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

› › 🎃 Spooktacular Halloween Deals at Virtono - Don't Ghost These Savings! 🎃 - 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.

🎃 Spooktacular Halloween Deals at Virtono - Don't Ghost These Savings! 🎃

13»

Comments

  • ehabehab Member

    @virtono said:
    Use the coupon code CHOP5023 and get a 50% recurring discount on any VPS plan, in any datacenter you want!

    thanks, i have seen this earlier.

    how about 70%

  • virtonovirtono Member, Patron Provider

    @ehab said:

    @virtono said:
    Use the coupon code CHOP5023 and get a 50% recurring discount on any VPS plan, in any datacenter you want!

    thanks, i have seen this earlier.

    how about 70%

    I can offer a discount code for 60%, but I cannot make it recurring!

    Thanked by 1ehab
  • ehabehab Member

    thank you so much for this consideration.
    until next time - have fun

  • FAT32FAT32 Administrator, Deal Compiler Extraordinaire

    @ehab said:
    thank you so much for this consideration.
    until next time - have fun

    Would you like to join me in megathread this year to squeeze every bits of profit from providers?

    Thanked by 2ehab maverick
  • ehabehab Member

    @FAT32 said:

    @ehab said:
    thank you so much for this consideration.
    until next time - have fun

    Would you like to join me in megathread this year to squeeze every bits of profit from providers?

    i can help you as much as i can, we will need more members to do the same thou... lets say we'll do it for fun.

    so

    Thanked by 1FAT32
  • maverickmaverick Member
    edited November 2023

    @FAT32 said:

    @ehab said:
    thank you so much for this consideration.
    until next time - have fun

    Would you like to join me in megathread this year to squeeze every bits of profit from providers?

    Now we know who is producing deadpool hosts around here. :smiley:

    Thanked by 2FAT32 ehab
  • wakewake Member

    Hey! Thanks for great discount.

    I have ordered 2 VPS, can you double the bandwidth on both?

    Order Number is: 2604806862

    VPS in CZ and CH.

  • karoolskarools Member

    Order Number: 7370335553

    Thank you :blush:

  • virtonovirtono Member, Patron Provider

    @maverick said:

    @FAT32 said:

    @ehab said:
    thank you so much for this consideration.
    until next time - have fun

    Would you like to join me in megathread this year to squeeze every bits of profit from providers?

    Now we know who is producing deadpool hosts around here. :smiley:

    :smiley:

  • virtonovirtono Member, Patron Provider

    @wake said:
    Hey! Thanks for great discount.

    I have ordered 2 VPS, can you double the bandwidth on both?

    Order Number is: 2604806862

    VPS in CZ and CH.

    Thank you. I have doubled the bandwidth for both servers.

    Thanked by 1wake
  • virtonovirtono Member, Patron Provider

    @karools said:
    Order Number: 7370335553

    Thank you :blush:

    I have doubled the bandwidth of your server.
    Thank you for choosing our services!

  • virtonovirtono Member, Patron Provider
    edited November 2023

    To ensure everyone is on the same page, I'd like to address the numerous private inquiries I've received regarding BGP sessions and the announcement of customer subnets, whether IPv4 or IPv6.

    Our policy is to assist customers with their own subnet implementations primarily for large-scale projects or initiatives that we are actively sponsoring or supporting.

    Additionally, I'd like to highlight that if IPv6 is a requirement for you, each of our VPS offerings comes with a /64 IPv6 subnet as a standard feature.

  • jsgjsg Member, Resident Benchmarker
    edited November 2023

    And here is a well deserved review after a couple of days "using" (well, benchmarking) the VPS. Based on a bit over 50 runs.

    Processor and memory:

    Machine: amd64, Arch.: amd64, Model: Intel(R) Xeon(R) Gold 5218 CPU @ 2.30GHz
OS, version: FreeBSD 13.2, Mem.: 990 MB
CPU - Cores: 1, Family/Model/Stepping: 6/85/7
Cache: 32K/32K L1d/L1i, 1024K L2, 22M 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 ss sse3 pclmulqdq vmx ssse3 fma cx16
          pdcm pcid sse4_1 sse4_2 x2apic movbe popcnt tsc_deadline aes xsave
          osxsave avx f16c rdrnd hypervisor
Ext. Flags: fsgsbase tsc_adjust bmi1 avx2 smep bmi2 erms invpcid mpx pat pse36
          rdseed adx smap clflushopt clwb sha umip pku ospke syscall nx pdpe1gb
          rdtscp lm lahf_lm lzcnt

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

ProcMem SC [MB/s]: avg 207.4 - min 72.7 (35.0 %), max 347.1 (167.3 %)
ProcMem MA [MB/s]: avg 326.0 - min 275.1 (84.4 %), max 346.2 (106.2 %)
ProcMem MB [MB/s]: avg 328.8 - min 283.1 (86.1 %), max 345.6 (105.1 %)
ProcMem AES [MB/s]: avg 964.7 - min 844.6 (87.5 %), max 1025.6 (106.3 %)
ProcMem RSA [kp/s]: avg 84.0 - min 72.7 (86.5 %), max 90.1 (107.2 %)

    Nice, kinda. I mean that those results would not be overwhelming on a "normal" (more expensive) VPS, but for the price I do like what I see. Also note that while I'm generally not a big fan of the XEON Gold, Silver and whatnot processors they do deliver significantly better crypto performance which is nice with https.

