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

› › NexusBytes falling apart? And a LiteServer short review - Page 10
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.

NexusBytes falling apart? And a LiteServer short review

1…78101213…19

Comments

  • adlyadly Veteran

    @jsg I don't think the comment was aimed at NB or @Jord.

    It's probably more to do with (rightly or wrongly), your apparent attitude with this and hostsolutions that there was/is no problem until it affects you.

    (This is not my opinion, just an observation.)

    Thanked by 6Mumbly webcraft hadawayandplay Liso drunkendog Hotmarer
  • jsgjsg Member, Resident Benchmarker
    edited July 2022

    @adly said:
    @jsg I don't think the comment was aimed at NB or @Jord.

    It's probably more to do with (rightly or wrongly), your apparent attitude with this and hostsolutions that there was/is no problem until it affects you.

    (This is not my opinion, just an observation.)

    I understand that to some it may seem so, but actually it's wrong. Explanation: I don't tend to emotionally judge but prefer to stick to observable facts plus I at least try to understand.

    Back then with HostSolutions as well as now with NexusBytes there is no need to state the obvious (their operations don't "flow" properly, duh"), and I prefer to try understanding what makes those providers act the way they do. What on earth, for instance, makes Jay who has invested a lot of money, work, time, and sweat into creating and growing NexusBytes to basically let the product of all his work decay? And that pondering is not just (or even mainly) for the sake of my curiosity, it can also help to assess whether one should leave or whether there seems to be a reasonable chance that that provider weathers the storm.

    I can understand that some felt pi__ed off when I repeatedly stated that x out of y systems worked, but still, what I did was merely stating what facts I could observe. I also can understand that some (angrily) thought that I was defending @cociu and today, after a lot of time has passed, I wonder whether they might have been correct to some degree because quite likely I made a premise error by presuming that nobody in his right mind would gamble with his company. More importantly though I merely tried to understand what was happening and why cociu acted so irrationally, which unfortunately quite a few here mistook for me defending him.

    And now something similar seems to happen again with @series / NexusBytes, and this time I really liked both the company and Jay a lot (unlike back then with HS when I liked my super-cheap systems but was well aware that with those low prices some corners just had to been cut ...). And that, I "confess" it, also made me hesitant and assuming that any problems with NexusBytes were only intermittent and would be taken care of.
    I also "confess" that my judgement was wrong; I simply failed to recognize that someone like Jay tolerated quite a few in his support staff that, frankly, didn't seem to care the least about NB's customers, and that got much worse once, as someone here put it tongue in cheek, "the cat was absent".

    But, and I expect everyone here to grant me that much, as soon as I realized (through my own experience) that things were gravely off at NexusBytes, I did not hide or embellish anything but I said it loud and clear in this thread.

    So, it's not "as long as his stuff works jsg doesn't care and just denies any problems", nope, it rather is "jsg doesn't make, or join, accusations or angry mobs, unless he has hard facts and/or concrete experience".

  • Kiwi83Kiwi83 Member

    cociu: deposit $50 und git $100 accunt creddit now! so i can ran away with ur money
    jsg: Don't worry, 5/7 of my Hostsolutions VPS are still online. Cociu is a hardworking guy. His service is not that good, but he's definitely not a scammer.

    jay: I caught covid and i'm really sick.
    jsg: NexusBytes falling apart? And a LiteServer short review

    me: It's good to hear 1/1 of jsg's storage VPS has come back online.
    jsg: No matter your bitching and despicable attitude, I will continue to strive for objectivity and fairness.

    Thanked by 7bulbasaur adly vimalware Liso Ouji easy maverick
  • MumblyMumbly Member
    edited July 2022

    @Kiwi83 said:
    His service is not that good, but he's definitely not a scammer.
    jay: I caught covid and i'm really sick.
    jsg: NexusBytes falling apart? And a LiteServer short review

    Actually it wasn't like that :)
    In one of previous threads he criticized people who complained about NexusBytes because well... his stuff was still up and running. But when he faced issue he opened thread to complain.

    There's plenty of people at LET who do this. No matter how bad things are they can't stand even the most legit and justified complain, criticism and blindly defend host as long as their own stuff is still up and running.
    This does not help, it's just damn annoying.

  • jsgjsg Member, Resident Benchmarker

    @Kiwi83

    (a) "x out of y VPS working" simply was stating an observable fact.
    (b) Someone with 1 or 2 VPS is on very weak statistical grounds. I not only had 9 systems (iirc) but in addition those were different types and in all 2 of his locations, so I stood on somewhat more solid grounds.

  • MumblyMumbly Member
    edited July 2022

    @jsg said:
    @Kiwi83

    (a) "x out of y VPS working" simply was stating an observable fact.
    (b) Someone with 1 or 2 VPS is on very weak statistical grounds. I not only had 9 systems (iirc) but in addition those were different types and in all 2 of his locations, so I stood on somewhat more solid grounds.

    And who are you to judge other people's legit complains, to minimalize them and blindly defend host as long as you personally don't face problems? Hypocrisy at its finest.

    Thanked by 2_MS_ Liso
  • bulbasaurbulbasaur Member

    Yes, whoever banned > @Mumbly said:

    @jsg said:
    @Kiwi83

    (a) "x out of y VPS working" simply was stating an observable fact.
    (b) Someone with 1 or 2 VPS is on very weak statistical grounds. I not only had 9 systems (iirc) but in addition those were different types and in all 2 of his locations, so I stood on somewhat more solid grounds.

    And who are you to judge other people's legit complains, to minimalize them and blindly defend host as long as you personally don't face problems? Hypocrisy at its finest.

    Read the HS thread, our "king" is famous for his episode of denialism that the business had involucrated and he was the only one customer who kept pushing the "7/9 working" narrative until the end.

