Howdy, Stranger!

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

Sign In Register

Quick Links


Categories

In this Discussion

› › Let me introduce you: ST-Hosting - 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.

Let me introduce you: ST-Hosting

2

Comments

  • DPDP Administrator, The Domain Guy
    edited November 2021

    Congratulations for getting your provider tag 😊

    Thanked by 1sthosting
  • sthostingsthosting Member, Patron Provider

    @kheng86 said:
    any cheap 1gb ram yearly deal? :)

    Hey! You can find here our regular deals: https://signaltransmitter.de/en/ssd-lxc-vserver if you're willing to pay for a year, you get one month for free :)

  • sthostingsthosting Member, Patron Provider

    @LTniger said:
    Provide more info on ddos protection. What hardware you use, what software? What is the largest attack you have encountered. How many staff work for you?

    Currently we're using a combination between WanGuard and Arbor Sightline as DDoS Protection.
    The largest attack we've filtered was 500 Gbps atm.. Currently we've 4 employees.. 2 in the support, 1 in the second level and 1 in the development.

    Thanked by 1Levi
  • xx00xxxx00xx Member

    https://signaltransmitter.de/en/datacenter is outdated.

    upstreams are cogent, telia, gtt, dtag, tng and ghostnet. ix bcix and kleyrex

    why are tor relays not allowed?

  • dahartigandahartigan Member
    edited November 2021

    If my server should find itself under attack by a swarm of MJJs or an angry weasel, will your ddos protection be adequate to defend against the attacks and eliminate the attacker(s)?

    I need to know that the system will 'take the track' if needed.

    Thanked by 3cybertech bulbasaur Zyra
  • jsgjsg Member, Resident Benchmarker

    @dahartigan said:
    If my server should find itself under attack by a swarm of MJJs or an angry weasel, will your ddos protection be adequate to defend against the attacks and eliminate the attacker(s)?

    I need to know that the system will 'take the track' if needed.

    I guess being able to cope with 400 Gb/s attacks should do the trick.

    Thanked by 1dahartigan
  • LeviLevi Member

    @jsg said:

    @dahartigan said:
    If my server should find itself under attack by a swarm of MJJs or an angry weasel, will your ddos protection be adequate to defend against the attacks and eliminate the attacker(s)?

    I need to know that the system will 'take the track' if needed.

    I guess being able to cope with 400 Gb/s attacks should do the trick.

    You underestimate weasel and his ill fanatizm.

    Thanked by 2dahartigan kkrajk
  • dahartigandahartigan Member

    @jsg said:

    @dahartigan said:
    If my server should find itself under attack by a swarm of MJJs or an angry weasel, will your ddos protection be adequate to defend against the attacks and eliminate the attacker(s)?

    I need to know that the system will 'take the track' if needed.

    I guess being able to cope with 400 Gb/s attacks should do the trick.

    400 Gb/s would be expected, like passing MaxQ in a launch.

    @LTniger said:

    @jsg said:

    @dahartigan said:
    If my server should find itself under attack by a swarm of MJJs or an angry weasel, will your ddos protection be adequate to defend against the attacks and eliminate the attacker(s)?

    I need to know that the system will 'take the track' if needed.

    I guess being able to cope with 400 Gb/s attacks should do the trick.

    You underestimate weasel and his ill fanatizm.

    This. Soooo much this. He's fucking insane in the membrane. I think that the wrath of millions of angry MJJs couldn't match the PMS-fueled mega-rage of the angry weasel.

  • galesaurgalesaur Member

    Any HDD storage vps BF offer?

  • NeoonNeoon Community Contributor, Veteran

    @sthosting which services you offer are in aixit and/or first-colo?

  • nocloudnocloud Member

    Hi, in the control panel for the KVM it has the backups icon, does it have any functionality?