    Now, on to the disk

    --- Disk 4 KB - Buffered ---
Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 18.95 - min 17.52 (92.5%), max 19.90 (105.0%)
Write rnd. [MB/s]: avg 18.75 - min 17.30 (92.3%), max 19.74 (105.3%)
Read seq. [MB/s]:  avg 50.83 - min 43.03 (84.6%), max 56.13 (110.4%)
Read rnd. [MB/s]:  avg 45.79 - min 31.38 (68.5%), max 50.75 (110.8%)
--- Disk 4 KB - Sync/Direct ---
Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 18.61 - min 17.41 (93.6%), max 19.58 (105.2%)
Write rnd. [MB/s]: avg 18.49 - min 17.39 (94.0%), max 19.42 (105.0%)
Read seq. [MB/s]:  avg 50.58 - min 46.18 (91.3%), max 56.58 (111.9%)
Read rnd. [MB/s]:  avg 45.48 - min 38.70 (85.1%), max 48.20 (106.0%)

--- Disk 64 KB - Buffered ---
Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 176.45 - min 114.25 (64.8%), max 182.88 (103.6%)
Write rnd. [MB/s]: avg 194.41 - min 178.78 (92.0%), max 202.61 (104.2%)
Read seq. [MB/s]:  avg 2156.35 - min 1808.35 (83.9%), max 2582.78 (119.8%)
Read rnd. [MB/s]:  avg 562.97 - min 496.76 (88.2%), max 604.36 (107.4%)
--- Disk 64 KB - Sync/Direct ---
Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 16.42 - min 13.58 (82.7%), max 17.19 (104.7%)
Write rnd. [MB/s]: avg 9.29 - min 7.13 (76.7%), max 9.95 (107.1%)
Read seq. [MB/s]:  avg 2095.96 - min 1781.69 (85.0%), max 2774.76 (132.4%)
Read rnd. [MB/s]:  avg 556.06 - min 259.93 (46.7%), max 610.40 (109.8%)

--- Disk 1 MB - Buffered ---
Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 234.10 - min 231.36 (98.8%), max 235.45 (100.6%)
Write rnd. [MB/s]: avg 480.49 - min 458.84 (95.5%), max 491.58 (102.3%)
Read seq. [MB/s]:  avg 4095.33 - min 2908.10 (71.0%), max 4571.40 (111.6%)
Read rnd. [MB/s]:  avg 1718.02 - min 1255.27 (73.1%), max 1894.56 (110.3%)
--- Disk 1 MB - Sync/Direct ---
Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 95.86 - min 78.91 (82.3%), max 100.58 (104.9%)
Write rnd. [MB/s]: avg 117.44 - min 92.09 (78.4%), max 128.12 (109.1%)
Read seq. [MB/s]:  avg 4190.53 - min 3658.59 (87.3%), max 4607.97 (110.0%)
Read rnd. [MB/s]:  avg 1714.23 - min 1358.40 (79.2%), max 1838.64 (107.3%)
--- Disk IOps (Sync/Direct) ---
Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 17.66 - min 17.64 (99.9%), max 17.66 (100.0%)
IOps             : avg 4520.08 - min 4516.97 (99.9%), max 4521.06 (100.0%)

    Yay! That's really nice. I mean, obviously they have some smart and/or quite large cache in place (you don't get 17+MB/s 4k sync writes from a SSD) but what do I care? What I'm interested in is simply the performance I get - and the performance is really very good. Great!

