Howdy, Stranger!

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


[Updated] HostDZire / Leaseweb VPS multi-location VPS benchmark and review
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.

[Updated] HostDZire / Leaseweb VPS multi-location VPS benchmark and review

jsgjsg Member, Resident Benchmarker
edited June 3 in Reviews

This is going to be really tasty!
I purchased a @HostDZire / Leaseweb VPS in WDC and quite a beast for €24/yr and of course benchmarked it right away. To be honest I was prepared to ask for a refund within a couple of days in case the benchmark results were disappointing. Mainly because I do not need a VPS across the ocean and certainly not a 2nd one but, to a lesser degree also because I didn't know or have any experience with HostDZire yet and the fact that it's an indian company also didn't exactly help (not because I dislike Indians, I don't, but because I've seen quite a few rather shady indian providers here).

But as soon as I saw the first results and had worked a bit with their panel, it hit me hard: no way that I'll give up this VPS!. Plus, HostDZire seems to actually be a really good provider one can trust, no doubts.

Why am I so excited, you ask? See for yourself (based on over 30 runs)!

First, as usual, sysinfo, processor and memory.

Version 2.5.0a, (c) 2018+ jsg (->lowendtalk.com)
Machine: amd64, Arch.: amd64, Model: AMD EPYC Processor
OS, version: FreeBSD 14.1, Mem.: 5.989 GB
CPU - Cores: 4, Family/Model/Stepping: 23/1/2
Cache: 32K/64K L1d/L1i, 512K L2, 8M 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
          cr8_legacy lzcnt sse4a misalignsse 3dnowprefetch osvw topoext

AES? Yes
Nested Virt.? No
HW RNG? Yes

ProcMem SC [MB/s]: avg 196.6 - min 78.1 (39.7 %), max 315.8 (160.6 %)
ProcMem MA [MB/s]: avg 771.3 - min 638.6 (82.8 %), max 971.5 (126.0 %)
ProcMem MB [MB/s]: avg 880.1 - min 748.9 (85.1 %), max 968.3 (110.0 %)
ProcMem AES [MB/s]: avg 936.1 - min 833.3 (89.0 %), max 951.5 (101.6 %)
ProcMem RSA [kp/s]: avg 83.9 - min 78.1 (93.0 %), max 87.8 (104.6 %)

OK, not the newest and fastest Epyc, but still very decent results, certainly among the best in the below €25/yr VPS class. The single-core result, while not at all bad, might mislead you to think "meh, boring, just another about 200 MB/s thingy" - and you would be mistaken, even double. For one because 200 MB/s single core is a mark only few super-cheap VPS reach, and secondly because, hey it's a quad-vCore VPS and the multi-core vs single-core ratio is really decent.
Plus, you get 6 GB of RAM. Very nice indeed. Plus, you get hw crypto support with actually decent performance!
As for the flags I got what I consider important, except for AVX it seems (maybe a config hiccup?) And no nested virtualization which in my books is a plus but some want that.

On to the disk ...

--- Disk 4 KB - Buffered ---
Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 5.66 - min 5.27 (93.1%), max 6.20 (109.5%)
Write rnd. [MB/s]: avg 5.24 - min 3.84 (73.3%), max 5.73 (109.4%)
Read seq. [MB/s]:  avg 13.59 - min 11.51 (84.7%), max 14.37 (105.7%)
Read rnd. [MB/s]:  avg 12.27 - min 11.39 (92.8%), max 12.93 (105.4%)
--- Disk 4 KB - Sync/Direct ---
Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 5.75 - min 5.43 (94.5%), max 6.06 (105.5%)
Write rnd. [MB/s]: avg 5.41 - min 5.15 (95.2%), max 5.66 (104.6%)
Read seq. [MB/s]:  avg 13.68 - min 12.67 (92.6%), max 14.37 (105.0%)
Read rnd. [MB/s]:  avg 12.15 - min 11.46 (94.3%), max 12.64 (104.0%)

--- Disk 64 KB - Buffered ---
Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 55.83 - min 44.79 (80.2%), max 60.37 (108.1%)
Write rnd. [MB/s]: avg 55.35 - min 52.46 (94.8%), max 58.54 (105.8%)
Read seq. [MB/s]:  avg 2710.03 - min 2439.83 (90.0%), max 3010.63 (111.1%)
Read rnd. [MB/s]:  avg 145.04 - min 136.23 (93.9%), max 166.11 (114.5%)
--- Disk 64 KB - Sync/Direct ---
Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 10.08 - min 9.41 (93.4%), max 11.15 (110.6%)
Write rnd. [MB/s]: avg 4.81 - min 4.56 (94.9%), max 5.17 (107.5%)
Read seq. [MB/s]:  avg 2719.91 - min 2505.03 (92.1%), max 2905.64 (106.8%)
Read rnd. [MB/s]:  avg 162.58 - min 140.11 (86.2%), max 176.61 (108.6%)

--- Disk 1 MB - Buffered ---
Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 82.03 - min 60.26 (73.5%), max 87.53 (106.7%)
Write rnd. [MB/s]: avg 150.38 - min 136.98 (91.1%), max 162.86 (108.3%)
Read seq. [MB/s]:  avg 4198.97 - min 3850.13 (91.7%), max 4462.36 (106.3%)
Read rnd. [MB/s]:  avg 774.65 - min 544.75 (70.3%), max 875.30 (113.0%)
--- Disk 1 MB - Sync/Direct ---
Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 24.14 - min 23.55 (97.5%), max 24.95 (103.3%)
Write rnd. [MB/s]: avg 15.80 - min 15.51 (98.2%), max 16.08 (101.8%)
Read seq. [MB/s]:  avg 4149.70 - min 3550.98 (85.6%), max 4456.31 (107.4%)
Read rnd. [MB/s]:  avg 730.73 - min 477.33 (65.3%), max 872.07 (119.3%)
--- Disk IOps (Sync/Direct) ---
Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 20.20 - min 16.63 (82.3%), max 20.69 (102.4%)
IOps             : avg 5171.70 - min 4256.91 (82.3%), max 5296.95 (102.4%)

YAY, a really decent disk for the low price. 20 MB/s (4k/4t, sync, write seq.) and a bit over 5k IOps is really good enough for almost any workload except heavy DB workload. But I'd certainly not hesitate to put some serious dynamic website on that box. OTOH one might of course argue that a beefy - as in "4 vCore and 6 GB RAM" - should come with at least a 3 digit MB/s disk, and I do understand that and agree, but: hey we're talking about a really cheap VPS here!

Finally of course connectivity, After all one would expect really good connectivity from Leaseweb ...

--- Europe ---

NO OSL mirror.terrahost.no [F: 0]
  DL [Mb/s]:      avg 116.3 - min 113.8 (97.8%), max 118.9 (102.2%)
  Ping [ms]:      avg 93.0 - min 92.8 (99.8%), max 93.4 (100.5%)
  Web ping [ms]:  avg 95.0 - min 92.8 (97.7%), max 147.7 (155.6%)

UK LON lon.speedtest.clouvider.net [F: 0]
  DL [Mb/s]:      avg 145.5 - min 143.2 (98.4%), max 149.0 (102.4%)
  Ping [ms]:      avg 74.8 - min 74.6 (99.7%), max 75.7 (101.2%)
  Web ping [ms]:  avg 75.3 - min 74.6 (99.1%), max 77.3 (102.7%)

NL AMS nl.mirrors.clouvider.net [F: 0]
  DL [Mb/s]:      avg 135.9 - min 129.1 (95.0%), max 142.9 (105.1%)
  Ping [ms]:      avg 81.1 - min 80.5 (99.3%), max 81.7 (100.8%)
  Web ping [ms]:  avg 81.6 - min 80.5 (98.7%), max 92.3 (113.2%)

DE FRA fra.lg.core-backbone.com [F: 0]
  DL [Mb/s]:      avg 123.7 - min 121.4 (98.1%), max 128.3 (103.7%)
  Ping [ms]:      avg 86.3 - min 84.3 (97.7%), max 86.7 (100.5%)
  Web ping [ms]:  avg 86.6 - min 84.4 (97.5%), max 87.7 (101.3%)

