All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
chunkserve review - a pleasant surprise
It began with a bumpy start. I had just ordered my 4 vCore, 8GB memory VPS and having a (not really) special requirement I created a ticket. The good news was that I got a friendly "can do" reply - via a LET PM. The bad news was that I had to wait for more than a day for it actually happening. Same thing happened again, again a reaction only via LET PM. I don't have any idea why but it seems that the provider strongly prefers LET PMs over their own ticket system. Weird.
But that's the only not positive thing I have to say. Since then perfectly happy sailing. Let me put it like this: I'm so happy with my new VPS that I wanted to purchase yet another one, a somewhat smaller 3 vCore one and was saddened to see that it isn't available anymore.
Let's look at the data, based on over 50 runs. First as usual machine info, processor, and memory
Version 2.5.0a, (c) 2018+ jsg (->lowendtalk.com)
Machine: amd64, Arch.: amd64, Model: Intel(R) Xeon(R) Gold 6138 CPU @ 2.00GHz
OS, version: FreeBSD 14.2, Mem.: 7.989 GB
CPU - Cores: 4, Family/Model/Stepping: 6/85/4
Cache: 32K/32K L1d/L1i, 2M 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 ss htt 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 hle avx2 smep bmi2 erms invpcid rtm mpx pat
pse36 rdseed adx smap clflushopt clwb sha umip pku ospke syscall nx
pdpe1gb rdtscp lm lahf_lm lzcnt
AES? Yes
InNested Virt.? Yes
HW RNG? Yes
ProcMem SC [MB/s]: avg 158.8 - min 54.6 (34.4 %), max 284.3 (179.1 %)
ProcMem MA [MB/s]: avg 703.0 - min 580.0 (82.5 %), max 805.7 (114.6 %)
ProcMem MB [MB/s]: avg 729.9 - min 671.4 (92.0 %), max 847.1 (116.0 %)
ProcMem AES [MB/s]: avg 930.1 - min 909.1 (97.7 %), max 943.4 (101.4 %)
ProcMem RSA [kp/s]: avg 66.6 - min 54.6 (82.0 %), max 76.4 (114.8 %)
Don't be fooled by the somewhat mediocre single core performance. Yes, it strongly hints at high node occupancy, but then, at that ridiculously low price that was to be expected. Besides, I've seen similar numbers on VPS at double or higher cost. The two multi-core numbers ("MA" and "MB") however show a quite different picture, those 700+ MB/s results are really nice and so are the AES results. Only the RSA result, while acceptable, is a bit on the lower end, so that super-cheap VPS might be a bad choice for use cases that require lots of TLS handshakes (like. e.g. a very busy web server with hundreds of clients connecting each second). Otherwise and generally speaking a quite performant box; normally I'd expect that kind of performance beginning at about three times of what I've paid.
--- Disk 4 KB - Buffered ---
Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 2.61 - min 2.03 (77.8%), max 3.53 (135.4%)
Write rnd. [MB/s]: avg 2.30 - min 1.87 (81.3%), max 3.04 (132.1%)
Read seq. [MB/s]: avg 11.41 - min 10.21 (89.5%), max 13.37 (117.2%)
Read rnd. [MB/s]: avg 8.03 - min 4.71 (58.7%), max 9.80 (122.1%)
--- Disk 4 KB - Sync/Direct ---
Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 2.58 - min 2.15 (83.3%), max 3.44 (133.3%)
Write rnd. [MB/s]: avg 2.27 - min 1.95 (85.8%), max 2.72 (119.7%)
Read seq. [MB/s]: avg 11.51 - min 10.24 (89.0%), max 13.36 (116.1%)
Read rnd. [MB/s]: avg 8.15 - min 7.07 (86.7%), max 9.51 (116.6%)
--- Disk 64 KB - Buffered ---
Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 16.92 - min 14.26 (84.3%), max 21.97 (129.8%)
Write rnd. [MB/s]: avg 18.35 - min 15.55 (84.8%), max 22.69 (123.7%)
Read seq. [MB/s]: avg 914.98 - min 552.07 (60.3%), max 1457.16 (159.3%)
Read rnd. [MB/s]: avg 90.95 - min 81.01 (89.1%), max 104.73 (115.2%)
--- Disk 64 KB - Sync/Direct ---
Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 5.01 - min 4.54 (90.7%), max 5.31 (106.0%)
Write rnd. [MB/s]: avg 3.21 - min 2.63 (82.1%), max 3.40 (106.1%)
Read seq. [MB/s]: avg 701.00 - min 591.23 (84.3%), max 994.96 (141.9%)
Read rnd. [MB/s]: avg 88.03 - min 74.61 (84.8%), max 102.73 (116.7%)
--- Disk 1 MB - Buffered ---
Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 20.65 - min 17.86 (86.5%), max 26.36 (127.7%)