  • sthostingsthosting Member, Patron Provider

    @xx00xx said:
    https://signaltransmitter.de/en/datacenter is outdated.

    upstreams are cogent, telia, gtt, dtag, tng and ghostnet. ix bcix and kleyrex

    why are tor relays not allowed?

    We will update the Site soon. Relays are not permitted because we've a lot of clearing situations with abuse-reports..

    @dahartigan said: If my server should find itself under attack by a swarm of MJJs or an angry weasel, will your ddos protection be adequate to defend against the attacks and eliminate the attacker(s)?

    I need to know that the system will 'take the track' if needed.

    It could be.. It depends on attack pattern. I can't say any details about our filter template.

    @galesaur said: Any HDD storage vps BF offer?

    Not planed yet, but we've HDD Storage VPS Capacities. You can write a ticket with your requirements if you want :)

    @Neoon said: @sthosting which services you offer are in aixit and/or first-colo?

    It depends on which generation your VPS is running. Our Intel Hostsystem Generation (mentioned in a post before) is in the aixit datacenter. The Threadripper Host-Systems are in the first-colo. All further Host-Systems will be placed in the first-colo.

  • sthostingsthosting Member, Patron Provider

    @nocloud said:
    Hi, in the control panel for the KVM it has the backups icon, does it have any functionality?

    Sure. We will backup all our customer systems periodically (2 times per week, depends on which hostsystem your server is deployed) - Over the "backup-icon" you've the option to restore a backup.

    Thanked by 1nocloud
  • jsgjsg Member, Resident Benchmarker

    @sthosting said:

    @dahartigan said: If my server should find itself under attack by a swarm of MJJs or an angry weasel, will your ddos protection be adequate to defend against the attacks and eliminate the attacker(s)?

    I need to know that the system will 'take the track' if needed.

    It could be.. It depends on attack pattern. I can't say any details about our filter template.

    Come on, nobody cares about "could work" protection. So, leaving aside exotic or high end TAO attacks, does your DDOS protection protect or does it not?

    Volume-wise ("handled/mitigated 400 Gb/s attack") it sounds good. But still, people want a simple "does work" or "no, unfortunately does not work" answer and not a vague "could be".

    Thanked by 2dahartigan amsaal
  • LeviLevi Member

    @jsg said:

    @sthosting said:

    @dahartigan said: If my server should find itself under attack by a swarm of MJJs or an angry weasel, will your ddos protection be adequate to defend against the attacks and eliminate the attacker(s)?

    I need to know that the system will 'take the track' if needed.

    It could be.. It depends on attack pattern. I can't say any details about our filter template.

    Come on, nobody cares about "could work" protection. So, leaving aside exotic or high end TAO attacks, does your DDOS protection protect or does it not?

    Volume-wise ("handled/mitigated 400 Gb/s attack") it sounds good. But still, people want a simple "does work" or "no, unfortunately does not work" answer and not a vague "could be".

    Your "tone" is attacking. Calm down. Company is small, they don't have entire NOC to deal with the problem outside standard. Simple:

    if (outsideStandard)
{
 NULLROUTE
} else {
CONTINUE until ALLOCATED BANDWITDTH;
}
  • dahartigandahartigan Member

    @sthosting said:

    It could be.. It depends on attack pattern. I can't say any details about our filter template.

    One attack pattern would be approximately 10 million simultaneous Chinese IPs trying to visit my site repeatedly.

    The other likely attack pattern would be a psychotic lunatic who will do virtually anything random you could think of as an attack.

    I hope I made it just a tiny bit clearer for you.

  • NeoonNeoon Community Contributor, Veteran

    @dahartigan said:

    @sthosting said:

    It could be.. It depends on attack pattern. I can't say any details about our filter template.

    One attack pattern would be approximately 10 million simultaneous Chinese IPs trying to visit my site repeatedly.

    The other likely attack pattern would be a psychotic lunatic who will do virtually anything random you could think of as an attack.

    I hope I made it just a tiny bit clearer for you.

    Are you that famous on HostLoc already?