FR PAR mirror.in2p3.fr [F: 0]
  DL [Mb/s]:      avg 124.2 - min 120.3 (96.8%), max 127.3 (102.5%)
  Ping [ms]:      avg 86.9 - min 86.8 (99.9%), max 88.9 (102.3%)
  Web ping [ms]:  avg 120.4 - min 86.8 (72.1%), max 232.1 (192.8%)

CH GEN pkg.adfinis-on-exoscale.ch [F: 31]
  DL [Mb/s]:      avg 3.7 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 119.2 (3200.0%)
  Ping [ms]:      avg 90.9 - min 90.6 (99.7%), max 91.1 (100.3%)
  Web ping [ms]:  avg 91.0 - min 90.6 (99.5%), max 97.1 (106.6%)

IT MIL it1.mirror.vhosting-it.com [F: 0]
  DL [Mb/s]:      avg 117.2 - min 115.1 (98.2%), max 120.1 (102.5%)
  Ping [ms]:      avg 92.8 - min 92.7 (99.9%), max 92.9 (100.1%)
  Web ping [ms]:  avg 96.0 - min 92.8 (96.6%), max 120.7 (125.7%)

ES MAD mirror.es.stackscale.com [F: 0]
  DL [Mb/s]:      avg 107.8 - min 104.0 (96.5%), max 113.3 (105.1%)
  Ping [ms]:      avg 100.4 - min 100.3 (99.9%), max 100.5 (100.1%)
  Web ping [ms]:  avg 106.4 - min 100.4 (94.4%), max 136.2 (128.1%)

RO BUC almalinux.mirrors.orange.ro [F: 0]
  DL [Mb/s]:      avg 93.6 - min 90.6 (96.9%), max 99.6 (106.4%)
  Ping [ms]:      avg 117.4 - min 116.9 (99.6%), max 127.7 (108.8%)
  Web ping [ms]:  avg 135.5 - min 117.0 (86.4%), max 193.2 (142.6%)

RU MOS speedtest.hostkey.ru [F: 1]
  DL [Mb/s]:      avg 89.9 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 97.9 (109.0%)
  Ping [ms]:      avg 120.5 - min 120.1 (99.7%), max 125.8 (104.4%)
  Web ping [ms]:  avg 125.9 - min 120.1 (95.4%), max 141.3 (112.2%)

--- Asia / Oceania ---

RU SIB mirror.truenetwork.ru [F: 0]
  DL [Mb/s]:      avg 66.6 - min 41.1 (61.7%), max 74.4 (111.7%)
  Ping [ms]:      avg 160.5 - min 159.7 (99.5%), max 165.2 (103.0%)
  Web ping [ms]:  avg 161.8 - min 159.7 (98.7%), max 168.4 (104.1%)

IR TEH mirror.mobinhost.com [F: 0]
  DL [Mb/s]:      avg 68.3 - min 62.6 (91.6%), max 72.3 (105.8%)
  Ping [ms]:      avg 157.3 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 163.9 (104.2%)
  Web ping [ms]:  avg 170.1 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 192.0 (112.9%)

IN MUM mirrors.piconets.webwerks.in [F: 0]
  DL [Mb/s]:      avg 56.4 - min 53.9 (95.6%), max 60.1 (106.6%)
  Ping [ms]:      avg 200.2 - min 195.1 (97.4%), max 201.7 (100.7%)
  Web ping [ms]:  avg 204.0 - min 195.1 (95.6%), max 226.5 (111.0%)

SG SGP mirror.sg.gs [F: 0]
  DL [Mb/s]:      avg 45.4 - min 43.9 (96.8%), max 47.4 (104.3%)
  Ping [ms]:      avg 242.6 - min 236.0 (97.3%), max 243.3 (100.3%)
  Web ping [ms]:  avg 244.5 - min 237.7 (97.2%), max 250.8 (102.6%)

CN HKG mirrors.xtom.hk [F: 0]
  DL [Mb/s]:      avg 53.9 - min 51.9 (96.4%), max 54.9 (101.9%)
  Ping [ms]:      avg 202.7 - min 202.3 (99.8%), max 212.5 (104.8%)
  Web ping [ms]:  avg 202.9 - min 202.4 (99.7%), max 212.5 (104.7%)

CN BEJ mirrors.bfsu.edu.cn [F: 1]
  DL [Mb/s]:      avg 38.5 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 44.0 (114.1%)
  Ping [ms]:      avg 237.8 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 254.3 (106.9%)
  Web ping [ms]:  avg 268.5 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 1259.0 (468.9%)

JP OSA mirrors.xtom.jp [F: 0]
  DL [Mb/s]:      avg 59.2 - min 55.6 (94.1%), max 62.0 (104.8%)
  Ping [ms]:      avg 177.6 - min 177.1 (99.7%), max 181.3 (102.1%)
  Web ping [ms]:  avg 184.0 - min 177.1 (96.3%), max 195.1 (106.0%)

AU SYD mirror.internet.asn.au [F: 0]
  DL [Mb/s]:      avg 60.1 - min 59.8 (99.5%), max 60.7 (101.1%)
  Ping [ms]:      avg 188.5 - min 188.4 (100.0%), max 188.7 (100.1%)
  Web ping [ms]:  avg 189.1 - min 188.4 (99.6%), max 190.8 (100.9%)

--- Afrika ---

ZA JOB mirror.datakeepers.co.za [F: 0]
  DL [Mb/s]:      avg 47.4 - min 38.1 (80.5%), max 49.5 (104.6%)
  Ping [ms]:      avg 236.0 - min 231.0 (97.9%), max 237.6 (100.7%)
  Web ping [ms]:  avg 250.7 - min 231.0 (92.2%), max 373.0 (148.8%)

KE NAI mirror.liquidtelecom.com [F: 0]
  DL [Mb/s]:      avg 50.1 - min 31.2 (62.3%), max 52.2 (104.2%)
  Ping [ms]:      avg 212.2 - min 212.1 (99.9%), max 213.0 (100.4%)
  Web ping [ms]:  avg 258.5 - min 212.2 (82.1%), max 612.3 (236.8%)

--- America ---

US NYC nyc.mirrors.clouvider.net [F: 0]
  DL [Mb/s]:      avg 1390.5 - min 1246.5 (89.6%), max 1506.1 (108.3%)
  Ping [ms]:      avg 7.0 - min 6.7 (95.7%), max 7.6 (108.5%)
  Web ping [ms]:  avg 7.3 - min 6.7 (91.5%), max 8.3 (113.3%)

US CHI ord.mirror.rackspace.com [F: 0]
  DL [Mb/s]:      avg 401.1 - min 388.3 (96.8%), max 419.1 (104.5%)
  Ping [ms]:      avg 24.9 - min 24.7 (99.2%), max 26.2 (105.3%)
  Web ping [ms]:  avg 27.3 - min 25.3 (92.8%), max 41.0 (150.4%)

US LAX mirror.alma.lax1.serverforge.org [F: 0]
  DL [Mb/s]:      avg 184.0 - min 154.9 (84.2%), max 191.3 (104.0%)
  Ping [ms]:      avg 60.1 - min 59.4 (98.9%), max 64.8 (107.8%)
  Web ping [ms]:  avg 61.1 - min 59.4 (97.3%), max 64.8 (106.1%)

US SJO mirrors.xtom.us [F: 0]
  DL [Mb/s]:      avg 156.6 - min 150.9 (96.4%), max 161.0 (102.9%)
  Ping [ms]:      avg 71.2 - min 71.0 (99.8%), max 71.5 (100.5%)
  Web ping [ms]:  avg 72.2 - min 71.1 (98.5%), max 86.7 (120.1%)

I'll begin with a side note: ALL targets were reached, incl. 3 (difficult) Iran, 2 (difficult) China, and 3 (difficult) Ozzyland targets (although as usual you only get to see 1 each). That's indeed noteworthy and very rare!

And the connectivity of that - again: very cheap, mind you - box indeed matches my preliminary guesstimate (after only one run or two).

I'll split it into continents:

Europe - Not bad at all. Those numbers - from across the ocean, mind you - are in the range of what I typically see when benchmarking european VPS. OK, there are no 300 or 500 Mb/s peaks, but neither are there ugly valleys, with one single exception: CH, Geneva. Nope, consistently about 100 Mb/s to 150 Mb/s, except for Romania and Russia, and even those targets show a quite respectable about 90 Mb/s result.
Very nice, me perfectly happy with that.