Write rnd. [MB/s]: avg 42.50 - min 34.17 (80.4%), max 59.01 (138.8%)
Read seq. [MB/s]: avg 1244.47 - min 1017.34 (81.7%), max 1786.52 (143.6%)
Read rnd. [MB/s]: avg 416.87 - min 363.46 (87.2%), max 460.46 (110.5%)
--- Disk 1 MB - Sync/Direct ---
Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 12.58 - min 11.15 (88.7%), max 15.03 (119.5%)
Write rnd. [MB/s]: avg 11.65 - min 10.64 (91.3%), max 13.22 (113.5%)
Read seq. [MB/s]: avg 1220.14 - min 1060.32 (86.9%), max 1928.80 (158.1%)
Read rnd. [MB/s]: avg 438.67 - min 372.63 (84.9%), max 499.07 (113.8%)
--- Disk IOps (Sync/Direct) ---
Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 5.87 - min 4.58 (78.0%), max 8.77 (149.4%)
IOps : avg 1502.63 - min 1173.63 (78.1%), max 2246.17 (149.5%)
Let's be honest, that's not the kind of disk performance that makes your jaw drop and you dance in joy - but neither is it crappy. Again, we're talking about a VPS that costs about $20 per year! And with that in mind I see no reason at all to complain, but rather a hint to not put the wrong kind of workload on the box; a web-server for a mid-size site with no more than a few hundred req/s should run fine, a hardcore DB based site probably not, in other words: easily good enough for about 80% of websites out there.
--- Europe ---
NO OSL mirror.neuf.no [F: 0]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 487.3 - min 381.0 (78.2%), max 512.6 (105.2%)
Ping [ms]: avg 21.4 - min 21.2 (99.1%), max 23.6 (110.3%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 23.3 - min 22.3 (95.6%), max 39.5 (169.4%)
UK LON lon.speedtest.clouvider.net [F: 0]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 769.8 - min 225.9 (29.3%), max 1389.8 (180.5%)
Ping [ms]: avg 6.8 - min 6.2 (91.0%), max 21.9 (321.5%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 6.8 - min 6.2 (90.7%), max 21.9 (320.2%)
NL AMS mirror.nl.leaseweb.net [F: 0]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 629.2 - min 43.2 (6.9%), max 1665.0 (264.6%)
Ping [ms]: avg 1.0 - min 0.9 (89.9%), max 1.7 (169.7%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 11.7 - min 0.9 (7.7%), max 184.6 (1575.4%)
DE FRA fra.lg.core-backbone.com [F: 0]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 757.1 - min 442.6 (58.5%), max 1438.2 (190.0%)
Ping [ms]: avg 6.3 - min 6.1 (97.2%), max 6.6 (105.2%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 6.5 - min 6.3 (97.7%), max 7.7 (119.4%)
FR mirrors.ircam.fr [F: 0]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 426.2 - min 138.6 (32.5%), max 570.5 (133.9%)
Ping [ms]: avg 19.1 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 22.2 (116.2%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 46.0 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 785.1 (1707.6%)
RO BUC mirror.efect.ro [F: 0]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 162.4 - min 103.0 (63.4%), max 322.1 (198.3%)
Ping [ms]: avg 45.8 - min 41.7 (91.0%), max 67.4 (147.1%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 52.0 - min 41.7 (80.2%), max 169.5 (326.0%)
GR UNK ftp.otenet.gr [F: 15]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 86.1 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 219.5 (255.1%)
Ping [ms]: avg 36.8 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 73.4 (199.4%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 50.3 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 534.1 (1062.3%)
RU MOS speedtest.hostkey.ru [F: 0]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 180.6 - min 93.2 (51.6%), max 270.4 (149.7%)
Ping [ms]: avg 40.7 - min 40.6 (99.7%), max 41.4 (101.7%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 47.2 - min 40.8 (86.5%), max 56.8 (120.4%)
--- Asia / Oceania ---
RU SIB mirror.truenetwork.ru [F: 0]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 127.2 - min 104.6 (82.2%), max 134.3 (105.6%)
Ping [ms]: avg 87.9 - min 84.4 (96.0%), max 127.3 (144.8%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 90.7 - min 84.5 (93.1%), max 136.9 (150.9%)
IN MU mirrors.piconets.webwerks.in [F: 0]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 86.8 - min 79.2 (91.2%), max 94.4 (108.7%)