  • dahartigandahartigan Member

    @Neoon said:

    @dahartigan said:

    @sthosting said:

    It could be.. It depends on attack pattern. I can't say any details about our filter template.

    One attack pattern would be approximately 10 million simultaneous Chinese IPs trying to visit my site repeatedly.

    The other likely attack pattern would be a psychotic lunatic who will do virtually anything random you could think of as an attack.

    I hope I made it just a tiny bit clearer for you.

    Are you that famous on HostLoc already?

    MJJs have a love/hate relationship with me, so I need to prepare for both eventualities.

    Thanked by 1webcraft
  • jsgjsg Member, Resident Benchmarker

    @LTniger said:
    Your "tone" is attacking. Calm down. Company is small, they don't have entire NOC to deal with the problem outside standard.

    • May they at least decide for themselves how they perceive my "tone", massa sahib? (Hint: I had and have no intention whatsoever to attack that provider).
    • Well, then they can say "protection against standard attacks does work" (ideally along with some kind of definition of "standard attacks")
    • When someone offers protection it is not unreasonable (let alone "attacking") to ask for a clear statement.

    Sorry if I hurt the feelings of woke snowflakes who may find even a friendly "good morning" somehow offensive.

  • sthostingsthosting Member, Patron Provider

    @jsg said: Sorry if I hurt the feelings of woke snowflakes who may find even a friendly "good morning" somehow offensive.

    Hehe you didn't hurt any feelings :) - We've several customers, we've designed a customized permanent mitigation template, which are really good protected. But when a huge carpet bomb is incomming, the best DDoS Protection will get to its limits..
    The important thing that you need to know is, that we're maintaining the DDoS Solution (in the aixit aswell in the first-colo datacenter) by ourself. So we've the possibility to adjust it in case of an attack.

    Thanked by 1jsg
  • ascicodeascicode Member

    You got me in the first half, but then ... i checked a bit the specs of all packages and think the special deals arent comparable with standard deals, cause you sell storage, that could be in regular packages useful than overloaded RAM + CPU. That makes it worse for future buyers. Specially the configurator is a pain.

    Thanked by 1sthosting
  • sthostingsthosting Member, Patron Provider

    @ascicode said:
    You got me in the first half, but then ... i checked a bit the specs of all packages and think the special deals arent comparable with standard deals, cause you sell storage, that could be in regular packages useful than overloaded RAM + CPU. That makes it worse for future buyers. Specially the configurator is a pain.

    The configurator comes from a time when we were a bit more flexible for unusual requests. We will soon reorganize our portfolio and prices after the black friday...

    Because of the storage space, we have purchased new systems that have a little more capacity available, so that we do not get into these bottlenecks.

  • jsgjsg Member, Resident Benchmarker
    edited November 2021

    ST-hosting / @sthosting was friendly enough to provide a test-VM to me, namely their KVM BF promo "BF2021 KVM Gold". Thank you, sthosting!

    Unfortunately this review is based on only about 40 result sets but as the VM is a BF promo it seems sensible to post the review before BF.

    Here you go

    Version 2.5.0, (c) 2018+ jsg (->lowendtalk.com)
Machine: amd64, Arch.: amd64, Model: AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3970X 32-Core Processor 
OS, version: FreeBSD 13.0, Mem.: 3.990 GB
CPU - Cores: 2, Family/Model/Stepping: 23/49/0
Cache: 64K/64K L1d/L1i, 512K L2, 16M L3
Std. Flags: fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat
          pse36 cflsh mmx fxsr sse sse2 htt sse3 pclmulqdq ssse3 fma cx16
          sse4_1 sse4_2 popcnt aes xsave osxsave avx f16c rdrnd hypervisor
Ext. Flags: syscall nx mmxext fxsr_opt pdpe1gb rdtscp lm lahf_lm cmp_legacy svm
          cr8_legacy lzcnt sse4a misalignsse 3dnowprefetch osvw perfctr_core