    Thanked by 2yoursunny adly
  • jsgjsg Member, Resident Benchmarker

    @Mumbly said:
    And who are you to judge other people's legit complains, to minimalize them and blindly defend host as long as you personally don't face problems? Hypocrisy at its finest.

    Sorry but your bent perception is your problem not mine.

    @stevewatson301 said:
    Read the HS thread, our "king" is famous for his episode of denialism that the business had involucrated and he was the only one customer who kept pushing the "7/9 working" narrative until the end.

    (a) not a narrative but stating observations.
    (b) I said it as long as I factually observed it. What some, incl. you, conveniently "forget" to mention is that I also told my observations when fewer and fewer of my systems with HS were working - but then, that doesn't fit your narrative.

  • MumblyMumbly Member
    edited July 2022

    @jsg said: Sorry but your bent perception is your problem not mine.

    And living in a denial is your.
    May I suggest you to simple shut the fuck up next time when people express their concerns about their problems with a certain host and host ignorance?
    They have more than enough frustrations with that and don't need another moron on their back.

  • jsgjsg Member, Resident Benchmarker

    @Mumbly said:

    @jsg said: Sorry but your bent perception is your problem not mine.

    And living in a denial is your.
    May I suggest you to simple shut the fuck up next time when people express their concerns about their problems with a certain host and host ignorance?
    They have more than enough frustrations with that and don't need another moron on their back.

    Hahahaha! Thanks for making me LOL by demanding that I shut up in my own thread!
    Now, quickly back to the real world: look at this thread's title as well as at the OP ... and then at least try to think.

  • rogerwilcorogerwilco Member

    What is self-awareness and why is it important?

    Thanked by 3bulbasaur adly TimboJones
  • MumblyMumbly Member
    edited July 2022

    You missed the point or why exactly did you even mentioned "your thread"? That's completely irrelevant.
    Yes, that's your very personal complain thread but let me try it again and this time use some brains, please.

    May I suggest you to simple shut the fuck up next time when people express their concerns about their problems with a certain host and host ignorance?
    They have more than enough frustrations with that and don't need another moron on their back.

    Beside that it's not demand, but suggestion as I clearly wrote. You will do a favour to yourself and to the others.

    Thanked by 5webcraft bulbasaur hadawayandplay adly Ouji
  • plastikplastik Member

    What I am interested to know is, did all the other people who have kept complaining about NexusBytes get a $50 credit on their accounts? Or is this only reserved for the forum royalty?

    Thanked by 8hadawayandplay bulbasaur jugganuts Erisa adly dahartigan Ouji maverick
  • ascicodeascicode Member

    How Many of them are idling?

  • chipchip Member

    @NobodyInteresting said:

    @Jord said:
    Hey @jsg

    Spoken with the team, and it looks like we had an internal network issue which dropped your volume, this has now been fixed and your volume is now reattached, could you please login and see if all your data is back and working as it should be?

    I've also added $50 to your account, as this should have never happened, our support techs should have picked this up and got this fixed, I do apologise for the issues here, and I apologise for the inconvenience caused.

    Please do let me know if you can't log in or if your volume isn't there.

    Thanks

    My storage VM has been inaccessible for many weeks now, I'd take some credit as well 😆

    Mines been dead since they migrated from Germany..... tried to contact them no reply.... tried to bump my contact no reply.... both tickets auto closed because they where open that long.... so I moved

  • JordJord Moderator, Host Rep

    @plastik said:
    What I am interested to know is, did all the other people who have kept complaining about NexusBytes get a $50 credit on their accounts? Or is this only reserved for the forum royalty?

    Everyone who reported it and was affected got credit, I'll be going through all tickets/accounts to make sure everything is working for everyone as it should be. I do apologise for the issues users have faced.

    Thanked by 2plastik maverick
  • JordJord Moderator, Host Rep

    @chip said:

    @NobodyInteresting said:

    @Jord said:
    Hey @jsg

    Spoken with the team, and it looks like we had an internal network issue which dropped your volume, this has now been fixed and your volume is now reattached, could you please login and see if all your data is back and working as it should be?

    I've also added $50 to your account, as this should have never happened, our support techs should have picked this up and got this fixed, I do apologise for the issues here, and I apologise for the inconvenience caused.

    Please do let me know if you can't log in or if your volume isn't there.

    Thanks

    My storage VM has been inaccessible for many weeks now, I'd take some credit as well 😆

    Mines been dead since they migrated from Germany..... tried to contact them no reply.... tried to bump my contact no reply.... both tickets auto closed because they where open that long.... so I moved

    I'm sorry to hear that, I wish I was there before to help, but I will make sure no one faces these issues again, sorry about that. If I can do anything to help let me know.

  • chipchip Member

    @Jord said:

    @chip said:

    @NobodyInteresting said:

    @Jord said:
    Hey @jsg

    Spoken with the team, and it looks like we had an internal network issue which dropped your volume, this has now been fixed and your volume is now reattached, could you please login and see if all your data is back and working as it should be?

    I've also added $50 to your account, as this should have never happened, our support techs should have picked this up and got this fixed, I do apologise for the issues here, and I apologise for the inconvenience caused.

    Please do let me know if you can't log in or if your volume isn't there.

    Thanks

    My storage VM has been inaccessible for many weeks now, I'd take some credit as well 😆

    Mines been dead since they migrated from Germany..... tried to contact them no reply.... tried to bump my contact no reply.... both tickets auto closed because they where open that long.... so I moved

    I'm sorry to hear that, I wish I was there before to help, but I will make sure no one faces these issues again, sorry about that. If I can do anything to help let me know.