    Finally, connectivity

    FR PAR ipv4.paris.testdebit.info [F: 0]
  DL [Mb/s]:      avg 366.0 - min 351.6 (96.0%), max 371.9 (101.6%)
  Ping [ms]:      avg 30.1 - min 30.0 (99.6%), max 30.3 (100.6%)
  Web ping [ms]:  avg 30.4 - min 30.1 (98.9%), max 30.8 (101.2%)

NO OSL ftp.uninett.no [F: 0]
  DL [Mb/s]:      avg 236.8 - min 211.7 (89.4%), max 240.1 (101.4%)
  Ping [ms]:      avg 46.6 - min 46.1 (98.9%), max 49.7 (106.6%)
  Web ping [ms]:  avg 58.6 - min 46.3 (79.0%), max 75.5 (128.8%)

UK LON ftp.uk.freebsd.org [F: 0]
  DL [Mb/s]:      avg 88.5 - min 28.8 (32.5%), max 256.9 (290.2%)
  Ping [ms]:      avg 24.9 - min 24.5 (98.4%), max 29.5 (118.5%)
  Web ping [ms]:  avg 28.8 - min 24.6 (85.3%), max 188.6 (654.2%)

IT MIL speedtest.mil01.softlayer.com [F: 3]
  DL [Mb/s]:      avg 177.8 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 207.6 (116.7%)
  Ping [ms]:      avg 44.7 - min 44.3 (99.0%), max 51.5 (115.1%)
  Web ping [ms]:  avg 44.7 - min 44.3 (99.0%), max 51.5 (115.1%)

NL AMS mirror.nl.leaseweb.net [F: 0]
  DL [Mb/s]:      avg 183.8 - min 25.4 (13.8%), max 419.9 (228.4%)
  Ping [ms]:      avg 26.6 - min 26.2 (98.4%), max 29.2 (109.6%)
  Web ping [ms]:  avg 36.7 - min 26.3 (71.6%), max 84.6 (230.3%)

NL AMS mirror.ams1.nl.leaseweb.net [F: 0]
  DL [Mb/s]:      avg 207.4 - min 31.7 (15.3%), max 420.6 (202.8%)
  Ping [ms]:      avg 26.6 - min 26.3 (98.7%), max 33.4 (125.3%)
  Web ping [ms]:  avg 51.2 - min 26.3 (51.3%), max 509.7 (995.2%)

DE FRA fra.lg.core-backbone.com [F: 0]
  DL [Mb/s]:      avg 520.0 - min 102.8 (19.8%), max 580.5 (111.6%)
  Ping [ms]:      avg 19.5 - min 18.9 (97.1%), max 22.5 (115.6%)
  Web ping [ms]:  avg 19.8 - min 19.0 (95.8%), max 24.5 (123.5%)

RO BUC mirror.efect.ro [F: 4]
  DL [Mb/s]:      avg 178.6 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 302.5 (169.4%)
  Ping [ms]:      avg 41.0 - min 40.4 (98.6%), max 42.9 (104.7%)
  Web ping [ms]:  avg 47.3 - min 40.8 (86.2%), max 63.1 (133.3%)

UK LON lon.speedtest.clouvider.net [F: 0]
  DL [Mb/s]:      avg 334.7 - min 324.0 (96.8%), max 342.9 (102.4%)
  Ping [ms]:      avg 32.7 - min 32.5 (99.2%), max 34.8 (106.3%)
  Web ping [ms]:  avg 33.0 - min 32.6 (98.8%), max 39.3 (119.1%)

RO BUC mirrors.m247.ro [F: 0]
  DL [Mb/s]:      avg 82.2 - min 24.1 (29.4%), max 262.1 (318.8%)
  Ping [ms]:      avg 31.8 - min 31.7 (99.7%), max 31.9 (100.3%)
  Web ping [ms]:  avg 39.8 - min 31.7 (79.6%), max 74.8 (187.8%)

GR UNK speedtest.ftp.otenet.gr [F: 8]
  DL [Mb/s]:      avg 119.2 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 160.2 (134.4%)
  Ping [ms]:      avg 57.8 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 74.4 (128.8%)
  Web ping [ms]:  avg 72.4 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 473.9 (654.8%)

RU MOS speedtest.hostkey.ru [F: 14]
  DL [Mb/s]:      avg 76.9 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 195.4 (254.2%)
  Ping [ms]:      avg 57.9 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 63.0 (108.9%)
  Web ping [ms]:  avg 59.0 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 64.0 (108.5%)

RU SIB mirror.truenetwork.ru [F: 16]
  DL [Mb/s]:      avg 13.5 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 45.0 (332.0%)
  Ping [ms]:      avg 133.2 - min 129.4 (97.2%), max 137.7 (103.4%)
  Web ping [ms]:  avg 148.8 - min 130.7 (87.8%), max 264.7 (177.9%)

US DAL mirror.lstn.net [F: 7]
  DL [Mb/s]:      avg 61.2 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 85.4 (139.5%)
  Ping [ms]:      avg 138.1 - min 137.5 (99.5%), max 141.0 (102.1%)
  Web ping [ms]:  avg 184.7 - min 137.5 (74.4%), max 322.9 (174.8%)

US NYC nyc.speedtest.clouvider.net [F: 35]
  DL [Mb/s]:      avg 0.0 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 0.0 (0.0%)
  Ping [ms]:      avg 107.2 - min 106.8 (99.6%), max 107.7 (100.5%)
  Web ping [ms]:  avg 107.2 - min 106.8 (99.6%), max 107.7 (100.5%)