Asia / Oceanina - quite decent results as well and some, e.g. Japan and Ozzyland, even really good, at least from my Europe-centric perspective. And again all target were reached, incl. a few difficult ones (as in "rarely reached"). Obviously someone who wanted or needed to have seriously good connectivity in the Asia and Oceania region would get a VPS there, but for most of us who likely need seriously good connectivity only within their region or continent but want to have still reasonable global connectivity, this VPS looks quite ideal to me.

America, i.e. the home region of this box - well, sometimes I'm under the impression that say, London - eastcoast or Amsterdam - India is more logical and easier to calculate then city A - City B within the USA. On the other hand, at least from my european perspective and experience, 150 Mb/s to 200 Mb/s to California is quite good. At the same time though I have a hard time to grasp why WDC - Chicago only is about 400 Mb/s. But of course WDC - NYC solidly above 1 Gb/s is a very good result.

Connectivity summary: except for America, where connectivity seems to follow its own logic (or "logic"?) which I fail to grok, that VPS has really good connectivity, quite likely due to having and using mainly twelve99 and Tata pipes, which also explains the good european connectivity as well as the good Asia / Oceania connectivity.

TL;DR What a nice and well endowed VPS! And, considering its very low price, a really excellent deal!. I really hope that HostDZire will offer more locations with similar VPS - and similar price! - rather sooner than later! Clearly, one of the best VPS deals I ever found on LET!

«1

Comments

  • oot, what is your typing speed sir?

  • jsgjsg Member, Resident Benchmarker

    @Motion3549 said:
    oot, what is your typing speed sir?

    Less than a secretary but better than average I guess.

    I hope, we now can return to the topic.

    Thanked by 1HostDZire
  • @jsg said:

    @Motion3549 said:
    oot, what is your typing speed sir?

    Less than a secretary but better than average I guess.

    I hope, we now can return to the topic.

    Leaseweb is very active in promoting its services (e.g., on Twitter), but many people are misled because those services are primarily for B2B customers.

    So, here we are left with only one provider representing Leaseweb.

  • RubbenRubben Member

    im too retarded to understand any of those benchmark metrics, just give me yabs pls :sob:

  • jsgjsg Member, Resident Benchmarker

    @Rubben said:
    im too retarded to understand any of those benchmark metrics, just give me yabs pls :sob:

    Sorry, I don't do marketing and PR BS.

    As for "too retarded" (which I don't believe): TL;DR: An excellent offer, you can't go wrong with.

    Thanked by 3Rubben oloke HostDZire
  • HostDZireHostDZire Member, Patron Provider

    @jsg

    Thank you very much for posting this.

    Thats some detailed testing,
    I find many users asking about steal percentage.
    Now this post will clear that doubt.

    And if you have some free time, would you please do similar testing for other locations vps, eg: Singapore, Japan

    These are leaseweb vps, and we are reselling it, so even i want to know the actual performance, not just yabs result.
    This way we will be confident in reselling those and buying more of these in bulk to get price down.

    I would love to see your test result, and off course it will help other users as well.

    I will send you test vps for 24 hours to perform this test.

    Thanked by 4oloke zGato jsg jolo22
  • jsgjsg Member, Resident Benchmarker
    edited May 31

    @HostDZire said:
    @jsg

    Thank you very much for posting this.

    Thats some detailed testing,
    I find many users asking about steal percentage.
    Now this post will clear that doubt.

    And if you have some free time, would you please do similar testing for other locations vps, eg: Singapore, Japan

    These are leaseweb vps, and we are reselling it, so even i want to know the actual performance, not just yabs result.
    This way we will be confident in reselling those and buying more of these in bulk to get price down.

    I would love to see your test result, and off course it will help other users as well.

    I will send you test vps for 24 hours to perform this test.

    Great idea! And I'll gladly do it ;)

    P.S. 72 hrs would be much more reasonable because even the best VPS can do only so many rounds in a day.

    Thanked by 1HostDZire
  • RubbenRubben Member

    @jsg said:

    @HostDZire said:
    @jsg

    Thank you very much for posting this.

    Thats some detailed testing,
    I find many users asking about steal percentage.
    Now this post will clear that doubt.

    And if you have some free time, would you please do similar testing for other locations vps, eg: Singapore, Japan

    These are leaseweb vps, and we are reselling it, so even i want to know the actual performance, not just yabs result.
    This way we will be confident in reselling those and buying more of these in bulk to get price down.

    I would love to see your test result, and off course it will help other users as well.

    I will send you test vps for 24 hours to perform this test.

    Great idea! And I'll gladly do it ;)

    P.S. 72 hrs would be much more reasonable because only the best VPS can do only so many rounds in a day.

    give this man 72hrs since you dont pay a cent for the PR work he does for you

    Thanked by 1jsg
  • HostDZireHostDZire Member, Patron Provider

    @jsg said:

    @HostDZire said:
    @jsg

    Thank you very much for posting this.

    Thats some detailed testing,
    I find many users asking about steal percentage.
    Now this post will clear that doubt.

    And if you have some free time, would you please do similar testing for other locations vps, eg: Singapore, Japan

    These are leaseweb vps, and we are reselling it, so even i want to know the actual performance, not just yabs result.
    This way we will be confident in reselling those and buying more of these in bulk to get price down.

    I would love to see your test result, and off course it will help other users as well.

    I will send you test vps for 24 hours to perform this test.

    Great idea! And I'll gladly do it ;)

    P.S. 72 hrs would be much more reasonable because even the best VPS can do only so many rounds in a day.

    Thank you for helping, i will give you India vps as well.
    India vps is our own, hosted in Mumbai, Iron Mountain DC.
    So if you can test that as well, it would be very good for me.

    Since i dont know your email, can you please send me PM with your email.
    I will assign all three vps in your account for 72 hours..

    Thank you again for accepting.

    Thanked by 1jsg
  • gremeyergremeyer Member

    @Motion3549 said:
    So, here we are left with only one provider representing Leaseweb.

    There are other Leaseweb resellers (hostingby.design and andy10gbit) but they don't have a presence on LET.

    Thanked by 1jsg
  • jsgjsg Member, Resident Benchmarker
    edited May 31

    @Rubben said:

    @jsg said:

    @HostDZire said:
    @jsg

    Thank you very much for posting this.

    Thats some detailed testing,
    I find many users asking about steal percentage.
    Now this post will clear that doubt.

    And if you have some free time, would you please do similar testing for other locations vps, eg: Singapore, Japan

    These are leaseweb vps, and we are reselling it, so even i want to know the actual performance, not just yabs result.
    This way we will be confident in reselling those and buying more of these in bulk to get price down.

    I would love to see your test result, and off course it will help other users as well.

    I will send you test vps for 24 hours to perform this test.

    Great idea! And I'll gladly do it ;)

    P.S. 72 hrs would be much more reasonable because only the best VPS can do only so many rounds in a day.

    give this man 72hrs since you dont pay a cent for the PR work he does for you

    Uhm ...

    • I don't do PR work for any provider, I do work for our community.
    • If I occasionally shill a bit for some provider then because I, as a customer, am exceptionally happy with a VPS I purchased. The @HostDZire VPS in WDC I reviewed here is a good example)
    • As a benchmarker I try to be as neutral and objective as humanly possible. Once for example I praised a provider whom I, as a user considered an enemy because his product simply was really a great deal and performing very well. I'm quite confident that I also already gave some providers whom I personally like a "bad" review because their product wasn't good (or bang per buck was poor).
    • I never get paid, neither from the LET leadership nor from the reviewed providers. What can and occasionally did/does happen that a provider offer me a free VPS, usually btw. not after a review but front-up in cases where they want me to do an "internal" private review and/or to discover eventual weaknesses.

    P.S. in fact in quite a few situations actually I paid for a VPS, mainly to benchmark it (i.e. otherwise I wouldn't have purchased it).

  • jsgjsg Member, Resident Benchmarker

    @HostDZire said:

    @jsg said:

    @HostDZire said:
    @jsg

    Thank you very much for posting this.

    Thats some detailed testing,
    I find many users asking about steal percentage.
    Now this post will clear that doubt.

    And if you have some free time, would you please do similar testing for other locations vps, eg: Singapore, Japan

    These are leaseweb vps, and we are reselling it, so even i want to know the actual performance, not just yabs result.
    This way we will be confident in reselling those and buying more of these in bulk to get price down.