AES? Yes
Nested Virt.? Yes
HW RNG? Yes

ProcMem SC [MB/s]: avg 238.9 - min 115.2 (48.2 %), max 364.5 (152.6 %)
ProcMem MA [MB/s]: avg 651.5 - min 546.0 (83.8 %), max 699.7 (107.4 %)
ProcMem MB [MB/s]: avg 670.9 - min 575.0 (85.7 %), max 713.6 (106.4 %)
ProcMem AES [MB/s]: avg 1523.9 - min 1492.5 (97.9 %), max 1555.2 (102.1 %)
ProcMem RSA [kp/s]: avg 121.1 - min 115.2 (95.1 %), max 126.7 (104.6 %)

--- Disk 4 KB - Buffered ---
Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 6.77 - min 6.53 (96.4%), max 7.17 (105.8%)
Write rnd. [MB/s]: avg 6.44 - min 6.17 (95.8%), max 6.86 (106.5%)
Read seq. [MB/s]:  avg 39.99 - min 37.61 (94.0%), max 42.93 (107.3%)
Read rnd. [MB/s]:  avg 36.69 - min 33.57 (91.5%), max 37.56 (102.4%)
--- Disk 4 KB - Sync/Direct ---
Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 6.89 - min 6.71 (97.4%), max 7.34 (106.5%)
Write rnd. [MB/s]: avg 6.46 - min 6.07 (93.9%), max 6.88 (106.5%)
Read seq. [MB/s]:  avg 40.55 - min 36.45 (89.9%), max 44.01 (108.5%)
Read rnd. [MB/s]:  avg 36.88 - min 33.90 (91.9%), max 40.21 (109.0%)

--- Disk 64 KB - Buffered ---
Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 63.26 - min 61.13 (96.6%), max 65.52 (103.6%)
Write rnd. [MB/s]: avg 57.43 - min 53.91 (93.9%), max 61.42 (106.9%)
Read seq. [MB/s]:  avg 4233.79 - min 4088.38 (96.6%), max 4342.68 (102.6%)
Read rnd. [MB/s]:  avg 428.63 - min 358.28 (83.6%), max 494.77 (115.4%)
--- Disk 64 KB - Sync/Direct ---
Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 6.90 - min 5.08 (73.6%), max 8.19 (118.7%)
Write rnd. [MB/s]: avg 3.63 - min 2.50 (68.9%), max 4.46 (123.0%)
Read seq. [MB/s]:  avg 4217.80 - min 3998.85 (94.8%), max 4346.15 (103.0%)
Read rnd. [MB/s]:  avg 447.05 - min 423.46 (94.7%), max 492.04 (110.1%)

--- Disk 1 MB - Buffered ---
Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 78.09 - min 75.46 (96.6%), max 83.72 (107.2%)
Write rnd. [MB/s]: avg 146.81 - min 140.41 (95.6%), max 157.30 (107.1%)
Read seq. [MB/s]:  avg 4458.34 - min 4202.58 (94.3%), max 4783.26 (107.3%)
Read rnd. [MB/s]:  avg 1156.15 - min 954.52 (82.6%), max 1365.32 (118.1%)
--- Disk 1 MB - Sync/Direct ---
Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 34.08 - min 28.36 (83.2%), max 39.41 (115.6%)
Write rnd. [MB/s]: avg 27.20 - min 21.44 (78.8%), max 32.96 (121.2%)
Read seq. [MB/s]:  avg 4450.21 - min 2851.68 (64.1%), max 4791.07 (107.7%)
Read rnd. [MB/s]:  avg 1052.03 - min 847.13 (80.5%), max 1216.15 (115.6%)
--- Disk IOps (Sync/Direct) ---
Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 17.53 - min 17.01 (97.1%), max 17.83 (101.7%)
IOps             : avg 4486.25 - min 4355.29 (97.1%), max 4564.29 (101.7%)

