    --- 192.71.144.254 ping statistics ---
    6 packets transmitted, 6 packets received, 0.0% packet loss
    round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 343.438/400.606/452.895/35.723 ms

    I did some testing with OneAsiaHost earlier in the year and they were close to 250ms, the only thing messing it up was Virgin Media's routing choices apparently.

  • Ordered one, shall see how will the routing improves.

  • horashoras Member
    edited November 2013

    @add_iT said:
    bad route to my isp :/

    The connection pass to US. Mas @add_IT should switch the isp off :). It's better route from 3 Broadband

    traceroute to 202.67.45.36 (202.67.45.36), 30 hops max, 60 byte packets
    1  192.71.144.3 (192.71.144.3)  0.021 ms  0.007 ms  0.007 ms
    2  * * *
     3  119.81.0.201-static.reverse.softlayer.com (119.81.0.201)  4.225 ms  4.242 ms  4.238 ms
     4  ae11.dar02.sr03.sng01.networklayer.com (174.133.118.132)  4.066 ms  4.176 ms  4.166 ms
     5  ae9.bbr01.eq01.sng02.networklayer.com (50.97.18.198)  4.757 ms  4.751 ms  4.861 ms
     6  p4761.sgw.equinix.com (202.79.197.142)  4.854 ms  4.674 ms  4.662 ms
     7  CXCR02-inp.xe-11-3-0.kpi.JXCR03-inp.Jakarta.Indosat.com (114.4.19.50)  17.813 ms  17.767 ms  17.756 ms
     8  114.4.39.70 (114.4.39.70)  40.457 ms  40.455 ms  40.446 ms
     9  * * *
    10  * * *
    -- Traceroute timed out --
Sign In or Register to comment.