    I would love to see your test result, and off course it will help other users as well.

    I will send you test vps for 24 hours to perform this test.

    Great idea! And I'll gladly do it ;)

    P.S. 72 hrs would be much more reasonable because even the best VPS can do only so many rounds in a day.

    Thank you for helping, i will give you India vps as well.
    India vps is our own, hosted in Mumbai, Iron Mountain DC.
    So if you can test that as well, it would be very good for me.

    Since i dont know your email, can you please send me PM with your email.
    I will assign all three vps in your account for 72 hours..

    Thank you again for accepting.

    You're welcome ;)
    DM is on its way ...

    Thanked by 1HostDZire
  • RubbenRubben Member

    @jsg said:

    @Rubben said:

    @jsg said:

    @HostDZire said:
    @jsg

    Thank you very much for posting this.

    Thats some detailed testing,
    I find many users asking about steal percentage.
    Now this post will clear that doubt.

    And if you have some free time, would you please do similar testing for other locations vps, eg: Singapore, Japan

    These are leaseweb vps, and we are reselling it, so even i want to know the actual performance, not just yabs result.
    This way we will be confident in reselling those and buying more of these in bulk to get price down.

    I would love to see your test result, and off course it will help other users as well.

    I will send you test vps for 24 hours to perform this test.

    Great idea! And I'll gladly do it ;)

    P.S. 72 hrs would be much more reasonable because only the best VPS can do only so many rounds in a day.

    give this man 72hrs since you dont pay a cent for the PR work he does for you

    Uhm ...

    • I don't do PR work for any provider, I do work for our community.
    • If I occasionally shill a bit for some provider then because I, as a customer, am exceptionally happy with a VPS I purchased. The @HostDZire VPS in WDC I reviewed here is a good example)
    • As a benchmarker I try to be as neutral and objective as humanly possible. Once for example I praised a provider whom I, as a user considered an enemy because his product simply was really a great deal and performing very well. I'm quite confident that I also already gave some providers whom I personally like a "bad" review because their product wasn't good (or bang per buck was poor).
    • I never get paid, neither from the LET leadership nor from the reviewed providers. What can and occasionally did/does happen that a provider offer me a free VPS, usually btw. not after a review but front-up in cases where they want me to do an "internal" private review and/or to discover eventual weaknesses.

    P.S. in fact in quite a few situations actually I paid for a VPS, mainly to benchmark it (i.e. otherwise I wouldn't have purchased it).

    To clear it up, I did not mean to say that you're either working for them or you're getting paid or anything. However, doing a review - even if it's done objectively - in this specific case gives HostDZire positive PR. So the least they could do after you wrote this very thorough review about their services is to let you test the others they ask you for within your availability / time you need.

    Thanked by 1jsg
  • me personally I don’t trust this company, write “HostDzire Reviews” in google, and check links for yourself.

    Professional company not rely on one person who decide everything, any wrong move and you lost all the data, “like how is this happened”

    Serious people would rent some space in data centers around the globe, purchase hardware to own whole infrastructure, and not reselling the things.

    I choose to pay more cash, and make a choice more wise, not just jump on the first call girl for a cheap price, it’s better find a wife for life.

    Thanked by 1tentor
  • jsgjsg Member, Resident Benchmarker

    @cookie_stamp said:
    me personally I don’t trust this company, write “HostDzire Reviews” in google, and check links for yourself.

    Professional company not rely on one person who decide everything, any wrong move and you lost all the data, “like how is this happened”

    Serious people would rent some space in data centers around the globe, purchase hardware to own whole infrastructure, and not reselling the things.

    I choose to pay more cash, and make a choice more wise, not just jump on the first call girl for a cheap price, it’s better find a wife for life.

    Well, my experience with @HostDZire is absolutely positive so far. For example, their support is quite quick, polite, and gets things done.

    And at least as a Leaseweb reseller I find them very attractive.

    Thanked by 1HostDZire
  • HostDZireHostDZire Member, Patron Provider

    @cookie_stamp said:
    me personally I don’t trust this company, write “HostDzire Reviews” in google, and check links for yourself.

    Professional company not rely on one person who decide everything, any wrong move and you lost all the data, “like how is this happened”

    Serious people would rent some space in data centers around the globe, purchase hardware to own whole infrastructure, and not reselling the things.

    I choose to pay more cash, and make a choice more wise, not just jump on the first call girl for a cheap price, it’s better find a wife for life.

    It's important to recognize that it's not possible to satisfy every customer, as expectations can vary widely. In any business, there will be instances where users may feel dissatisfied—particularly when services are denied due to violations or misuse. Unfortunately, some of these situations can result in negative reviews, even when the provider is simply enforcing fair usage policies.

    For example, in our shared RDP services, users engaging in illegal activities are promptly banned. Despite this being necessary and clearly stated in our terms, it sometimes leads to unjustified negative feedback.

    Some clients may take such decisions personally and attempt to impact our reputation. However, we've been in this business for over 10 years, and we believe our long-standing success speaks for itself.

    If you check platforms like LowEndTalk (LET), you’ll find that we’ve served many clients here with very few—if any—negative reviews. We consistently strive to meet and exceed our clients' expectations. That said, no provider—regardless of size, even billion-dollar companies—can fulfill every single expectation 100% of the time.

    Regarding infrastructure, we operate using our own hardware in both India and the Netherlands:

    India: Our Cloud VPS services are hosted in Mumbai at the Iron Mountain Data Center. We fully own the hardware, and have actively posted offers for this location.

    Netherlands: We also have racks in AMS-01 (Leaseweb/IMDC) with our own dedicated hardware. While we haven’t posted public offers for this location yet, the infrastructure is fully under our ownership.

    We remain committed to transparency, reliability, and continuous improvement. Thank you for your continued trust and support.

    Thanked by 1zywe
  • jsgjsg Member, Resident Benchmarker

    Update

    Know what? @HostDZire went all in and gave me access to 3 more (one "only" uses the Leaseweb network but is thier own VPS) plus two surprise VPS.
    THANKS A LOT, HostDZire!

    I think you'll like what you gonna see, guys and gals! All results are based on min. 50 runs (and some even 80+ runs).

    I'll start with the Singapore Leaseweb VPS.
    First, as usual, sysinfo, processor and memory

    Version 2.5.0a, (c) 2018+ jsg (->lowendtalk.com)
    Machine: amd64, Arch.: amd64, Model: AMD EPYC Processor
    OS, version: FreeBSD 14.1, Mem.: 5.989 GB
    CPU - Cores: 4, Family/Model/Stepping: 23/1/2
    Cache: 32K/64K L1d/L1i, 512K L2, 8M 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
              cr8_legacy lzcnt sse4a misalignsse 3dnowprefetch osvw topoext
    
    AES? Yes
    Nested Virt.? No
    HW RNG? Yes
    
    ProcMem SC [MB/s]: avg 200.3 - min 80.0 (40.0 %), max 319.9 (159.7 %)
    ProcMem MA [MB/s]: avg 800.5 - min 638.8 (79.8 %), max 949.5 (118.6 %)
    ProcMem MB [MB/s]: avg 903.1 - min 806.2 (89.3 %), max 998.4 (110.6 %)
    ProcMem AES [MB/s]: avg 945.4 - min 931.1 (98.5 %), max 955.1 (101.0 %)
    ProcMem RSA [kp/s]: avg 85.9 - min 80.0 (93.2 %), max 89.5 (104.3 %)
    

    Yep, all the flags are there, except for nested virtualization, which with a 4 vCore server actually may make sense, so I mention it.
    The result numbers are within typical Epyc range, although the crypto results are at the lower end (for Epyc, although good enough for 99% of use cases). But the basic results are really nice. Also note the relatively low spread as well as the very good multi-core to single-core ratio.

    Let's see whether the disk is matchingly decent ...