--- Network ---
US LAX lax.download.datapacket.com [F: 0]
  DL [Mb/s]:      avg 70.7 - min 67.0 (94.8%), max 74.5 (105.4%)
  Ping [ms]:      avg 160.7 - min 152.0 (94.6%), max 167.8 (104.4%)
  Web ping [ms]:  avg 162.0 - min 152.7 (94.3%), max 169.0 (104.3%)

NO OSL speedtest.osl01.softlayer.com [F: 0]
  DL [Mb/s]:      avg 291.4 - min 263.6 (90.5%), max 301.0 (103.3%)
  Ping [ms]:      avg 33.0 - min 32.9 (99.6%), max 33.3 (100.9%)
  Web ping [ms]:  avg 69.3 - min 32.9 (47.5%), max 1408.0 (2033.1%)

US SJC speedtest.sjc01.softlayer.com [F: 0]
  DL [Mb/s]:      avg 67.4 - min 64.6 (95.8%), max 70.4 (104.4%)
  Ping [ms]:      avg 150.3 - min 150.2 (99.9%), max 150.5 (100.1%)
  Web ping [ms]:  avg 157.6 - min 150.2 (95.3%), max 413.2 (262.2%)

AU MEL speedtest.c1.mel1.dediserve.com [F: 0]
  DL [Mb/s]:      avg 34.5 - min 30.8 (89.3%), max 36.7 (106.3%)
  Ping [ms]:      avg 294.2 - min 291.5 (99.1%), max 295.0 (100.3%)
  Web ping [ms]:  avg 298.9 - min 291.5 (97.5%), max 310.3 (103.8%)

JP TOK speedtest.tokyo2.linode.com [F: 14]
  DL [Mb/s]:      avg 19.0 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 40.9 (215.0%)
  Ping [ms]:      avg 250.9 - min 250.7 (99.9%), max 252.2 (100.5%)
  Web ping [ms]:  avg 254.3 - min 250.7 (98.6%), max 265.9 (104.6%)

IT MIL speedtest.mil01.softlayer.com [F: 0]
  DL [Mb/s]:      avg 553.8 - min 525.3 (94.8%), max 567.9 (102.5%)
  Ping [ms]:      avg 10.4 - min 10.3 (99.3%), max 10.7 (103.2%)
  Web ping [ms]:  avg 10.5 - min 10.3 (98.0%), max 11.3 (107.5%)

TR UNK 185.65.204.169 [F: 0]
  DL [Mb/s]:      avg 84.5 - min 46.4 (54.9%), max 87.5 (103.6%)
  Ping [ms]:      avg 36.6 - min 35.1 (96.0%), max 57.9 (158.3%)
  Web ping [ms]:  avg 37.0 - min 35.4 (95.7%), max 58.0 (156.8%)

FR PAR speedtest.par01.softlayer.com [F: 6]
  DL [Mb/s]:      avg 592.8 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 767.6 (129.5%)
  Ping [ms]:      avg 10.8 - min 10.7 (99.2%), max 11.0 (102.0%)
  Web ping [ms]:  avg 45.7 - min 10.7 (23.4%), max 811.9 (1778.4%)

SG SGP mirror.sg.leaseweb.net [F: 0]
  DL [Mb/s]:      avg 51.7 - min 45.4 (87.8%), max 63.1 (122.0%)
  Ping [ms]:      avg 165.9 - min 164.9 (99.4%), max 166.7 (100.5%)
  Web ping [ms]:  avg 165.9 - min 164.9 (99.4%), max 166.7 (100.5%)

BR SAO speedtest.sao01.softlayer.com [F: 0]
  DL [Mb/s]:      avg 52.7 - min 50.0 (94.9%), max 54.5 (103.4%)
  Ping [ms]:      avg 190.2 - min 190.1 (99.9%), max 190.8 (100.3%)
  Web ping [ms]:  avg 192.0 - min 190.1 (99.0%), max 199.5 (103.9%)