    Nah long since gone now I also had a managed vps that had an issue and support at the time took aged to respond and then spent ages with the issue being unable to resolve it

    I wish you luck and Jay well but after reading all these comments I feel I made the right decision jumping ship

  • SgrocksSgrocks Member

    Grabs popcorn

  • adlyadly Veteran

    I trust @Jord will issue credits as appropriate. Regarding ongoing stability, @jsg is happy so everyone should be happy. 😉

  • TimboJonesTimboJones Member

    @jsg said:

    @adly said:
    @jsg I don't think the comment was aimed at NB or @Jord.

    It's probably more to do with (rightly or wrongly), your apparent attitude with this and hostsolutions that there was/is no problem until it affects you.

    (This is not my opinion, just an observation.)

    I understand that to some it may seem so, but actually it's wrong. Explanation: I don't tend to emotionally judge but prefer to stick to observable facts plus I at least try to understand.

    Your nonsensical signature contradicts you.

    Thanked by 2hadawayandplay webcraft
  • henixhenix Member

    I have a vps with them too. I had some downtime a couple months ago, vps and panel went down for about 2-3 hours, ticket answered in about 2 hours and never had a problem since.
    VPS has 85 days uptime so far.

    Things may not be perfect right now but oh well, if its going to get involucrated then so be it although i really hope this isn't the case. Nexusbytes was a pretty decent provider, hope @Jord can make things right again

    Thanked by 1Jord
  • LeviLevi Member

    Did TJ just slapped jsg? Ooo... It's on!

  • zedzed Member

    glad to see we're back to bickering about nonsense lol <3

    Thanked by 3equalz iKeyZ sebkehl
  • jsgjsg Member, Resident Benchmarker
    edited July 2022

    As promised here are the benchmarks results of both the "new"/repaired NexusBytes / @Jord / @seriesn storage VPS and the LiteServer storage VPS.

    First the NexusBytes one (based on about 40 runs):

    System info and processor/memory
Version 2.5.0a, (c) 2018+ jsg (->lowendtalk.com)
Machine: amd64, Arch.: amd64, Model: AMD Ryzen 9 3900X 12-Core Processor            
OS, version: FreeBSD 13.0, Mem.: 990 MB
CPU - Cores: 1, Family/Model/Stepping: 23/113/0
Cache: 32K/32K L1d/L1i, 512K L2, 64M 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 sse3 pclmulqdq ssse3 fma cx16 sse4_1
          sse4_2 popcnt aes xsave osxsave avx f16c rdrnd hypervisor
Ext. Flags: fsgsbase bmi1 avx2 smep bmi2 syscall nx mmxext fxsr_opt pdpe1gb
          rdtscp lm lahf_lm cmp_legacy svm cr8_legacy lzcnt sse4a misalignsse
          3dnowprefetch osvw

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

ProcMem SC [MB/s]: avg 280.6 - min 100.5 (35.8 %), max 464.7 (165.6 %)
ProcMem MA [MB/s]: avg 448.5 - min 440.9 (98.3 %), max 456.9 (101.9 %)
ProcMem MB [MB/s]: avg 447.5 - min 439.0 (98.1 %), max 449.5 (100.5 %)
ProcMem AES [MB/s]: avg 1428.2 - min 1338.7 (93.7 %), max 1468.4 (102.8 %)
ProcMem RSA [kp/s]: avg 105.6 - min 100.5 (95.2 %), max 109.7 (103.9 %)

    Nice, even very nice indeed. On a normal VPS I'd love that but frankly on a storage VPS it's simply overkill.

    On to the system disk (the storage disk is a separate one)

    --- Disk 4 KB - Buffered ---
Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 11.52 - min 11.29 (98.0%), max 11.91 (103.4%)
Write rnd. [MB/s]: avg 11.16 - min 10.89 (97.6%), max 11.60 (103.9%)
Read seq. [MB/s]:  avg 29.12 - min 28.72 (98.6%), max 29.38 (100.9%)
Read rnd. [MB/s]:  avg 26.71 - min 26.35 (98.6%), max 26.88 (100.6%)
--- Disk 4 KB - Sync/Direct ---
Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 10.71 - min 10.61 (99.1%), max 10.92 (102.0%)
Write rnd. [MB/s]: avg 10.71 - min 10.59 (98.9%), max 10.86 (101.4%)
Read seq. [MB/s]:  avg 29.12 - min 28.91 (99.3%), max 29.48 (101.2%)
Read rnd. [MB/s]:  avg 26.47 - min 26.11 (98.6%), max 26.87 (101.5%)

--- Disk 64 KB - Buffered ---
Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 107.87 - min 105.43 (97.7%), max 109.71 (101.7%)
Write rnd. [MB/s]: avg 121.63 - min 119.80 (98.5%), max 123.48 (101.5%)
Read seq. [MB/s]:  avg 1357.09 - min 1260.59 (92.9%), max 1395.10 (102.8%)
Read rnd. [MB/s]:  avg 345.56 - min 342.79 (99.2%), max 349.91 (101.3%)
--- Disk 64 KB - Sync/Direct ---
Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 11.16 - min 9.03 (80.9%), max 12.16 (109.0%)
Write rnd. [MB/s]: avg 6.87 - min 5.55 (80.8%), max 7.47 (108.8%)
Read seq. [MB/s]:  avg 1322.04 - min 1189.65 (90.0%), max 1383.25 (104.6%)
Read rnd. [MB/s]:  avg 344.33 - min 343.37 (99.7%), max 345.61 (100.4%)