Ping [ms]: avg 128.5 - min 118.9 (92.5%), max 130.9 (101.8%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 133.0 - min 121.9 (91.7%), max 164.1 (123.4%)
SG SGP mirror.aktkn.sg [F: 5]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 33.0 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 51.5 (156.0%)
Ping [ms]: avg 168.3 - min 167.4 (99.5%), max 170.5 (101.3%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 168.3 - min 167.4 (99.4%), max 170.5 (101.3%)
JP TOK speedtest.tokyo2.linode.com [F: 0]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 35.1 - min 21.8 (62.0%), max 47.8 (136.2%)
Ping [ms]: avg 245.0 - min 236.6 (96.6%), max 262.0 (106.9%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 248.2 - min 236.6 (95.3%), max 276.1 (111.3%)
AU MEL ftp.au.freebsd.org [F: 58]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 0.6 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 37.5 (5900.0%)
Ping [ms]: avg 301.8 - min 300.8 (99.7%), max 312.2 (103.4%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 302.2 - min 300.9 (99.6%), max 326.1 (107.9%)
--- Americas ---
US DAL mirror.dal.nexril.net [F: 0]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 99.0 - min 63.7 (64.3%), max 104.5 (105.6%)
Ping [ms]: avg 110.2 - min 106.7 (96.8%), max 111.7 (101.4%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 110.4 - min 106.8 (96.7%), max 112.3 (101.7%)
US SFR mirrors.ocf.berkeley.edu [F: 0]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 77.7 - min 74.9 (96.4%), max 79.5 (102.3%)
Ping [ms]: avg 142.8 - min 142.2 (99.6%), max 146.0 (102.2%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 143.0 - min 142.2 (99.5%), max 146.3 (102.3%)
US LAX la.speedtest.clouvider.net [F: 0]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 59.5 - min 30.8 (51.8%), max 87.4 (147.0%)
Ping [ms]: avg 127.8 - min 126.4 (98.9%), max 131.2 (102.7%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 128.9 - min 126.4 (98.0%), max 143.0 (110.9%)
BR SAO ftp3.br.freebsd.org [F: 9]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 37.8 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 52.5 (138.7%)
Ping [ms]: avg 199.8 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 227.9 (114.1%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 221.8 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 321.3 (144.9%)
--- Africa ---
MA RAB mirror.marwan.ma [F: 57]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 0.8 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 27.0 (3439.2%)
Ping [ms]: avg 33.2 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 45.0 (135.4%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 33.3 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 47.2 (141.6%)
I yet again see a box that's somewhat region-centric; not surprising for a really, really cheap VPS. Within Europe though, particularly the big 3 or 4 EU targets, performance is very decent at 400+ Mb/s. As for the rest of the world connectivity isn't poor either but what I'd call "so so". India 80+ Mb/s is quite decent, Japan about 35 Mb/s isn't really bad, Australia less than 1 Mb/s and plenty of failures is disappointing. But again we're talking about a dirt cheap VPS.
Conclusion/verdict: An exceptionally good deal. I'm amazed about what about $20 per year can get you nowadays. Again, I find that VPS so amazing (for the price) that I actually wanted to get another @chunkserve box, that's something that happens less than once a year. Well done, chunkserve!
Comments
I fully agree. For what you get for the price, it is an excellent deal. I am very happy with my VPS from Chunkserve.
I never had issues with performance.
I had issues with random shutting down of the VPS. Many different users complained the same.
It works absolutely fine when it is running. But one day, you might open up the site to see that nothing is working. Go to panel and your VPS is in offline state.
Still face this issue from time to time. Haven't figured any pattern. It is just pure random.