IN CHN speedtest.che01.softlayer.com [F: 0]
  DL [Mb/s]:      avg 73.1 - min 67.5 (92.3%), max 76.7 (104.9%)
  Ping [ms]:      avg 138.8 - min 134.4 (96.8%), max 144.1 (103.8%)
  Web ping [ms]:  avg 145.2 - min 134.4 (92.6%), max 355.4 (244.7%)

GR UNK speedtest.ftp.otenet.gr [F: 20]
  DL [Mb/s]:      avg 81.5 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 232.7 (285.6%)
  Ping [ms]:      avg 17.3 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 38.9 (224.3%)
  Web ping [ms]:  avg 17.4 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 39.2 (224.9%)

US WDC mirror.wdc1.us.leaseweb.net [F: 0]
  DL [Mb/s]:      avg 84.5 - min 60.9 (72.1%), max 125.3 (148.3%)
  Ping [ms]:      avg 89.6 - min 87.1 (97.3%), max 89.9 (100.4%)
  Web ping [ms]:  avg 89.7 - min 87.4 (97.4%), max 90.3 (100.7%)

RU MOS speedtest.hostkey.ru [F: 0]
  DL [Mb/s]:      avg 175.2 - min 134.0 (76.4%), max 223.1 (127.3%)
  Ping [ms]:      avg 40.1 - min 35.9 (89.5%), max 45.7 (114.0%)
  Web ping [ms]:  avg 41.3 - min 36.1 (87.4%), max 57.0 (138.0%)

US DAL speedtest.dal05.softlayer.com [F: 3]
  DL [Mb/s]:      avg 75.6 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 85.6 (113.2%)
  Ping [ms]:      avg 119.9 - min 119.7 (99.9%), max 120.3 (100.4%)
  Web ping [ms]:  avg 122.0 - min 119.8 (98.2%), max 124.6 (102.1%)

UK LON speedtest.lon02.softlayer.com [F: 0]
  DL [Mb/s]:      avg 688.1 - min 405.5 (58.9%), max 749.1 (108.9%)
  Ping [ms]:      avg 12.4 - min 12.3 (99.4%), max 12.5 (101.1%)
  Web ping [ms]:  avg 31.6 - min 12.3 (38.9%), max 737.8 (2332.3%)

US NYC nyc.download.datapacket.com [F: 0]
  DL [Mb/s]:      avg 137.0 - min 124.4 (90.8%), max 142.2 (103.8%)
  Ping [ms]:      avg 80.6 - min 80.4 (99.8%), max 81.4 (101.0%)
  Web ping [ms]:  avg 80.8 - min 80.5 (99.7%), max 82.2 (101.8%)

RO BUC 185.183.99.8 [F: 0]
  DL [Mb/s]:      avg 371.3 - min 202.6 (54.6%), max 399.3 (107.5%)
  Ping [ms]:      avg 28.1 - min 27.9 (99.2%), max 29.4 (104.6%)
  Web ping [ms]:  avg 30.5 - min 28.1 (92.0%), max 60.8 (199.0%)

NL AMS mirror.nl.leaseweb.net [F: 0]
  DL [Mb/s]:      avg 561.2 - min 214.0 (38.1%), max 870.9 (155.2%)
  Ping [ms]:      avg 7.8 - min 7.7 (99.2%), max 7.9 (101.7%)
  Web ping [ms]:  avg 8.0 - min 7.7 (95.9%), max 8.9 (110.8%)

CN HK mirror.hk.leaseweb.net [F: 0]
  DL [Mb/s]:      avg 43.9 - min 26.8 (61.1%), max 55.6 (126.7%)
  Ping [ms]:      avg 200.6 - min 191.8 (95.6%), max 262.6 (130.9%)
  Web ping [ms]:  avg 202.4 - min 191.8 (94.8%), max 262.6 (129.7%)