--- Disk 1 MB - Buffered ---
Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 184.73 - min 181.09 (98.0%), max 189.75 (102.7%)
Write rnd. [MB/s]: avg 336.26 - min 332.03 (98.7%), max 341.00 (101.4%)
Read seq. [MB/s]:  avg 2068.06 - min 2005.47 (97.0%), max 2116.86 (102.4%)
Read rnd. [MB/s]:  avg 1480.55 - min 1448.51 (97.8%), max 1531.63 (103.4%)
--- Disk 1 MB - Sync/Direct ---
Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 76.51 - min 65.99 (86.3%), max 80.38 (105.1%)
Write rnd. [MB/s]: avg 87.58 - min 74.86 (85.5%), max 94.20 (107.6%)
Read seq. [MB/s]:  avg 2080.04 - min 2044.12 (98.3%), max 2137.44 (102.8%)
Read rnd. [MB/s]:  avg 1508.12 - min 1472.81 (97.7%), max 1535.48 (101.8%)
--- Disk IOps (Sync/Direct) ---
Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 21.11 - min 20.71 (98.1%), max 21.61 (102.4%)
IOps             : avg 5402.70 - min 5301.63 (98.1%), max 5531.13 (102.4%)

    A bit over 10 MB/s in 4KB mode, sync'd, nice. Over 20 MB/s and about 5400 IOPs, hmm, kind of poor for a NVMe and OK for an SSD but darn good enough. After all one hardly runs a database server or the like on a storage system. Note that I didn't ask and don't know whether that's an NVMe or a SSD; I simply don't care with a storage VM.
    What I do care about though is low spread which means stable and consistent performance and on that the drive does deliver.

    Now on to the other drive, the 1 TB storage drive I care much more about

    --- Disk 4 KB - Buffered ---
Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 5.95 - min 4.06 (68.2%), max 6.42 (107.9%)
Write rnd. [MB/s]: avg 6.30 - min 5.61 (89.1%), max 6.69 (106.3%)
Read seq. [MB/s]:  avg 29.04 - min 22.56 (77.7%), max 29.77 (102.5%)
Read rnd. [MB/s]:  avg 26.46 - min 23.13 (87.4%), max 27.19 (102.7%)
--- Disk 4 KB - Sync/Direct ---
Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 5.69 - min 0.56 (9.8%), max 6.13 (107.8%)
Write rnd. [MB/s]: avg 5.73 - min 0.71 (12.4%), max 6.28 (109.6%)
Read seq. [MB/s]:  avg 28.46 - min 3.32 (11.7%), max 29.92 (105.1%)
Read rnd. [MB/s]:  avg 25.92 - min 3.71 (14.3%), max 27.67 (106.8%)

--- Disk 64 KB - Buffered ---
Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 50.55 - min 11.73 (23.2%), max 55.18 (109.2%)
Write rnd. [MB/s]: avg 61.96 - min 21.16 (34.2%), max 66.89 (108.0%)
Read seq. [MB/s]:  avg 1312.75 - min 96.44 (7.3%), max 1393.13 (106.1%)
Read rnd. [MB/s]:  avg 335.99 - min 270.81 (80.6%), max 350.17 (104.2%)
--- Disk 64 KB - Sync/Direct ---
Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 9.50 - min 6.71 (70.6%), max 10.19 (107.2%)
Write rnd. [MB/s]: avg 6.24 - min 4.53 (72.6%), max 6.64 (106.4%)
Read seq. [MB/s]:  avg 1373.62 - min 1355.37 (98.7%), max 1403.16 (102.2%)
Read rnd. [MB/s]:  avg 344.56 - min 339.32 (98.5%), max 351.47 (102.0%)

--- Disk 1 MB - Buffered ---
Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 57.02 - min 13.09 (23.0%), max 60.93 (106.9%)
Write rnd. [MB/s]: avg 129.43 - min 36.04 (27.8%), max 142.62 (110.2%)
Read seq. [MB/s]:  avg 1840.15 - min 179.56 (9.8%), max 2227.67 (121.1%)
Read rnd. [MB/s]:  avg 1348.43 - min 734.13 (54.4%), max 1407.94 (104.4%)
--- Disk 1 MB - Sync/Direct ---
Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 43.72 - min 8.92 (20.4%), max 47.43 (108.5%)
Write rnd. [MB/s]: avg 57.88 - min 22.97 (39.7%), max 62.81 (108.5%)
Read seq. [MB/s]:  avg 2180.12 - min 2134.61 (97.9%), max 2239.49 (102.7%)
Read rnd. [MB/s]:  avg 1374.36 - min 1338.00 (97.4%), max 1472.01 (107.1%)
--- Disk IOps (Sync/Direct) ---
Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 5.90 - min 1.53 (26.0%), max 6.33 (107.4%)
IOps             : avg 1509.23 - min 390.40 (25.9%), max 1620.95 (107.4%)

    Hmmm, me not really happy. Not so much because of what seems to be low performance; that's expected because this is a HDD and it's OK for a cheap storage VPS. Nope what I don't like is the spread. Yes, the average is close to the max, so that disk most of the time works close to full speed, but the drops, and more than a few, are not nice at all. But, oh well, my priority with that VPS was bang for the buck (plus reliability and good support which seemed to come with "NexusBytes" back then).
    All in all I'm not happy and would have preferred a less performant processor (heck, even a 24xx or 26xxv2 would do for a storage VM) and a more consistent disk performance (the speed per se is OK though for a backup box). But hey, this thing was cheap so I won't complain.