    --- Disk 4 KB - Buffered ---
    Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 6.14 - min 4.66 (75.9%), max 7.27 (118.4%)
    Write rnd. [MB/s]: avg 5.65 - min 2.67 (47.3%), max 6.75 (119.5%)
    Read seq. [MB/s]:  avg 13.77 - min 2.85 (20.7%), max 17.18 (124.7%)
    Read rnd. [MB/s]:  avg 12.08 - min 2.25 (18.6%), max 15.14 (125.3%)
    --- Disk 4 KB - Sync/Direct ---
    Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 5.33 - min 1.01 (18.9%), max 6.77 (126.9%)
    Write rnd. [MB/s]: avg 5.33 - min 1.09 (20.4%), max 6.77 (127.0%)
    Read seq. [MB/s]:  avg 13.32 - min 1.72 (12.9%), max 17.31 (129.9%)
    Read rnd. [MB/s]:  avg 12.10 - min 1.77 (14.6%), max 14.87 (122.9%)
    
    --- Disk 64 KB - Buffered ---
    Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 55.77 - min 15.64 (28.0%), max 65.49 (117.4%)
    Write rnd. [MB/s]: avg 52.77 - min 14.03 (26.6%), max 63.32 (120.0%)
    Read seq. [MB/s]:  avg 2697.58 - min 2303.21 (85.4%), max 3335.84 (123.7%)
    Read rnd. [MB/s]:  avg 165.96 - min 37.80 (22.8%), max 200.93 (121.1%)
    --- Disk 64 KB - Sync/Direct ---
    Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 9.83 - min 7.07 (71.9%), max 11.92 (121.3%)
    Write rnd. [MB/s]: avg 4.27 - min 3.60 (84.3%), max 5.02 (117.5%)
    Read seq. [MB/s]:  avg 2720.59 - min 2334.64 (85.8%), max 3204.39 (117.8%)
    Read rnd. [MB/s]:  avg 148.66 - min 110.92 (74.6%), max 169.17 (113.8%)
    
    --- Disk 1 MB - Buffered ---
    Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 76.97 - min 49.43 (64.2%), max 87.72 (114.0%)
    Write rnd. [MB/s]: avg 142.60 - min 77.33 (54.2%), max 179.14 (125.6%)
    Read seq. [MB/s]:  avg 3343.87 - min 2457.99 (73.5%), max 4289.23 (128.3%)
    Read rnd. [MB/s]:  avg 720.49 - min 205.91 (28.6%), max 932.62 (129.4%)
    --- Disk 1 MB - Sync/Direct ---
    Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 22.12 - min 19.57 (88.5%), max 23.67 (107.0%)
    Write rnd. [MB/s]: avg 14.75 - min 13.39 (90.8%), max 15.54 (105.4%)
    Read seq. [MB/s]:  avg 3599.45 - min 2701.91 (75.1%), max 4327.52 (120.2%)
    Read rnd. [MB/s]:  avg 824.15 - min 525.81 (63.8%), max 1024.01 (124.3%)
    --- Disk IOps (Sync/Direct) ---
    Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 19.53 - min 16.97 (86.9%), max 21.28 (109.0%)
    IOps             : avg 4999.41 - min 4344.60 (86.9%), max 5446.86 (108.9%)
    

    Yep! That's what I like to see. About 20 MB/s and 5k IOps; that's solid NVMe terrain. OK, not high-end but really solid and damn good enough for the vast majority of use cases. For the price (about $3 and a bit per month) I really like what I see and wish I'd see that kind of numbers with more cheap VPS ...

    Finally let's have a look at the (Leaseweb) connectivity

    --- Europe ---
    
    NO OSL mirror.terrahost.no [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 63.3 - min 61.0 (96.3%), max 65.3 (103.3%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 176.1 - min 174.9 (99.3%), max 177.1 (100.5%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 185.7 - min 174.9 (94.2%), max 280.8 (151.2%)
    
    UK KNT www.mirrorservice.org [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 65.9 - min 50.0 (75.9%), max 68.9 (104.6%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 164.7 - min 164.4 (99.8%), max 166.5 (101.1%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 177.5 - min 164.5 (92.7%), max 456.8 (257.4%)
    
    NL AMS nl.mirrors.clouvider.net [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 65.9 - min 64.2 (97.4%), max 67.4 (102.4%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 167.0 - min 165.8 (99.3%), max 168.9 (101.1%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 167.9 - min 165.8 (98.8%), max 176.5 (105.1%)
    
    DE FRA mirror.plusline.net [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 69.6 - min 68.1 (97.8%), max 71.2 (102.2%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 158.9 - min 157.8 (99.3%), max 160.3 (100.9%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 159.7 - min 158.0 (98.9%), max 161.4 (101.0%)
    
    FR PAR mirror.in2p3.fr [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 67.4 - min 62.9 (93.3%), max 70.4 (104.4%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 158.3 - min 157.0 (99.2%), max 159.4 (100.7%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 187.8 - min 157.7 (84.0%), max 439.8 (234.2%)
    
    IT MIL it1.mirror.vhosting-it.com [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 44.7 - min 26.9 (60.1%), max 47.9 (107.3%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 243.3 - min 235.4 (96.7%), max 291.0 (119.6%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 251.5 - min 235.5 (93.6%), max 476.7 (189.5%)
    
    ES MAD mirror.es.stackscale.com [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 62.2 - min 60.4 (97.0%), max 64.1 (103.1%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 176.2 - min 174.9 (99.3%), max 177.2 (100.6%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 182.5 - min 175.9 (96.4%), max 204.6 (112.1%)
    
    RO BUC mirrors.hosterion.ro [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 60.7 - min 58.2 (95.9%), max 62.6 (103.0%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 180.4 - min 179.5 (99.5%), max 181.8 (100.8%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 182.9 - min 179.6 (98.2%), max 191.5 (104.7%)
    
    RU MOS speedtest.hostkey.ru [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 54.8 - min 48.5 (88.6%), max 56.7 (103.5%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 200.9 - min 199.5 (99.3%), max 210.4 (104.7%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 205.5 - min 199.5 (97.1%), max 223.4 (108.7%)
    
    --- Asia / Oceania ---
    
    RU SIB mirror.truenetwork.ru [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 44.9 - min 37.5 (83.5%), max 47.3 (105.2%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 241.1 - min 239.4 (99.3%), max 248.3 (103.0%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 243.6 - min 239.6 (98.3%), max 265.7 (109.1%)
    
    IR SHI ir.almalinux.sindad.cloud [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 47.0 - min 45.4 (96.5%), max 48.9 (104.1%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 231.1 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 239.1 (103.5%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 235.7 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 248.2 (105.3%)
    
    IN MUM mirrors.piconets.webwerks.in [F: 4]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 167.3 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 217.8 (130.2%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 57.1 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 65.0 (113.8%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 62.6 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 88.3 (141.1%)
    
    SG SGP mirror.sg.gs [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 1961.0 - min 1085.4 (55.4%), max 3311.7 (168.9%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 1.8 - min 1.5 (85.7%), max 2.0 (114.2%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 3.8 - min 2.5 (66.1%), max 6.8 (179.9%)
    
    CN HKG mirrors.xtom.hk [F: 37]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 106.9 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 363.1 (339.6%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 28.3 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 31.1 (110.0%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 28.4 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 31.1 (109.6%)
    
    CN NAJ mirror.nyist.edu.cn [F: 11]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 58.8 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 176.1 (299.4%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 162.8 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 283.4 (174.1%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 179.1 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 543.2 (303.3%)
    
    JP OSA mirrors.xtom.jp [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 38.7 - min 36.4 (94.0%), max 41.2 (106.4%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 288.4 - min 288.3 (100.0%), max 288.5 (100.0%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 289.2 - min 288.3 (99.7%), max 298.2 (103.1%)
    
    AU SYD gsl-syd.mm.fcix.net [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 119.5 - min 116.7 (97.7%), max 120.8 (101.1%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 92.8 - min 92.6 (99.8%), max 92.9 (100.1%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 92.9 - min 92.7 (99.8%), max 93.2 (100.3%)
    
    --- Africa ---
    
    ZA JOB mirror.datakeepers.co.za [F: 3]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 27.0 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 29.6 (109.7%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 388.5 - min 387.0 (99.6%), max 392.8 (101.1%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 395.9 - min 387.0 (97.8%), max 434.3 (109.7%)
    
    KE NAI mirror.liquidtelecom.com [F: 2]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 25.9 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 28.7 (110.9%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 394.7 - min 382.6 (96.9%), max 440.3 (111.5%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 418.2 - min 382.6 (91.5%), max 649.1 (155.2%)
    
    --- America ---
    
    US NYC nyc.mirrors.clouvider.net [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 48.2 - min 35.3 (73.4%), max 51.4 (106.8%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 224.7 - min 219.3 (97.6%), max 356.5 (158.7%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 229.4 - min 219.3 (95.6%), max 356.5 (155.4%)
    
    US CHI ord.mirror.rackspace.com [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 51.0 - min 48.9 (96.0%), max 53.5 (104.9%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 220.0 - min 219.9 (100.0%), max 220.4 (100.2%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 226.6 - min 219.9 (97.0%), max 236.3 (104.3%)
    
    US LAX mirror.alma.lax1.serverforge.org [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 66.3 - min 62.8 (94.7%), max 69.1 (104.2%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 168.2 - min 164.3 (97.7%), max 237.0 (140.9%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 173.2 - min 164.6 (95.1%), max 237.0 (136.9%)
    

    I'll split it into continents/regions.
    Europe - Meeh, not nice - from a european perspective. But then, that's a SGP server ...
    Negative points: the secondary NL AMS target was a complete failure, and, as usual with Leaseweb, the swiss target also was a complete failure.