US NYC mirror.clarkson.edu [F: 21]
  DL [Mb/s]:      avg 16.5 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 77.8 (472.3%)
  Ping [ms]:      avg 114.8 - min 114.2 (99.5%), max 117.7 (102.6%)
  Web ping [ms]:  avg 118.1 - min 114.2 (96.7%), max 144.0 (122.0%)

US LAX la.speedtest.clouvider.net [F: 0]
  DL [Mb/s]:      avg 66.7 - min 66.1 (99.1%), max 67.7 (101.5%)
  Ping [ms]:      avg 168.4 - min 168.2 (99.9%), max 169.9 (100.9%)
  Web ping [ms]:  avg 168.4 - min 168.2 (99.9%), max 169.9 (100.9%)

US WDC mirror.wdc2.us.leaseweb.net [F: 8]
  DL [Mb/s]:      avg 73.0 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 120.4 (165.0%)
  Ping [ms]:      avg 93.3 - min 93.1 (99.8%), max 93.9 (100.7%)
  Web ping [ms]:  avg 134.6 - min 93.1 (69.2%), max 532.5 (395.6%)

US SJC speedtest.sjc01.softlayer.com [F: 2]
  DL [Mb/s]:      avg 56.4 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 62.6 (111.1%)
  Ping [ms]:      avg 168.9 - min 168.2 (99.6%), max 173.6 (102.8%)
  Web ping [ms]:  avg 175.6 - min 168.2 (95.8%), max 400.6 (228.1%)

BR SAO speedtest.sao01.softlayer.com [F: 4]
  DL [Mb/s]:      avg 33.7 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 41.0 (121.7%)
  Ping [ms]:      avg 222.4 - min 217.5 (97.8%), max 229.5 (103.2%)
  Web ping [ms]:  avg 230.2 - min 217.6 (94.5%), max 248.0 (107.7%)

CN HK leaseweb - Failure

CN HK mirrors.xtom.hk [F: 3]
  DL [Mb/s]:      avg 46.3 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 53.3 (115.1%)
  Ping [ms]:      avg 225.4 - min 217.5 (96.5%), max 480.7 (213.3%)
  Web ping [ms]:  avg 246.3 - min 217.5 (88.3%), max 480.7 (195.1%)

AU MEL speedtest.c1.mel1.dediserve.com [F: 26]
  DL [Mb/s]:      avg 14.7 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 38.1 (258.8%)
  Ping [ms]:      avg 310.9 - min 261.0 (84.0%), max 422.0 (135.7%)
  Web ping [ms]:  avg 312.8 - min 261.0 (83.4%), max 422.0 (134.9%)

JP TOK speedtest.tokyo2.linode.com [F: 0]
  DL [Mb/s]:      avg 37.3 - min 36.1 (96.7%), max 37.8 (101.4%)
  Ping [ms]:      avg 299.8 - min 298.5 (99.6%), max 303.2 (101.1%)
  Web ping [ms]:  avg 302.8 - min 298.9 (98.7%), max 309.2 (102.1%)

SG SGP mirror.aktkn.sg [F: 35]
  DL [Mb/s]:      avg 0.0 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 0.0 (0.0%)
  Ping [ms]:      avg 318.7 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 372.3 (116.8%)
  Web ping [ms]:  avg 318.7 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 372.3 (116.8%)

IN MUM mirrors.piconets.webwerks.in [F: 2]
  DL [Mb/s]:      avg 63.0 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 85.9 (136.3%)
  Ping [ms]:      avg 135.9 - min 133.0 (97.9%), max 138.8 (102.1%)
  Web ping [ms]:  avg 138.8 - min 133.0 (95.8%), max 149.6 (107.8%)

IQ UNK mirror.earthlink.iq [F: 8]
  DL [Mb/s]:      avg 92.5 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 160.7 (173.8%)
  Ping [ms]:      avg 68.0 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 81.8 (120.3%)
  Web ping [ms]:  avg 70.5 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 91.7 (130.1%)

NG LAG mirror.web4africa.ng [F: 16]
  DL [Mb/s]:      avg 32.2 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 91.0 (283.2%)
  Ping [ms]:      avg 123.7 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 151.1 (122.2%)
  Web ping [ms]:  avg 133.3 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 209.3 (157.1%)

KE UNK centos.mirror.liquidtelecom.com [F: 0]
  DL [Mb/s]:      avg 59.0 - min 32.2 (54.6%), max 71.1 (120.4%)
  Ping [ms]:      avg 166.0 - min 160.9 (97.0%), max 175.2 (105.6%)
  Web ping [ms]:  avg 184.7 - min 161.1 (87.2%), max 206.5 (111.8%)

    Well regarding the network I guess it depends on which part of the world is important to what your VPS is doing. In my case, especially with cheap VPS I pretty much care mostly about Europe, and Europe does fine here. I see nothing to really complain about, although I don't quite get why NL,AMS is near or about 200 Mb/s while DE,FRA (with really fat and fast pipes to AMS) is above 500 Mb/s.