    Finally the network

    US SJC speedtest.sjc01.softlayer.com [F: 0]
  DL [Mb/s]:      avg 58.8 - min 58.8 (100.0%), max 58.8 (100.0%)
  Ping [ms]:      avg 146.3 - min 146.3 (100.0%), max 146.3 (100.0%)
  Web ping [ms]:  avg 146.3 - min 146.3 (100.0%), max 146.3 (100.0%)

FR PAR ipv4.paris.testdebit.info [F: 0]
  DL [Mb/s]:      avg 835.4 - min 835.4 (100.0%), max 835.4 (100.0%)
  Ping [ms]:      avg 14.8 - min 14.8 (100.0%), max 14.8 (100.0%)
  Web ping [ms]:  avg 14.8 - min 14.8 (100.0%), max 14.8 (100.0%)

AU MEL speedtest.c1.mel1.dediserve.com [F: 0]
  DL [Mb/s]:      avg 29.2 - min 29.2 (100.0%), max 29.2 (100.0%)
  Ping [ms]:      avg 297.3 - min 297.3 (100.0%), max 297.3 (100.0%)
  Web ping [ms]:  avg 297.3 - min 297.3 (100.0%), max 297.3 (100.0%)

JP TOK speedtest.tokyo2.linode.com [F: 0]
  DL [Mb/s]:      avg 44.5 - min 44.5 (100.0%), max 44.5 (100.0%)
  Ping [ms]:      avg 225.1 - min 225.1 (100.0%), max 225.1 (100.0%)
  Web ping [ms]:  avg 255.0 - min 255.0 (100.0%), max 255.0 (100.0%)

IT MIL speedtest.mil01.softlayer.com [F: 0]
  DL [Mb/s]:      avg 357.4 - min 357.4 (100.0%), max 357.4 (100.0%)
  Ping [ms]:      avg 26.5 - min 26.5 (100.0%), max 26.5 (100.0%)
  Web ping [ms]:  avg 26.5 - min 26.5 (100.0%), max 26.5 (100.0%)

TR UNK 185.65.204.169 [F: 0]
  DL [Mb/s]:      avg 86.0 - min 86.0 (100.0%), max 86.0 (100.0%)
  Ping [ms]:      avg 45.3 - min 45.3 (100.0%), max 45.3 (100.0%)
  Web ping [ms]:  avg 45.6 - min 45.6 (100.0%), max 45.6 (100.0%)

US NYC nyc.speedtest.clouvider.net [F: 0]
  DL [Mb/s]:      avg 139.4 - min 139.4 (100.0%), max 139.4 (100.0%)
  Ping [ms]:      avg 85.1 - min 85.1 (100.0%), max 85.1 (100.0%)
  Web ping [ms]:  avg 85.1 - min 85.1 (100.0%), max 85.1 (100.0%)

IN MUM mirrors.piconets.webwerks.in [F: 0]
  DL [Mb/s]:      avg 91.2 - min 91.2 (100.0%), max 91.2 (100.0%)
  Ping [ms]:      avg 120.6 - min 120.6 (100.0%), max 120.6 (100.0%)
  Web ping [ms]:  avg 120.6 - min 120.6 (100.0%), max 120.6 (100.0%)

GR UNK speedtest.ftp.otenet.gr [F: 1]
  DL [Mb/s]:      avg 0.0 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 0.0 (0.0%)
  Ping [ms]:      avg 0.0 - min 0.0 (-nan%), max 0.0 (-nan%)
  Web ping [ms]:  avg 0.0 - min 0.0 (-nan%), max 0.0 (-nan%)

SG SGP mirror.sg.leaseweb.net [F: 0]
  DL [Mb/s]:      avg 70.2 - min 70.2 (100.0%), max 70.2 (100.0%)
  Ping [ms]:      avg 168.6 - min 168.6 (100.0%), max 168.6 (100.0%)
  Web ping [ms]:  avg 168.6 - min 168.6 (100.0%), max 168.6 (100.0%)

BR SAO speedtest.sao01.softlayer.com [F: 0]
  DL [Mb/s]:      avg 45.9 - min 45.9 (100.0%), max 45.9 (100.0%)
  Ping [ms]:      avg 185.7 - min 185.7 (100.0%), max 185.7 (100.0%)
  Web ping [ms]:  avg 197.4 - min 197.4 (100.0%), max 197.4 (100.0%)

NO OSL mirror.terrahost.no [F: 1]
  DL [Mb/s]:      avg 0.0 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 0.0 (0.0%)
  Ping [ms]:      avg 21.2 - min 21.2 (100.0%), max 21.2 (100.0%)
  Web ping [ms]:  avg 21.2 - min 21.2 (100.0%), max 21.2 (100.0%)

US WDC mirror.wdc1.us.leaseweb.net [F: 0]
  DL [Mb/s]:      avg 127.3 - min 127.3 (100.0%), max 127.3 (100.0%)
  Ping [ms]:      avg 85.9 - min 85.9 (100.0%), max 85.9 (100.0%)
  Web ping [ms]:  avg 88.8 - min 88.8 (100.0%), max 88.8 (100.0%)

RU MOS speedtest.hostkey.ru [F: 0]
  DL [Mb/s]:      avg 223.8 - min 223.8 (100.0%), max 223.8 (100.0%)
  Ping [ms]:      avg 43.2 - min 43.2 (100.0%), max 43.2 (100.0%)
  Web ping [ms]:  avg 51.0 - min 51.0 (100.0%), max 51.0 (100.0%)

US LAX la.speedtest.clouvider.net [F: 0]
  DL [Mb/s]:      avg 76.3 - min 76.3 (100.0%), max 76.3 (100.0%)
  Ping [ms]:      avg 146.9 - min 146.9 (100.0%), max 146.9 (100.0%)
  Web ping [ms]:  avg 148.0 - min 148.0 (100.0%), max 148.0 (100.0%)

RO BUC 185.183.99.8 [F: 1]
  DL [Mb/s]:      avg 0.0 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 0.0 (0.0%)
  Ping [ms]:      avg 31.4 - min 31.4 (100.0%), max 31.4 (100.0%)
  Web ping [ms]:  avg 31.4 - min 31.4 (100.0%), max 31.4 (100.0%)

NL AMS mirror.nl.leaseweb.net [F: 0]
  DL [Mb/s]:      avg 797.6 - min 797.6 (100.0%), max 797.6 (100.0%)
  Ping [ms]:      avg 1.6 - min 1.6 (100.0%), max 1.6 (100.0%)
  Web ping [ms]:  avg 1.6 - min 1.6 (100.0%), max 1.6 (100.0%)