    Asia/Oceania - Now we're talking! Decent numbers, OK, not overwhelming but decent. Also important: the result within SGP clearly shows that the network adapter isn't a limiting factor. India over 150 Mb/s, HongKong about 100 Mb/s, China mainland solidly above 50 Mb/s, and Ozzyland even about 120 Mb/s almost seems incredible (well, for a European). Only Japan is disappointing and, considering that Leaseweb is present there, quite weird; I mean less than 40Mb/s I can get from Europe or America as well.
    Also positive: All Asia / Oceania secondary locations, except Japan, achieved very similar results to the primary target as well.
    Negative: The secondary JP target wasn't even reached, meeh.

    Africa - meeh

    America - basically meeh as well

    TL;DR: Very nice and well performing processor and memory, very decent disk, but connectivity somewhat disappointing. But OK, that might in part be just me/my european perspective that is, we are used to better connectivity and have relatively high expectations. Plus a lack of experience with internet in Asia; maybe, even quite possibly, those results actually are really decent for Asia.
    And yes, I'll admit it, seeing numbers solidly above 100 Mb/s to Ozzyland (in fact, almost 120 Mb) looks surreal to me. In Europe and I guess in America we can't even dream of that.

    All in all, IF one happens to need decent connectivity in the Asia / Oceania region this VPS probably is one of the best choices, especially for the really low price.

    But before making a decision let's have a look at the HostDZire/Leaseweb Japan VPS ...

    Thanked by 3zGato HostDZire jolo22
  • jsgjsg Member, Resident Benchmarker

    So, here's the results and review of the @HostDZire/Leaseweb Japan VPS

    First, as usual ...

    Version 2.5.0a, (c) 2018+ jsg (->lowendtalk.com)
    Machine: amd64, Arch.: amd64, Model: AMD EPYC Processor
    OS, version: FreeBSD 14.1, Mem.: 5.989 GB
    CPU - Cores: 4, Family/Model/Stepping: 23/1/2
    Cache: 32K/64K L1d/L1i, 512K L2, 8M 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
              cr8_legacy lzcnt sse4a misalignsse 3dnowprefetch osvw topoext
    
    AES? Yes
    InNested Virt.? No
    HW RNG? Yes
    
    ProcMem SC [MB/s]: avg 194.4 - min 77.3 (39.8 %), max 316.3 (162.7 %)
    ProcMem MA [MB/s]: avg 760.3 - min 595.4 (78.3 %), max 890.0 (117.1 %)
    ProcMem MB [MB/s]: avg 879.8 - min 712.3 (81.0 %), max 1004.2 (114.1 %)
    ProcMem AES [MB/s]: avg 936.2 - min 916.6 (97.9 %), max 950.6 (101.5 %)
    ProcMem RSA [kp/s]: avg 83.0 - min 77.3 (93.2 %), max 88.9 (107.0 %)
    

    OK, basically the same we saw in SGP, just a bee stick slower, but no noteworthy difference which means, OK, a really decent box

    --- Disk 4 KB - Buffered ---
    Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 5.59 - min 3.09 (55.2%), max 6.64 (118.7%)
    Write rnd. [MB/s]: avg 5.31 - min 3.47 (65.3%), max 6.29 (118.4%)
    Read seq. [MB/s]:  avg 11.74 - min 2.36 (20.1%), max 15.90 (135.5%)
    Read rnd. [MB/s]:  avg 10.60 - min 3.21 (30.3%), max 14.19 (133.9%)
    --- Disk 4 KB - Sync/Direct ---
    Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 5.31 - min 2.92 (55.0%), max 6.52 (122.8%)
    Write rnd. [MB/s]: avg 5.08 - min 2.89 (56.9%), max 6.42 (126.4%)
    Read seq. [MB/s]:  avg 11.55 - min 2.43 (21.0%), max 15.82 (136.9%)
    Read rnd. [MB/s]:  avg 10.33 - min 2.21 (21.4%), max 14.18 (137.2%)
    
    --- Disk 64 KB - Buffered ---
    Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 55.79 - min 43.00 (77.1%), max 64.10 (114.9%)
    Write rnd. [MB/s]: avg 53.45 - min 40.33 (75.5%), max 63.72 (119.2%)
    Read seq. [MB/s]:  avg 2930.25 - min 2634.91 (89.9%), max 3194.58 (109.0%)
    Read rnd. [MB/s]:  avg 153.62 - min 73.26 (47.7%), max 198.57 (129.3%)
    --- Disk 64 KB - Sync/Direct ---
    Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 9.87 - min 8.48 (86.0%), max 11.26 (114.1%)
    Write rnd. [MB/s]: avg 4.60 - min 4.01 (87.2%), max 5.11 (111.1%)
    Read seq. [MB/s]:  avg 2918.20 - min 2677.42 (91.7%), max 3182.91 (109.1%)
    Read rnd. [MB/s]:  avg 165.98 - min 92.15 (55.5%), max 199.07 (119.9%)
    
    --- Disk 1 MB - Buffered ---
    Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 74.01 - min 43.58 (58.9%), max 89.04 (120.3%)
    Write rnd. [MB/s]: avg 134.66 - min 52.10 (38.7%), max 183.92 (136.6%)
    Read seq. [MB/s]:  avg 3977.42 - min 2660.85 (66.9%), max 4524.41 (113.8%)
    Read rnd. [MB/s]:  avg 875.98 - min 699.54 (79.9%), max 995.35 (113.6%)
    --- Disk 1 MB - Sync/Direct ---
    Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 23.69 - min 22.09 (93.2%), max 25.01 (105.6%)
    Write rnd. [MB/s]: avg 15.55 - min 14.89 (95.7%), max 16.10 (103.5%)
    Read seq. [MB/s]:  avg 4342.36 - min 4109.86 (94.6%), max 4633.63 (106.7%)
    Read rnd. [MB/s]:  avg 862.09 - min 628.77 (72.9%), max 1007.18 (116.8%)
    --- Disk IOps (Sync/Direct) ---
    Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 19.59 - min 14.33 (73.1%), max 21.21 (108.3%)
    IOps             : avg 5015.34 - min 3667.98 (73.1%), max 5429.73 (108.3%)
    

    Basically the same, again. So, again: Really decent, me happy

    So, let's look at what probably really is different, connectivity

    --- Europe ---
    
    NO OSL mirror.terrahost.no [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 42.3 - min 40.2 (95.1%), max 45.4 (107.4%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 267.5 - min 260.2 (97.3%), max 282.0 (105.4%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 281.6 - min 260.3 (92.4%), max 632.9 (224.8%)
    
    UK LON lon.speedtest.clouvider.net [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 48.0 - min 46.4 (96.7%), max 49.4 (103.1%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 226.0 - min 225.6 (99.8%), max 228.6 (101.1%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 233.5 - min 226.0 (96.8%), max 242.8 (104.0%)
    
    NL AMS nl.mirrors.clouvider.net [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 48.6 - min 46.4 (95.6%), max 50.7 (104.4%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 228.5 - min 218.2 (95.5%), max 259.9 (113.7%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 231.4 - min 223.0 (96.4%), max 259.9 (112.3%)
    