    Regarding the Americas you'd obviously be better off with a Virtono box over there. I personally can live with the results but they are a bit on the poor side.
    Pretty much the same with Asia.

    Funnily I more often do see very decent connectivity to Iraq recently. And also the african locations are between acceptable and decent.

    TL;DR

    Processor and memory are OK to nice for that class of VPS/price, the disk is really very nice and the high point of the VPS, the connectivity though is so so. Within Europe acceptable and some targets are even nice.

    All in all I'm not sure that I'll renew this VPS after a year. If it were closer to €20/year I'd probably keep it but for about €30/yr probably not.

    But anyway I'm really pleased to see that Virtono / @virtono switched to a newer XEON model. If asked for advice I'd tell them "you've considerably extended your locations. Now I think you should (a) make your VPSs "rounder", more consistent (mainly by improving connectivity) and (b) either target the low end segment and sell cheaper -or- push your VPS yet another notch up and have something attractive to offer in a less low end segment".

    Frankly, right now I'm mostly driven by loyalty; Virtono was good to me and I enjoyed their good bang per buck ratio (and quite reasonable quality). Seeing what I see now I'm not sure I'd still recommend Virtono.

  • virtonovirtono Member, Patron Provider

    @jsg said:
    And here is a well deserved review after a couple of days "using" (well, benchmarking) the VPS. Based on a bit over 50 runs.

    Processor and memory:

    Machine: amd64, Arch.: amd64, Model: Intel(R) Xeon(R) Gold 5218 CPU @ 2.30GHz
OS, version: FreeBSD 13.2, Mem.: 990 MB
CPU - Cores: 1, Family/Model/Stepping: 6/85/7
Cache: 32K/32K L1d/L1i, 1024K L2, 22M 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 ss sse3 pclmulqdq vmx ssse3 fma cx16
          pdcm pcid sse4_1 sse4_2 x2apic movbe popcnt tsc_deadline aes xsave
          osxsave avx f16c rdrnd hypervisor
Ext. Flags: fsgsbase tsc_adjust bmi1 avx2 smep bmi2 erms invpcid mpx pat pse36
          rdseed adx smap clflushopt clwb sha umip pku ospke syscall nx pdpe1gb
          rdtscp lm lahf_lm lzcnt

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

ProcMem SC [MB/s]: avg 207.4 - min 72.7 (35.0 %), max 347.1 (167.3 %)
ProcMem MA [MB/s]: avg 326.0 - min 275.1 (84.4 %), max 346.2 (106.2 %)
ProcMem MB [MB/s]: avg 328.8 - min 283.1 (86.1 %), max 345.6 (105.1 %)
ProcMem AES [MB/s]: avg 964.7 - min 844.6 (87.5 %), max 1025.6 (106.3 %)
ProcMem RSA [kp/s]: avg 84.0 - min 72.7 (86.5 %), max 90.1 (107.2 %)

    Nice, kinda. I mean that those results would not be overwhelming on a "normal" (more expensive) VPS, but for the price I do like what I see. Also note that while I'm generally not a big fan of the XEON Gold, Silver and whatnot processors they do deliver significantly better crypto performance which is nice with https.

    Now, on to the disk

    --- Disk 4 KB - Buffered ---
Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 18.95 - min 17.52 (92.5%), max 19.90 (105.0%)
Write rnd. [MB/s]: avg 18.75 - min 17.30 (92.3%), max 19.74 (105.3%)
Read seq. [MB/s]:  avg 50.83 - min 43.03 (84.6%), max 56.13 (110.4%)
Read rnd. [MB/s]:  avg 45.79 - min 31.38 (68.5%), max 50.75 (110.8%)
--- Disk 4 KB - Sync/Direct ---
Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 18.61 - min 17.41 (93.6%), max 19.58 (105.2%)
Write rnd. [MB/s]: avg 18.49 - min 17.39 (94.0%), max 19.42 (105.0%)
Read seq. [MB/s]:  avg 50.58 - min 46.18 (91.3%), max 56.58 (111.9%)
Read rnd. [MB/s]:  avg 45.48 - min 38.70 (85.1%), max 48.20 (106.0%)