CN HK mirror.hk.leaseweb.net [F: 0]
  DL [Mb/s]:      avg 56.1 - min 56.1 (100.0%), max 56.1 (100.0%)
  Ping [ms]:      avg 199.8 - min 199.8 (100.0%), max 199.8 (100.0%)
  Web ping [ms]:  avg 202.2 - min 202.2 (100.0%), max 202.2 (100.0%)

US DAL mirror.dal13.us.leaseweb.net [F: 0]
  DL [Mb/s]:      avg 95.7 - min 95.7 (100.0%), max 95.7 (100.0%)
  Ping [ms]:      avg 110.6 - min 110.6 (100.0%), max 110.6 (100.0%)
  Web ping [ms]:  avg 114.1 - min 114.1 (100.0%), max 114.1 (100.0%)

DE FRA fra.lg.core-backbone.com [F: 0]
  DL [Mb/s]:      avg 864.5 - min 864.5 (100.0%), max 864.5 (100.0%)
  Ping [ms]:      avg 7.3 - min 7.3 (100.0%), max 7.3 (100.0%)
  Web ping [ms]:  avg 7.5 - min 7.5 (100.0%), max 7.5 (100.0%)

UK LON lon.speedtest.clouvider.net [F: 0]
  DL [Mb/s]:      avg 812.2 - min 812.2 (100.0%), max 812.2 (100.0%)
  Ping [ms]:      avg 7.6 - min 7.6 (100.0%), max 7.6 (100.0%)
  Web ping [ms]:  avg 13.9 - min 13.9 (100.0%), max 13.9 (100.0%)

    A comment isn't needed because I've already done a few NexusBytes reviews and the numbers are known. TL;DR Not high-end like @Hybula but really quite nice; well Worldstream is known to provide very decent connectivity.

    Summary:
    I'm a bit torn because on one hand NexusBytes not only gave me back my storage VPS fully working but even gave me something faster (don't ask me about it, I don't know because I didn't ask because I don't care for speed with a storage box) and I'm pleased by and grateful for that good will gesture, but on the other side I'm not happy at all about the thing a storage box is all about, the large disk which seems to be ... oh, well. Let's just say that I'm satisfied, even pleased, that, and how fast, I got a working storage box again once Jord took care of NexusBytes support (which, frankly, I've come to call "NB dormitory"), but I'm not happy enough to recommend that NB box.

    Thanked by 2Hybula pepa65
  • jsgjsg Member, Resident Benchmarker
    edited July 2022

    Now on to the LiteServer storage VPS (based on over 200 runs)

    First System info and processor/memory

    Version 2.5.0a, (c) 2018+ jsg (->lowendtalk.com)
Machine: amd64, Arch.: amd64, Model: AMD EPYC 7571 32-Core Processor                
OS, version: FreeBSD 13.0, Mem.: 1.990 GB
CPU - Cores: 1, Family/Model/Stepping: 23/1/2
Cache: 32K/64K L1d/L1i, 512K L2, 64M 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 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 155.0 - min 50.1 (32.3 %), max 264.1 (170.4 %)
ProcMem MA [MB/s]: avg 251.8 - min 226.5 (90.0 %), max 260.2 (103.4 %)
ProcMem MB [MB/s]: avg 251.9 - min 221.1 (87.8 %), max 261.5 (103.8 %)
ProcMem AES [MB/s]: avg 865.6 - min 728.3 (84.1 %), max 884.2 (102.1 %)
ProcMem RSA [kp/s]: avg 56.5 - min 50.1 (88.8 %), max 60.6 (107.3 %)

    Seems to be a "busy" node, not overcrowded but quite busy ... and not at all fast; heck, that's 26xxv2 (or even older) territory - but I'm perfectly happy. Remember, it's a storage box. My SSH connections are established quickly and I never had the feeling that somewhat more speed would be nice. Nope, it's fine as it is.

    Now on to the important part, the disk

    --- Disk 4 KB - Buffered ---
Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 6.37 - min 4.72 (74.1%), max 7.39 (116.0%)
Write rnd. [MB/s]: avg 5.74 - min 3.77 (65.7%), max 7.05 (122.9%)
Read seq. [MB/s]:  avg 9.15 - min 3.12 (34.1%), max 14.31 (156.4%)
Read rnd. [MB/s]:  avg 8.23 - min 2.27 (27.6%), max 18.53 (225.2%)
--- Disk 4 KB - Sync/Direct ---
Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 6.40 - min 4.04 (63.1%), max 7.21 (112.6%)
Write rnd. [MB/s]: avg 5.84 - min 3.08 (52.7%), max 7.02 (120.2%)
Read seq. [MB/s]:  avg 9.07 - min 3.03 (33.4%), max 13.37 (147.4%)
Read rnd. [MB/s]:  avg 8.32 - min 2.35 (28.2%), max 18.63 (223.8%)

--- Disk 64 KB - Buffered ---
Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 62.23 - min 42.67 (68.6%), max 71.29 (114.6%)
Write rnd. [MB/s]: avg 65.50 - min 37.69 (57.5%), max 76.36 (116.6%)
Read seq. [MB/s]:  avg 1573.57 - min 1003.30 (63.8%), max 1870.92 (118.9%)
Read rnd. [MB/s]:  avg 109.14 - min 16.70 (15.3%), max 217.18 (199.0%)
--- Disk 64 KB - Sync/Direct ---
Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 8.83 - min 6.32 (71.6%), max 20.07 (227.2%)
Write rnd. [MB/s]: avg 4.95 - min 3.25 (65.6%), max 17.40 (351.3%)
Read seq. [MB/s]:  avg 1518.24 - min 596.32 (39.3%), max 1850.68 (121.9%)
Read rnd. [MB/s]:  avg 106.70 - min 32.25 (30.2%), max 198.69 (186.2%)