DE FRA fra.lg.core-backbone.com [F: 0]
  DL [Mb/s]:      avg 928.0 - min 924.1 (99.6%), max 933.9 (100.6%)
  Ping [ms]:      avg 0.8 - min 0.7 (82.9%), max 1.0 (118.4%)
  Web ping [ms]:  avg 1.4 - min 0.8 (58.0%), max 2.1 (152.3%)

    First a quick remark re. the benchmark version I used. It's the new v. 2.5.0 that offers extended processor testing by doing two typical OpenSSL operations, AES 128 CBC and RSA 1024 key pair generation. I know, I know, nowadays min. 2048 bit keys are recommended but depending on the hardware that is tested the benchmark runs already take long enough and it's easy enough to derive the speed for RSA 2k: simply divide the result by 4 and you'll be close enough.
    Anyway, I like those 2 new tests a lot, AES simply because it's one of the most used algorithms and generally a good indicator (in terms of crypto speed) and RSA keypair generation because, well, generating key pairs (a private and a public key) happens to be the most (compute) expensive part of RSA, plus I found (by testing on diverse systems) that it's a very useful indicator of a system's speed.

    Now to the tested system ...

    The Threadripper (of bloody course) supports AES hardware support as well as hardware RNG support - but that system also supports nested virtualization! Nice.
    Otherwise the processor and memory config of the promo offer is, uhm, not overwhelming. Don't get me wrong, it works fine but the numbers are quite a bit lower than what I usually see with Epycs, let alone Ryzens. But they still are way higher than what we often get to see here e.g. with 26xx v2, plus it does multi-core quite well; usually the multi-core numbers with 2 vCores are about 2 times those of single-core at best but this machine somehow manages to achieve significantly better results. And also the crypto tests show very nice results, better than my (quite new and fast) Ryzen system with decent RAM, kudos for that!

    Not really much to say about the SSD drive other than that it's quite fast. IOPS north of 4000 and seq. writing speeds (4k, 4 threads) north of 15 are closer to NVMe territory than to SSD.
    Unless your use case requires the highest possible disk speed an NVMe based system will serve you better but for all other use cases this system won't disappoint you; those SSDs are really very decent.

    The highlight though (IMO) is the connectivity ST can offer. Example: 70 Mb/s download speed from Los Angeles to Germany are something worth mentioning. The San Jose target show similar results and not a single failure (hint: that's one of the targets with usually plenty of failures). The other (and usually even worse) "choking" target (in Greece) does fail in about half of the benchmarks runs but the other half actually even has acceptable speed results (~ 80 Mb/s). Singapore and Brazil are about 50 Mb/s and Chennai, usually delivering rather poor results is in the 70ies. NYC even reaches over 130 Mb/s. Nice, really nice, that connectivity.
    And yes, of bloody course the big European targets deliver excellent results, too, with usually north of 500 Mb/s and Frankfurt is even darn close to 1 Gb/s. Plus that great connectivity is anti-DDOS protected up to 1 Tb/s!

    Summary: If a system with quite decent single-core and great multi-core and crypto performance, "only" a SSD but a rather fast one, and excellent connectivity matches your needs/projects/use cases then you should definitely get one of the "BF2021 KVM Gold". About €50 per year for such a VM is a good deal.

    Thanked by 2sthosting angstrom
  • sthostingsthosting Member, Patron Provider

    @jsg Thank you so much for your review! :) I appreciate your work!

    Thanked by 1jsg
  • brightsunshinebrightsunshine Member

    ST-Hosting's services work well. Have had a number of VMs from ST-Hosting over the last 1+ year or so, and it has been reliable. Communication may not be the quickest, but there has not been many instances where support was needed.

    Thanked by 1sthosting
  • nocloudnocloud Member

    been with inception for 3 years, looking for a change. so got the 4gb KVM. Have to say, so far i'm impressed.