--- Disk 64 KB - Buffered ---
Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 176.45 - min 114.25 (64.8%), max 182.88 (103.6%)
Write rnd. [MB/s]: avg 194.41 - min 178.78 (92.0%), max 202.61 (104.2%)
Read seq. [MB/s]:  avg 2156.35 - min 1808.35 (83.9%), max 2582.78 (119.8%)
Read rnd. [MB/s]:  avg 562.97 - min 496.76 (88.2%), max 604.36 (107.4%)
--- Disk 64 KB - Sync/Direct ---
Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 16.42 - min 13.58 (82.7%), max 17.19 (104.7%)
Write rnd. [MB/s]: avg 9.29 - min 7.13 (76.7%), max 9.95 (107.1%)
Read seq. [MB/s]:  avg 2095.96 - min 1781.69 (85.0%), max 2774.76 (132.4%)
Read rnd. [MB/s]:  avg 556.06 - min 259.93 (46.7%), max 610.40 (109.8%)

--- Disk 1 MB - Buffered ---
Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 234.10 - min 231.36 (98.8%), max 235.45 (100.6%)
Write rnd. [MB/s]: avg 480.49 - min 458.84 (95.5%), max 491.58 (102.3%)
Read seq. [MB/s]:  avg 4095.33 - min 2908.10 (71.0%), max 4571.40 (111.6%)
Read rnd. [MB/s]:  avg 1718.02 - min 1255.27 (73.1%), max 1894.56 (110.3%)
--- Disk 1 MB - Sync/Direct ---
Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 95.86 - min 78.91 (82.3%), max 100.58 (104.9%)
Write rnd. [MB/s]: avg 117.44 - min 92.09 (78.4%), max 128.12 (109.1%)
Read seq. [MB/s]:  avg 4190.53 - min 3658.59 (87.3%), max 4607.97 (110.0%)
Read rnd. [MB/s]:  avg 1714.23 - min 1358.40 (79.2%), max 1838.64 (107.3%)
--- Disk IOps (Sync/Direct) ---
Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 17.66 - min 17.64 (99.9%), max 17.66 (100.0%)
IOps             : avg 4520.08 - min 4516.97 (99.9%), max 4521.06 (100.0%)

    Yay! That's really nice. I mean, obviously they have some smart and/or quite large cache in place (you don't get 17+MB/s 4k sync writes from a SSD) but what do I care? What I'm interested in is simply the performance I get - and the performance is really very good. Great!

    Finally, connectivity

    FR PAR ipv4.paris.testdebit.info [F: 0]
  DL [Mb/s]:      avg 366.0 - min 351.6 (96.0%), max 371.9 (101.6%)
  Ping [ms]:      avg 30.1 - min 30.0 (99.6%), max 30.3 (100.6%)
  Web ping [ms]:  avg 30.4 - min 30.1 (98.9%), max 30.8 (101.2%)

NO OSL ftp.uninett.no [F: 0]
  DL [Mb/s]:      avg 236.8 - min 211.7 (89.4%), max 240.1 (101.4%)
  Ping [ms]:      avg 46.6 - min 46.1 (98.9%), max 49.7 (106.6%)
  Web ping [ms]:  avg 58.6 - min 46.3 (79.0%), max 75.5 (128.8%)

UK LON ftp.uk.freebsd.org [F: 0]
  DL [Mb/s]:      avg 88.5 - min 28.8 (32.5%), max 256.9 (290.2%)
  Ping [ms]:      avg 24.9 - min 24.5 (98.4%), max 29.5 (118.5%)
  Web ping [ms]:  avg 28.8 - min 24.6 (85.3%), max 188.6 (654.2%)

IT MIL speedtest.mil01.softlayer.com [F: 3]
  DL [Mb/s]:      avg 177.8 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 207.6 (116.7%)
  Ping [ms]:      avg 44.7 - min 44.3 (99.0%), max 51.5 (115.1%)
  Web ping [ms]:  avg 44.7 - min 44.3 (99.0%), max 51.5 (115.1%)

NL AMS mirror.nl.leaseweb.net [F: 0]
  DL [Mb/s]:      avg 183.8 - min 25.4 (13.8%), max 419.9 (228.4%)
  Ping [ms]:      avg 26.6 - min 26.2 (98.4%), max 29.2 (109.6%)
  Web ping [ms]:  avg 36.7 - min 26.3 (71.6%), max 84.6 (230.3%)

NL AMS mirror.ams1.nl.leaseweb.net [F: 0]
  DL [Mb/s]:      avg 207.4 - min 31.7 (15.3%), max 420.6 (202.8%)
  Ping [ms]:      avg 26.6 - min 26.3 (98.7%), max 33.4 (125.3%)
  Web ping [ms]:  avg 51.2 - min 26.3 (51.3%), max 509.7 (995.2%)