--- Disk 1 MB - Buffered ---
Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 90.26 - min 67.06 (74.3%), max 100.01 (110.8%)
Write rnd. [MB/s]: avg 155.69 - min 102.09 (65.6%), max 177.39 (113.9%)
Read seq. [MB/s]:  avg 748.64 - min 138.86 (18.5%), max 1835.66 (245.2%)
Read rnd. [MB/s]:  avg 573.49 - min 173.64 (30.3%), max 810.83 (141.4%)
--- Disk 1 MB - Sync/Direct ---
Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 37.06 - min 29.94 (80.8%), max 66.03 (178.2%)
Write rnd. [MB/s]: avg 36.08 - min 27.84 (77.2%), max 104.21 (288.8%)
Read seq. [MB/s]:  avg 753.24 - min 258.04 (34.3%), max 1878.45 (249.4%)
Read rnd. [MB/s]:  avg 570.89 - min 192.49 (33.7%), max 809.21 (141.7%)
--- Disk IOps (Sync/Direct) ---
Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 16.30 - min 13.53 (83.0%), max 17.57 (107.8%)
IOps             : avg 4173.78 - min 3463.25 (83.0%), max 4496.86 (107.7%)

    About 16 MB/s and over 4000 IOPs - great! Me happy. Yes, this box has but one disk (Raid 1 min.) and that disk is a bit slower than the small NexusBytes system disk, but it's a lot faster than the NB large (and most important for a storage box) disk! That Terabyte HDD drive actually feels like a halfway decent SSD. I like that very much, yay!

    Finally the network

    US SJC speedtest.sjc01.softlayer.com [F: 0]
  DL [Mb/s]:      avg 57.5 - min 32.5 (56.5%), max 65.2 (113.5%)
  Ping [ms]:      avg 148.5 - min 144.3 (97.2%), max 151.1 (101.8%)
  Web ping [ms]:  avg 148.8 - min 144.3 (97.0%), max 157.6 (105.9%)

FR PAR ipv4.paris.testdebit.info [F: 0]
  DL [Mb/s]:      avg 740.7 - min 604.2 (81.6%), max 839.5 (113.3%)
  Ping [ms]:      avg 11.5 - min 11.1 (96.4%), max 14.9 (129.5%)
  Web ping [ms]:  avg 11.8 - min 11.1 (94.3%), max 14.9 (126.6%)

AU MEL speedtest.c1.mel1.dediserve.com [F: 0]
  DL [Mb/s]:      avg 32.0 - min 24.9 (77.9%), max 34.9 (108.9%)
  Ping [ms]:      avg 295.9 - min 287.3 (97.1%), max 359.8 (121.6%)
  Web ping [ms]:  avg 296.9 - min 288.2 (97.1%), max 359.8 (121.2%)

JP TOK speedtest.tokyo2.linode.com [F: 38]
  DL [Mb/s]:      avg 25.6 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 45.6 (177.9%)
  Ping [ms]:      avg 241.7 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 253.4 (104.9%)
  Web ping [ms]:  avg 244.4 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 260.1 (106.4%)

IT MIL speedtest.mil01.softlayer.com [F: 0]
  DL [Mb/s]:      avg 350.7 - min 207.4 (59.1%), max 533.6 (152.2%)
  Ping [ms]:      avg 22.8 - min 17.2 (75.4%), max 26.2 (114.8%)
  Web ping [ms]:  avg 23.1 - min 17.2 (74.5%), max 26.2 (113.5%)

TR UNK 185.65.204.169 [F: 0]
  DL [Mb/s]:      avg 86.8 - min 86.0 (99.1%), max 87.3 (100.6%)
  Ping [ms]:      avg 46.5 - min 44.0 (94.6%), max 49.3 (106.1%)
  Web ping [ms]:  avg 47.0 - min 44.0 (93.6%), max 62.7 (133.3%)

US NYC nyc.speedtest.clouvider.net [F: 0]
  DL [Mb/s]:      avg 84.7 - min 47.8 (56.5%), max 138.3 (163.3%)
  Ping [ms]:      avg 81.7 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 86.9 (106.3%)
  Web ping [ms]:  avg 81.8 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 94.6 (115.6%)

IN MUM mirrors.piconets.webwerks.in [F: 0]
  DL [Mb/s]:      avg 86.4 - min 40.7 (47.1%), max 92.1 (106.7%)
  Ping [ms]:      avg 124.4 - min 123.8 (99.5%), max 136.0 (109.3%)
  Web ping [ms]:  avg 136.0 - min 123.8 (91.0%), max 438.0 (322.0%)

GR UNK speedtest.ftp.otenet.gr [F: 81]
  DL [Mb/s]:      avg 84.8 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 202.2 (238.3%)
  Ping [ms]:      avg 27.5 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 50.1 (182.0%)
  Web ping [ms]:  avg 33.1 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 1167.5 (3531.6%)

SG SGP mirror.sg.leaseweb.net [F: 58]
  DL [Mb/s]:      avg 20.7 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 57.1 (276.1%)
  Ping [ms]:      avg 161.4 - min 109.0 (67.6%), max 176.7 (109.5%)
  Web ping [ms]:  avg 163.0 - min 159.4 (97.8%), max 176.7 (108.4%)

BR SAO speedtest.sao01.softlayer.com [F: 0]
  DL [Mb/s]:      avg 40.3 - min 21.3 (52.8%), max 49.2 (121.9%)
  Ping [ms]:      avg 189.2 - min 188.8 (99.8%), max 192.7 (101.8%)
  Web ping [ms]:  avg 195.6 - min 188.8 (96.5%), max 215.3 (110.1%)