    Thanked by 1sthosting
  • risharderisharde Patron Provider, Veteran

    Hoping to see a darn good deal for Black Friday Mr after this long post lol

    Thanked by 1sthosting
  • sthostingsthosting Member, Patron Provider

    @nocloud said:
    been with inception for 3 years, looking for a change. so got the 4gb KVM. Have to say, so far i'm impressed.

    Thank you for your feedback :)

    @risharde said:
    Hoping to see a darn good deal for Black Friday Mr after this long post lol

    Hehe we already got early Black Friday deals (link on my sig) but eventually there will be a surprise in the LET Black Friday megathread :)

    Thanked by 1brueggus
  • AshinAshin Member

    I need kvm yabs

  • sthostingsthosting Member, Patron Provider

    `root@3830c50d:~# curl -sL yabs.sh | bash

    ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ##

    Yet-Another-Bench-Script

    v2021-10-09

    https://github.com/masonr/yet-another-bench-script

    ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ##

    Fri 26 Nov 2021 06:30:42 PM UTC

    Basic System Information:

    Processor : AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3970X 32-Core Processor
    CPU cores : 4 @ 3693.062 MHz
    AES-NI : ✔ Enabled
    VM-x/AMD-V : ✔ Enabled
    RAM : 3.9 GiB
    Swap : 0.0 KiB
    Disk : 98.4 GiB

    fio Disk Speed Tests (Mixed R/W 50/50):

    Block Size 4k (IOPS) 64k (IOPS)
    Read 159.45 MB/s (39.8k) 497.41 MB/s (7.7k)
    Write 159.87 MB/s (39.9k) 500.03 MB/s (7.8k)
    Total 319.32 MB/s (79.8k) 997.45 MB/s (15.5k)
    Block Size 512k (IOPS) 1m (IOPS)
    ------ --- ---- ---- ----
    Read 521.00 MB/s (1.0k) 534.51 MB/s (521)
    Write 548.69 MB/s (1.0k) 570.11 MB/s (556)
    Total 1.06 GB/s (2.0k) 1.10 GB/s (1.0k)

    iperf3 Network Speed Tests (IPv4):

    Provider | Location (Link) | Send Speed | Recv Speed
    | | |
    Clouvider | London, UK (10G) | 929 Mbits/sec | 381 Mbits/sec
    Online.net | Paris, FR (10G) | busy | busy
    WorldStream | The Netherlands (10G) | busy | 434 Mbits/sec
    WebHorizon | Singapore (1G) | 152 Mbits/sec | 126 Mbits/sec
    Clouvider | NYC, NY, US (10G) | 884 Mbits/sec | 179 Mbits/sec
    Velocity Online | Tallahassee, FL, US (10G) | 830 Mbits/sec | 93.8 Mbits/sec
    Clouvider | Los Angeles, CA, US (10G) | 823 Mbits/sec | 119 Mbits/sec
    Iveloz Telecom | Sao Paulo, BR (2G) | 716 Mbits/sec | 127 Mbits/sec

    iperf3 Network Speed Tests (IPv6):

    Provider | Location (Link) | Send Speed | Recv Speed
    | | |
    Clouvider | London, UK (10G) | 914 Mbits/sec | 431 Mbits/sec
    Online.net | Paris, FR (10G) | 917 Mbits/sec | busy
    WorldStream | The Netherlands (10G) | 905 Mbits/sec | 490 Mbits/sec
    WebHorizon | Singapore (1G) | 516 Mbits/sec | 225 Mbits/sec
    Clouvider | NYC, NY, US (10G) | 869 Mbits/sec | 168 Mbits/sec
    Clouvider | Los Angeles, CA, US (10G) | 816 Mbits/sec | 144 Mbits/sec

    Geekbench 5 Benchmark Test:

    Test | Value
    |
    Single Core | 1352
    Multi Core | 5042
    Full Test | https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/11241929

    root@3830c50d:~#
    `

    @Ashin said:
    I need kvm yabs

Sign In or Register to comment.