I am in the process of moving the contents from chunkserve to bero. This unreliability is a deal breaker.
I'm reasonably happy. In the beginning there were quite a few issues, most of them are gone now. VPS is fairly stable and network issues are not that many anymore.
However, if you need them, you're in for a treat. Well... a wait basically. But when your ticket or your issue is picked up he's helpfull and will go a long way to get a solution.
Aren't these advertised as having NVMe drives?
It says "SSD Enterprise Disk" in offer so no NVMe as far as I know.
and
I did not experience such issues. But then, I only have that VPS for a few days.
They might be, at least the data I gathered suggests that possibility.
Also possible and in fact IMO more likely than NVMe. While there a a few results going beyond what a (Enterprise) SAS SSD can achieve those are limited to only buffered and read sequential mode that is, highly likely cached.
LET offer then. I thought he may have one as advertised on their website. CPU model is inconsistent with either offer...strangely.
Chunkserve bad bad bad support.
You can wait 1-2-3 weeks to get any answer
all other/services are not bad
Support 1/10
Services 8/10
https://billing.chunkserve.com/ - WHMCS is not sending any support emails, possibly a mail server problem.
LET does that.
All mail from chunkserve is coming from IP addresses that have low reputation; they're all in my quarantine folder on my incoming mailservers. Has been mentioned a few time to him AFAIK, but it still exists.
Yeah recently they added nodes with 1st gen scalable Gold CPU's as opposed to E5-v4's.
Hi!
Totally know Your case - but do not want to write anything specific there - because it's private. Regarding emails - also as You informed, we contacted Mailgun and are waiting for a response 
We're elevating that - and working on improvement
We started deploying new services on a Xeon Gold 6138, which is more performant comparing to the ie. 2695v4. We're aiming to purchase couple of new machines with such CPUs and push new offer. There were some plans on that previously - but we needed to accomodate couple of custom requests - and the free space quickly shrank
Thank You for the honest review and lots of kind words!
Historically, there were reliability issues - mainly in regard to the network, but in January, we switched completly to new routing platform, made the infrastructure redundant and added additional upstreams and IX ports. I would strongly suggest to test the network on the server again in couple of weeks - we have a lot of things planned that I can't say at the moment 
Regarding all support comments - we're working on improvement. At first, we were flooded with hundreds of new customers - and to be honest, we didn't expect that
Backing to the new offer topic - new nodes with Gold will be built on Gen4 NVMe drives - so performace-wise it will be a completly another level.
Thank You also for pointing out the price aspect - it would be unsustainable to offer ie. Ryzen based servers (high SCP) in such pricerange.
Such review is an awesome way to hear a feedback and indicate things that we can improve - of course I already made some notes
Thank You again!,
Wojciech
When You by the way check it? We moved everything SMTP-related on the billing to the Mailgun. As mentioned previously, already messaged them - hope it would be fixed!
I just recently got their 8gb vps and honestly I'm pretty happy with the service.
I havent had anything to talk to support about so not sure of how that is.
For the performance you get, the price is pretty amazing.
It's a better CPU and more recent, you are correct.
Thank You for the review!
Regarding support - that's an aspect we need to work hardly on, but in the background, a lot of things are being changed/planned, so shouldn't be an issue now/in the nearest future!
The issue seems to be that all emails from the ticket system still have
[email protected]as the From header - andexample.comhas a DMARC policy of reject. So I guess anyone checking DMARC will have issues with those emails.Thank You, passing it to my colegue too - that managed everything related to SMTP.
Well, I had to wait for a day twice and wasn't happy about that. But I did get a reaction within 1 day each time, albeit via LET PM, which is OK as an exception, but not how it should be.
FWIW: I purchased my VPS via the promo links on LET.
Just send me a PM when it's ready and I'll do another benchmark and publish it. Also feel free to move my VPS to a node with NVMe as well. For my use case I'm perfectly fine with the disk performance I got, but it might be interesting to see the speed difference between the current nodes and the new ones.
In my opinion it depends a bit. If you have a VPS chances are that you "can't have all". I.e. good stability, descent performance, descent network, good support, very cheap. So with a cheap VPS something else has got to give, and for me I want good stability and descent network and performance, so it's support.