NO OSL mirror.terrahost.no [F: 212]
  DL [Mb/s]:      avg 0.0 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 0.0 (0.0%)
  Ping [ms]:      avg 21.6 - min 21.4 (99.0%), max 34.3 (158.7%)
  Web ping [ms]:  avg 21.6 - min 21.4 (99.0%), max 34.3 (158.7%)

US WDC mirror.wdc1.us.leaseweb.net [F: 0]
  DL [Mb/s]:      avg 80.4 - min 51.7 (64.3%), max 130.8 (162.8%)
  Ping [ms]:      avg 86.6 - min 84.6 (97.7%), max 107.3 (124.0%)
  Web ping [ms]:  avg 87.7 - min 84.6 (96.4%), max 107.3 (122.3%)

RU MOS speedtest.hostkey.ru [F: 0]
  DL [Mb/s]:      avg 262.7 - min 135.1 (51.4%), max 300.5 (114.4%)
  Ping [ms]:      avg 38.6 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 40.3 (104.4%)
  Web ping [ms]:  avg 50.4 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 451.8 (897.1%)

US LAX la.speedtest.clouvider.net [F: 0]
  DL [Mb/s]:      avg 50.5 - min 29.2 (57.9%), max 76.6 (151.5%)
  Ping [ms]:      avg 150.7 - min 145.0 (96.2%), max 155.4 (103.1%)
  Web ping [ms]:  avg 152.7 - min 145.1 (95.1%), max 199.8 (130.9%)

RO BUC 185.183.99.8 [F: 212]
  DL [Mb/s]:      avg 0.0 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 0.0 (0.0%)
  Ping [ms]:      avg 33.3 - min 32.7 (98.3%), max 38.1 (114.5%)
  Web ping [ms]:  avg 33.3 - min 32.7 (98.3%), max 38.1 (114.5%)

NL AMS mirror.nl.leaseweb.net [F: 0]
  DL [Mb/s]:      avg 707.5 - min 361.5 (51.1%), max 870.0 (123.0%)
  Ping [ms]:      avg 3.4 - min 3.2 (95.5%), max 6.2 (185.1%)
  Web ping [ms]:  avg 3.4 - min 3.2 (94.3%), max 6.2 (182.6%)

CN HK mirror.hk.leaseweb.net [F: 0]
  DL [Mb/s]:      avg 46.0 - min 34.7 (75.6%), max 59.9 (130.4%)
  Ping [ms]:      avg 186.7 - min 186.2 (99.8%), max 194.4 (104.2%)
  Web ping [ms]:  avg 193.4 - min 186.2 (96.3%), max 206.9 (107.0%)

US DAL mirror.dal13.us.leaseweb.net [F: 0]
  DL [Mb/s]:      avg 61.7 - min 44.5 (72.2%), max 98.8 (160.2%)
  Ping [ms]:      avg 115.3 - min 113.9 (98.8%), max 124.0 (107.5%)
  Web ping [ms]:  avg 117.1 - min 113.9 (97.2%), max 159.0 (135.8%)

DE FRA fra.lg.core-backbone.com [F: 0]
  DL [Mb/s]:      avg 639.7 - min 357.1 (55.8%), max 836.9 (130.8%)
  Ping [ms]:      avg 8.6 - min 8.3 (96.6%), max 14.6 (169.9%)
  Web ping [ms]:  avg 8.8 - min 8.4 (95.6%), max 32.0 (364.1%)

UK LON lon.speedtest.clouvider.net [F: 0]
  DL [Mb/s]:      avg 558.0 - min 194.0 (34.8%), max 840.2 (150.6%)
  Ping [ms]:      avg 7.6 - min 7.1 (93.1%), max 29.3 (384.1%)
  Web ping [ms]:  avg 8.3 - min 7.2 (86.3%), max 46.6 (558.6%)

    Let's be honest, NexusBytes connectivity is better. This is a weak point - unless you are, like myself, only interested in intra-Europe connectivity; for people from far away places I'd think twice ... and probably buy elsewhere.
    But on the other hand with all my storage boxes in Europe I'm quite happy and, well noted, based on concrete experience (multi 100ds of GB transferred in between my storage boxes). I saw 600 Mb/s and higher more than occasionally.

    Summary:

    For a storage/backup VPS this is kind of close to perfect. Quite fast and safe disk, quite fast (within Europe) network and a darn fast enough processor and memory - albeit at a not exactly cheap price.
    So, if you are on a very tight budget and/or far away from Europe this LiteServer box might not be for you (you might be better served by e.g. an AlphaVPS / @AlexBarakov product), but if you need a reliable, good quality, and fast backup box with good connectivity within Europe and can afford to pay a bit more (but still reasonable) this LiteServer VPS can be recommended.

    Thanked by 4nick_ Liso MannDude pepa65
  • iKeyZiKeyZ Veteran

    @Jord said:
    Jay will be making an announcement next week, so I’m sure he will go into better detail

    Any further updates about this?

    Thanked by 5hadawayandplay caracal bulbasaur equalz adly
  • vyas11vyas11 Member

    That’s a Lot of writing but considering the credit offered, well…

    Thanked by 3webcraft bulbasaur adly
  • jsgjsg Member, Resident Benchmarker

    @vyas11 said:
    That’s a Lot of writing but considering the credit offered, well…

    No, these two are not different from other reviews I did and the credit has exactly 0 influence on the data.

  • vyas11vyas11 Member

    @jsg said:

    @vyas11 said:
    That’s a Lot of writing but considering the credit offered, well…

    No, these two are not different from other reviews I did and the credit has exactly 0 influence on the data.

    I am saying considering the words published, 50 is too small a credit. Lowballed almost.

    Thanked by 2adly TimboJones
Sign In or Register to comment.