DE FRA fra.lg.core-backbone.com [F: 0]
  DL [Mb/s]:      avg 520.0 - min 102.8 (19.8%), max 580.5 (111.6%)
  Ping [ms]:      avg 19.5 - min 18.9 (97.1%), max 22.5 (115.6%)
  Web ping [ms]:  avg 19.8 - min 19.0 (95.8%), max 24.5 (123.5%)

RO BUC mirror.efect.ro [F: 4]
  DL [Mb/s]:      avg 178.6 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 302.5 (169.4%)
  Ping [ms]:      avg 41.0 - min 40.4 (98.6%), max 42.9 (104.7%)
  Web ping [ms]:  avg 47.3 - min 40.8 (86.2%), max 63.1 (133.3%)

UK LON lon.speedtest.clouvider.net [F: 0]
  DL [Mb/s]:      avg 334.7 - min 324.0 (96.8%), max 342.9 (102.4%)
  Ping [ms]:      avg 32.7 - min 32.5 (99.2%), max 34.8 (106.3%)
  Web ping [ms]:  avg 33.0 - min 32.6 (98.8%), max 39.3 (119.1%)

RO BUC mirrors.m247.ro [F: 0]
  DL [Mb/s]:      avg 82.2 - min 24.1 (29.4%), max 262.1 (318.8%)
  Ping [ms]:      avg 31.8 - min 31.7 (99.7%), max 31.9 (100.3%)
  Web ping [ms]:  avg 39.8 - min 31.7 (79.6%), max 74.8 (187.8%)

GR UNK speedtest.ftp.otenet.gr [F: 8]
  DL [Mb/s]:      avg 119.2 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 160.2 (134.4%)
  Ping [ms]:      avg 57.8 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 74.4 (128.8%)
  Web ping [ms]:  avg 72.4 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 473.9 (654.8%)

RU MOS speedtest.hostkey.ru [F: 14]
  DL [Mb/s]:      avg 76.9 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 195.4 (254.2%)
  Ping [ms]:      avg 57.9 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 63.0 (108.9%)
  Web ping [ms]:  avg 59.0 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 64.0 (108.5%)

RU SIB mirror.truenetwork.ru [F: 16]
  DL [Mb/s]:      avg 13.5 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 45.0 (332.0%)
  Ping [ms]:      avg 133.2 - min 129.4 (97.2%), max 137.7 (103.4%)
  Web ping [ms]:  avg 148.8 - min 130.7 (87.8%), max 264.7 (177.9%)

US DAL mirror.lstn.net [F: 7]
  DL [Mb/s]:      avg 61.2 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 85.4 (139.5%)
  Ping [ms]:      avg 138.1 - min 137.5 (99.5%), max 141.0 (102.1%)
  Web ping [ms]:  avg 184.7 - min 137.5 (74.4%), max 322.9 (174.8%)

US NYC nyc.speedtest.clouvider.net [F: 35]
  DL [Mb/s]:      avg 0.0 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 0.0 (0.0%)
  Ping [ms]:      avg 107.2 - min 106.8 (99.6%), max 107.7 (100.5%)
  Web ping [ms]:  avg 107.2 - min 106.8 (99.6%), max 107.7 (100.5%)

US NYC mirror.clarkson.edu [F: 21]
  DL [Mb/s]:      avg 16.5 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 77.8 (472.3%)
  Ping [ms]:      avg 114.8 - min 114.2 (99.5%), max 117.7 (102.6%)
  Web ping [ms]:  avg 118.1 - min 114.2 (96.7%), max 144.0 (122.0%)

US LAX la.speedtest.clouvider.net [F: 0]
  DL [Mb/s]:      avg 66.7 - min 66.1 (99.1%), max 67.7 (101.5%)
  Ping [ms]:      avg 168.4 - min 168.2 (99.9%), max 169.9 (100.9%)
  Web ping [ms]:  avg 168.4 - min 168.2 (99.9%), max 169.9 (100.9%)

US WDC mirror.wdc2.us.leaseweb.net [F: 8]
  DL [Mb/s]:      avg 73.0 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 120.4 (165.0%)
  Ping [ms]:      avg 93.3 - min 93.1 (99.8%), max 93.9 (100.7%)
  Web ping [ms]:  avg 134.6 - min 93.1 (69.2%), max 532.5 (395.6%)

US SJC speedtest.sjc01.softlayer.com [F: 2]
  DL [Mb/s]:      avg 56.4 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 62.6 (111.1%)
  Ping [ms]:      avg 168.9 - min 168.2 (99.6%), max 173.6 (102.8%)
  Web ping [ms]:  avg 175.6 - min 168.2 (95.8%), max 400.6 (228.1%)

BR SAO speedtest.sao01.softlayer.com [F: 4]
  DL [Mb/s]:      avg 33.7 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 41.0 (121.7%)
  Ping [ms]:      avg 222.4 - min 217.5 (97.8%), max 229.5 (103.2%)
  Web ping [ms]:  avg 230.2 - min 217.6 (94.5%), max 248.0 (107.7%)