So I'm willing to wait a bit longer for a reply on a ticket or issue. And what "a bit longer" is depends on the nature of the issue: something that only affects me and is just a minor inconvenience could take days to respond, but something affecting lots of users and is causing downtime should be responded within hours.
And yes, downtime can be annoying, but as said: if I'd want quicker response, I'd get a less cheap service. Doesn't mean that you can't be lucky to have a hoster that has all though ;-)
Indeed, I had and have a few of these myself
But while I generally agree with what you said, I disagree on support being the one that can be weak (slow).
Of course being quite well experienced I'm not knocking at the provider's "support" door often or for hand-holding, but I do expect decent support within a reasonable time-frame; something like max 1 day, except for the beginning. Just having purchased a VPS I do expect quick-ish responses because in 9 out of 10 cases (me needing support) it's about something that lets me have and use or de facto not have and use what I just purchased and paid for, things like could they please mount an ISO I need and due to their lacking panel can't download and mount myself in the first place.
Once a VPS is up and running I'm a rather undemanding customer. But a good or at least decent beginning is a must.
Btw and FWIW @chunkserve "saved his skin" by being friendly and showing a "can do, will do" attitude (and, being new, at least for me which made me cut him some slack).
As for the quintuple "good stability, descent performance, descent network, good support, very cheap" for me
For professional use though I'm quite a different animal and hardly ready to compromise other than on price. At the same time though I do not follow the "it must be the [most current] Ryzen!" cult but rather the "the right system for a given task" school. Plus yes, a first useful support reaction within 3 hours. (Friendly greetings to @Hybula, @AlexBarakov / AlphaVPS and @host_c whom I found rock solid, battle-proven and offering excellent support. They are the first I look at when needing really good stuff).
Maybe I wasn't clear; what I meant was that if I have to choose between the aspects that a host can be bad at, I'd choose support as long as the rest is good. And bad doesn't mean "non-existing" ;-)
It's about the same with me as you describe, if everything works as expected I'm a silent and easy customer. Having been in the hosting industry myself for quite some time I know how things work - at least I think. LOL.
This has got to be one of the most unstable providers I have ever encountered, with reboots, reboots, and more reboots. I can't possibly recommend something like this. Chunkserve is simply too unstable. This is quite sad though, because their entry on low-end market was a blast, with some very attractive offers.
Well, assertions aren't worth a lot, give me data or at least some evidence and/or numbers!
That said, I have to admit that I'm a rather new customer (a few days only). I can only tell what I've actually seen.
But I'll keep my eyes open and watch that VPS closely. As long as uptime is above 97% though I won't complain; after all this is a dirt cheap box and who in his right mind uses such a thingy for production=
There have been several reports of node(s) of this host having issues with unforseen shutdowns or reboots some time ago. I personally haven't experienced that much - only a couple of times that, in the beginning, a node I was on was unresponsive or just shut down my VPS. It was a new node, so those things can happen, especially with a new hoster that is keen on putting his nodes online.
What I've seen is that it seems that affected people were treated OK with compensation, and the issues were dealt with. In the end.
I can imagine the experience of @default is making him skipping Chunkserve. I'd do too if I had that experience. However, mine is, concerning stability, OK now. And I'm pretty convinced this hoster is trying his best to solve issues - I'm seeing that differently with a few other ones at this moment.
If only the handling of tickets wouldn't be such a drama...
I am bothered by the random reboots. So far I had quite some reboots over the past few months (ever since I got the services). This is not good. Sure, for development this might be good, but I don't like it either way.
If it was just a some random disconnection of network, that would be totally acceptable; but these are actual reboots, as in turning off the server multiple times, without notification. I don't see this as something good.
But hey, we have an expert in security who is fine with it. I guess it mostly depends on use case for a person to embrace something like this and call it "pleasant surprise".
I called it a "pleasant surprise" based on what I saw and experienced and I already "admitted" that I only have that box since a few days. So, no reason to get sarcastic!
I don't see not-rare reboots as a good thing, just like you , but as an acceptable thing with a dirt-cheap VPS.
__
I got 1 random stopped vps, 1 dead vps (really dead, can not start/rescue etc), 1 eternity unsolve ticket
btw, I have 5 vps: 1 working smooth, 2 idles (stopped), 1 dead, 1 running with random stopped
@Chunkserve care to explain?