    DE FRA mirror.plusline.net [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 45.6 - min 43.9 (96.2%), max 47.6 (104.4%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 236.6 - min 227.4 (96.1%), max 246.0 (104.0%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 245.1 - min 235.9 (96.2%), max 258.4 (105.4%)
    
    FR PAR mirror.in2p3.fr [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 41.0 - min 38.9 (94.8%), max 42.9 (104.6%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 266.6 - min 264.1 (99.1%), max 307.7 (115.4%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 301.5 - min 264.2 (87.6%), max 477.5 (158.4%)
    
    IT MIL it1.mirror.vhosting-it.com [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 42.6 - min 41.2 (96.8%), max 44.7 (104.9%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 259.8 - min 253.2 (97.5%), max 267.1 (102.8%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 263.4 - min 256.6 (97.4%), max 354.4 (134.6%)
    
    ES MAD mirror.es.stackscale.com [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 42.5 - min 40.8 (96.2%), max 44.0 (103.7%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 253.1 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 257.3 (101.7%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 263.6 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 293.4 (111.3%)
    
    RO BUC mirrors.hosterion.ro [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 41.2 - min 38.7 (93.8%), max 43.7 (105.9%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 267.7 - min 261.8 (97.8%), max 291.8 (109.0%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 274.9 - min 261.9 (95.3%), max 294.9 (107.3%)
    
    RU MOS speedtest.hostkey.ru [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 38.2 - min 24.3 (63.7%), max 41.7 (109.2%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 270.7 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 276.5 (102.1%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 280.2 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 304.1 (108.5%)
    
    --- Asia / Oceania ---
    
    RU SIB mirror.truenetwork.ru [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 32.1 - min 28.5 (88.7%), max 34.9 (108.7%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 335.4 - min 334.2 (99.7%), max 343.4 (102.4%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 337.3 - min 334.4 (99.1%), max 345.5 (102.4%)
    
    IR SHI ir.almalinux.sindad.cloud [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 34.4 - min 33.3 (96.5%), max 36.4 (105.5%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 315.5 - min 311.6 (98.8%), max 321.7 (102.0%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 327.1 - min 312.9 (95.7%), max 341.8 (104.5%)
    
    IN MUM mirrors.piconets.webwerks.in [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 88.3 - min 83.2 (94.2%), max 91.8 (104.0%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 122.0 - min 81.1 (66.5%), max 129.2 (105.9%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 125.9 - min 81.1 (64.4%), max 136.3 (108.3%)
    
    SG SGP mirror.sg.gs [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 151.4 - min 148.1 (97.9%), max 153.7 (101.6%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 73.2 - min 73.1 (99.8%), max 74.3 (101.4%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 75.2 - min 73.8 (98.2%), max 77.6 (103.2%)
    
    CN HKG mirrors.xtom.hk [F: 37]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 49.0 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 171.1 (349.1%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 61.1 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 74.8 (122.4%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 61.1 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 74.8 (122.3%)
    
    CN NAJ mirror.nyist.edu.cn [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 56.3 - min 46.7 (83.0%), max 60.8 (108.0%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 189.5 - min 172.9 (91.2%), max 219.6 (115.9%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 210.9 - min 182.2 (86.4%), max 254.7 (120.8%)
    
    JP OSA mirrors.xtom.jp [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 1165.2 - min 890.7 (76.4%), max 1282.8 (110.1%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 8.7 - min 8.5 (97.9%), max 8.9 (102.5%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 9.0 - min 8.6 (95.2%), max 10.6 (117.4%)
    
    AU SYD gsl-syd.mm.fcix.net [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 112.5 - min 110.3 (98.1%), max 114.4 (101.7%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 99.4 - min 99.2 (99.8%), max 99.7 (100.3%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 99.4 - min 99.3 (99.9%), max 99.7 (100.3%)
    
    --- Afrika ---
    
    ZA JOB mirror.datakeepers.co.za [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 36.9 - min 24.4 (66.1%), max 38.8 (105.1%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 297.5 - min 294.2 (98.9%), max 310.9 (104.5%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 316.7 - min 294.5 (93.0%), max 854.3 (269.8%)
    
    KE NAI mirror.liquidtelecom.com [F: 4]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 26.7 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 30.4 (113.9%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 364.8 - min 364.4 (99.9%), max 367.2 (100.7%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 384.7 - min 364.5 (94.7%), max 484.9 (126.0%)
    
    --- America ---
    
    US NYC nyc.mirrors.clouvider.net [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 68.5 - min 64.2 (93.7%), max 73.0 (106.6%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 169.4 - min 168.3 (99.3%), max 170.4 (100.6%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 169.8 - min 168.3 (99.1%), max 172.6 (101.7%)
    
    US CHI ord.mirror.rackspace.com [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 76.4 - min 72.6 (95.0%), max 81.1 (106.1%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 143.2 - min 142.9 (99.8%), max 143.6 (100.3%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 151.1 - min 143.9 (95.2%), max 158.7 (105.0%)
    
    US LAX mirror.alma.lax1.serverforge.org [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 96.5 - min 92.1 (95.4%), max 101.1 (104.8%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 119.8 - min 118.0 (98.5%), max 124.5 (103.9%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 120.2 - min 118.2 (98.3%), max 124.5 (103.5%)
    

    I'll again split it into continents.
    Europe - something like about 20 Mb/s worse than the SGP box, but I guess, considering the distance, who cares anyway. I'll put it this way: now I know how Asians and Ozzies feel when surfing to a european website *g

    Asia / Oceania - Sorry, but not at all better than the SGP box. Better only within Japan, and even that with a caveat: the secondary Japan target was a complete failure!

    Africa - meeh (just like the SGP server)

    America - Hmmm, clearly and significantly better than the SGP server. Nice! Finally something positive.

    TL;DR A disappointment, sorry. Unless you were after Japan connectivity only, although with a lottery factor, and maybe a halfway decent connection to America, I see absolutely no reason to purchase this VPS.
    To keep it simple, the SGP box just is better, period (modulo very few exceptions).

    But wait, further down a surprise may wait for you ...

    Thanked by 2zGato HostDZire
  • jsgjsg Member, Resident Benchmarker

    Now, on to a pure HostDZire VPS but on the supposedly very good network of Leaseweb. location: NL, AMS

    First, as usual - and this time worthy to look at ...

    Version 2.5.0a, (c) 2018+ jsg (->lowendtalk.com)
    Machine: amd64, Arch.: amd64, Model: AMD EPYC 7K62 48-Core Processor                
    OS, version: FreeBSD 14.2, Mem.: 5.989 GB
    CPU - Cores: 4, Family/Model/Stepping: 23/49/0
    Cache: 32K/32K L1d/L1i, 512K L2, 192M 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
              extapic cr8_legacy lzcnt sse4a misalignsse 3dnowprefetch osvw
    
    AES? Yes
    InNested Virt.? No
    HW RNG? Yes
    
    ProcMem SC [MB/s]: avg 235.0 - min 92.6 (39.4 %), max 370.4 (157.6 %)
    ProcMem MA [MB/s]: avg 970.2 - min 871.9 (89.9 %), max 1150.0 (118.5 %)
    ProcMem MB [MB/s]: avg 1057.3 - min 927.0 (87.7 %), max 1200.0 (113.5 %)
    ProcMem AES [MB/s]: avg 1156.5 - min 1137.7 (98.4 %), max 1160.1 (100.3 %)
    ProcMem RSA [kp/s]: avg 103.3 - min 92.6 (89.6 %), max 109.3 (105.8 %)
    

    Now looky here, a really decent processor and memory configuration! It seems Leaseweb would do well to ask HostDZire for advice how to build a really decent Epyc VPS, hehe.
    Very well done, HostDZire!

    But, does the disk spoil the good impression or does it keep up? Let's see ...