CN HK leaseweb - Failure

CN HK mirrors.xtom.hk [F: 3]
  DL [Mb/s]:      avg 46.3 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 53.3 (115.1%)
  Ping [ms]:      avg 225.4 - min 217.5 (96.5%), max 480.7 (213.3%)
  Web ping [ms]:  avg 246.3 - min 217.5 (88.3%), max 480.7 (195.1%)

AU MEL speedtest.c1.mel1.dediserve.com [F: 26]
  DL [Mb/s]:      avg 14.7 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 38.1 (258.8%)
  Ping [ms]:      avg 310.9 - min 261.0 (84.0%), max 422.0 (135.7%)
  Web ping [ms]:  avg 312.8 - min 261.0 (83.4%), max 422.0 (134.9%)

JP TOK speedtest.tokyo2.linode.com [F: 0]
  DL [Mb/s]:      avg 37.3 - min 36.1 (96.7%), max 37.8 (101.4%)
  Ping [ms]:      avg 299.8 - min 298.5 (99.6%), max 303.2 (101.1%)
  Web ping [ms]:  avg 302.8 - min 298.9 (98.7%), max 309.2 (102.1%)

SG SGP mirror.aktkn.sg [F: 35]
  DL [Mb/s]:      avg 0.0 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 0.0 (0.0%)
  Ping [ms]:      avg 318.7 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 372.3 (116.8%)
  Web ping [ms]:  avg 318.7 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 372.3 (116.8%)

IN MUM mirrors.piconets.webwerks.in [F: 2]
  DL [Mb/s]:      avg 63.0 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 85.9 (136.3%)
  Ping [ms]:      avg 135.9 - min 133.0 (97.9%), max 138.8 (102.1%)
  Web ping [ms]:  avg 138.8 - min 133.0 (95.8%), max 149.6 (107.8%)

IQ UNK mirror.earthlink.iq [F: 8]
  DL [Mb/s]:      avg 92.5 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 160.7 (173.8%)
  Ping [ms]:      avg 68.0 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 81.8 (120.3%)
  Web ping [ms]:  avg 70.5 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 91.7 (130.1%)

NG LAG mirror.web4africa.ng [F: 16]
  DL [Mb/s]:      avg 32.2 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 91.0 (283.2%)
  Ping [ms]:      avg 123.7 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 151.1 (122.2%)
  Web ping [ms]:  avg 133.3 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 209.3 (157.1%)

KE UNK centos.mirror.liquidtelecom.com [F: 0]
  DL [Mb/s]:      avg 59.0 - min 32.2 (54.6%), max 71.1 (120.4%)
  Ping [ms]:      avg 166.0 - min 160.9 (97.0%), max 175.2 (105.6%)
  Web ping [ms]:  avg 184.7 - min 161.1 (87.2%), max 206.5 (111.8%)

    Well regarding the network I guess it depends on which part of the world is important to what your VPS is doing. In my case, especially with cheap VPS I pretty much care mostly about Europe, and Europe does fine here. I see nothing to really complain about, although I don't quite get why NL,AMS is near or about 200 Mb/s while DE,FRA (with really fat and fast pipes to AMS) is above 500 Mb/s.

    Regarding the Americas you'd obviously be better off with a Virtono box over there. I personally can live with the results but they are a bit on the poor side.
    Pretty much the same with Asia.

    Funnily I more often do see very decent connectivity to Iraq recently. And also the african locations are between acceptable and decent.

    TL;DR

    Processor and memory are OK to nice for that class of VPS/price, the disk is really very nice and the high point of the VPS, the connectivity though is so so. Within Europe acceptable and some targets are even nice.

    All in all I'm not sure that I'll renew this VPS after a year. If it were closer to €20/year I'd probably keep it but for about €30/yr probably not.

    But anyway I'm really pleased to see that Virtono / @virtono switched to a newer XEON model. If asked for advice I'd tell them "you've considerably extended your locations. Now I think you should (a) make your VPSs "rounder", more consistent (mainly by improving connectivity) and (b) either target the low end segment and sell cheaper -or- push your VPS yet another notch up and have something attractive to offer in a less low end segment".

    Frankly, right now I'm mostly driven by loyalty; Virtono was good to me and I enjoyed their good bang per buck ratio (and quite reasonable quality). Seeing what I see now I'm not sure I'd still recommend Virtono.

    Thank you for the honest review, we really appreciate it.

    Thanked by 1jsg
  • wakewake Member

    So any new deals? :(

  • virtonovirtono Member, Patron Provider

    @wake said:
    So any new deals? :(

    New & better deals coming very soon!
    We are working right now on the Black Friday thread.

Sign In or Register to comment.