    --- Disk 4 KB - Buffered ---
    Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 12.00 - min 8.95 (74.6%), max 15.07 (125.5%)
    Write rnd. [MB/s]: avg 10.74 - min 7.51 (69.9%), max 13.25 (123.4%)
    Read seq. [MB/s]:  avg 26.72 - min 21.10 (79.0%), max 31.74 (118.8%)
    Read rnd. [MB/s]:  avg 24.04 - min 18.00 (74.9%), max 27.59 (114.8%)
    --- Disk 4 KB - Sync/Direct ---
    Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 11.90 - min 9.16 (77.0%), max 14.73 (123.8%)
    Write rnd. [MB/s]: avg 11.01 - min 7.50 (68.1%), max 14.16 (128.6%)
    Read seq. [MB/s]:  avg 26.91 - min 21.13 (78.5%), max 31.42 (116.8%)
    Read rnd. [MB/s]:  avg 24.36 - min 19.52 (80.1%), max 27.46 (112.7%)
    
    --- Disk 64 KB - Buffered ---
    Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 128.01 - min 88.81 (69.4%), max 155.17 (121.2%)
    Write rnd. [MB/s]: avg 113.95 - min 80.00 (70.2%), max 154.76 (135.8%)
    Read seq. [MB/s]:  avg 3998.25 - min 2441.07 (61.1%), max 4856.56 (121.5%)
    Read rnd. [MB/s]:  avg 326.98 - min 237.86 (72.7%), max 372.93 (114.1%)
    --- Disk 64 KB - Sync/Direct ---
    Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 12.93 - min 11.25 (87.0%), max 14.89 (115.2%)
    Write rnd. [MB/s]: avg 6.51 - min 5.51 (84.7%), max 7.16 (110.1%)
    Read seq. [MB/s]:  avg 3503.31 - min 2836.42 (81.0%), max 4112.14 (117.4%)
    Read rnd. [MB/s]:  avg 325.63 - min 245.12 (75.3%), max 376.19 (115.5%)
    
    --- Disk 1 MB - Buffered ---
    Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 191.66 - min 157.51 (82.2%), max 226.58 (118.2%)
    Write rnd. [MB/s]: avg 381.04 - min 284.21 (74.6%), max 533.21 (139.9%)
    Read seq. [MB/s]:  avg 5148.31 - min 4440.13 (86.2%), max 5575.28 (108.3%)
    Read rnd. [MB/s]:  avg 1153.65 - min 756.42 (65.6%), max 1580.10 (137.0%)
    --- Disk 1 MB - Sync/Direct ---
    Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 44.09 - min 37.32 (84.6%), max 46.47 (105.4%)
    Write rnd. [MB/s]: avg 28.19 - min 26.60 (94.4%), max 29.21 (103.6%)
    Read seq. [MB/s]:  avg 4285.13 - min 3458.24 (80.7%), max 4476.49 (104.5%)
    Read rnd. [MB/s]:  avg 1165.47 - min 715.55 (61.4%), max 1549.43 (132.9%)
    --- Disk IOps (Sync/Direct) ---
    Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 39.69 - min 38.30 (96.5%), max 41.35 (104.2%)
    IOps             : avg 10160.06 - min 9804.28 (96.5%), max 10585.79 (104.2%)
    

    WUT? Are you pulling my leg, HostDZire? I just confirmed that "your" Leaseweb VPS's disk is decent ... and now you smirk, it seems, and bloody double that performance? You naughty guys!
    Seriously though, again: well done HostDZire (maybe you should begin to think about teaching fees for Leaseweb, hehe).

    I'm quite confident that the one thing Leaseweb really knows how to do well, connectivity, won't disappoint either. But let's see ...

    --- Europe ---
    
    NO TRH mirror.archlinux.no [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 409.5 - min 401.6 (98.1%), max 418.1 (102.1%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 25.9 - min 25.8 (99.5%), max 26.1 (100.6%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 26.0 - min 25.9 (99.4%), max 26.8 (102.9%)
    
    UK LON lon.speedtest.clouvider.net [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 1143.3 - min 1016.5 (88.9%), max 1270.3 (111.1%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 9.5 - min 9.3 (98.4%), max 10.7 (113.2%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 9.5 - min 9.3 (98.1%), max 11.2 (118.2%)
    
    NL AMS nl.mirrors.clouvider.net [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 2873.7 - min 2381.0 (82.9%), max 3336.8 (116.1%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 1.0 - min 0.8 (78.5%), max 1.2 (117.7%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 1.5 - min 0.8 (52.0%), max 20.6 (1338.5%)
    
    DE FRA fra.lg.core-backbone.com [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 1384.6 - min 1260.1 (91.0%), max 1474.5 (106.5%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 6.4 - min 6.2 (96.5%), max 6.8 (105.9%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 6.6 - min 6.3 (95.5%), max 7.4 (112.2%)
    
    FR PAR mirror.in2p3.fr [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 495.3 - min 375.1 (75.7%), max 559.7 (113.0%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 19.7 - min 19.4 (98.7%), max 24.0 (122.1%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 57.5 - min 19.4 (33.8%), max 450.7 (784.3%)
    
    IT MIL it1.mirror.vhosting-it.com [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 645.1 - min 483.3 (74.9%), max 686.2 (106.4%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 15.6 - min 15.5 (99.5%), max 15.9 (102.1%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 18.1 - min 15.6 (86.1%), max 99.7 (550.4%)
    
    ES MAD mirror.es.stackscale.com [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 316.2 - min 302.4 (95.6%), max 332.0 (105.0%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 32.7 - min 32.6 (99.6%), max 33.3 (101.7%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 46.9 - min 33.5 (71.4%), max 325.0 (693.1%)
    
    RO BUC mirrors.hosterion.ro [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 328.5 - min 297.9 (90.7%), max 336.1 (102.3%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 31.7 - min 31.6 (99.6%), max 31.9 (100.5%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 32.5 - min 31.7 (97.5%), max 56.8 (174.6%)
    
    RU MOS speedtest.hostkey.ru [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 267.7 - min 255.3 (95.4%), max 279.7 (104.5%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 40.2 - min 39.9 (99.2%), max 41.4 (103.0%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 44.6 - min 39.9 (89.5%), max 59.9 (134.4%)
    
    --- Asia / Oceania ---
    
    RU SIB mirror.truenetwork.ru [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 111.2 - min 102.5 (92.2%), max 116.7 (105.0%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 101.2 - min 96.1 (95.0%), max 109.2 (107.9%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 102.4 - min 97.0 (94.7%), max 111.0 (108.4%)
    
    IR SHI mirror.almalinux.sabahost.net [F: 15]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 109.9 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 152.0 (138.2%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 61.5 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 82.2 (133.6%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 102.4 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 1309.6 (1279.1%)
    
    IN MUM mirrors.piconets.webwerks.in [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 43.6 - min 32.8 (75.2%), max 47.7 (109.5%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 250.3 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 277.1 (110.7%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 258.3 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 288.1 (111.6%)
    
    SG SGP mirror.sg.gs [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 70.2 - min 68.6 (97.7%), max 71.8 (102.3%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 158.2 - min 158.0 (99.9%), max 160.0 (101.1%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 160.4 - min 158.7 (98.9%), max 164.5 (102.5%)
    
    CN HKG mirrors.xtom.hk [F: 60]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 14.4 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 61.4 (427.2%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 170.5 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 189.0 (110.8%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 170.6 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 189.0 (110.8%)
    
    CN NAJ mirror.nyist.edu.cn [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 42.7 - min 22.4 (52.4%), max 66.9 (156.6%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 248.8 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 333.7 (134.1%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 296.2 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 1380.3 (465.9%)
    
    JP OSA mirrors.xtom.jp [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 44.2 - min 42.9 (97.1%), max 45.5 (102.9%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 251.2 - min 251.0 (99.9%), max 254.8 (101.4%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 251.2 - min 251.0 (99.9%), max 254.8 (101.4%)
    
    AU SYD mirror.internet.asn.au [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 46.3 - min 46.1 (99.5%), max 46.9 (101.1%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 244.8 - min 244.4 (99.8%), max 255.0 (104.2%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 245.3 - min 244.4 (99.6%), max 255.0 (104.0%)
    
    --- Africa ---
    
    ZA JOB mirror.datakeepers.co.za [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 68.1 - min 43.5 (63.8%), max 71.0 (104.2%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 161.9 - min 159.8 (98.7%), max 165.1 (102.0%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 166.4 - min 160.4 (96.4%), max 246.4 (148.1%)
    
    KE NAI mirror.liquidtelecom.com [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 68.9 - min 45.5 (66.0%), max 84.2 (122.1%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 137.9 - min 133.8 (97.0%), max 179.9 (130.5%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 187.2 - min 134.0 (71.6%), max 667.5 (356.6%)
    
    --- America ---
    
    US NYC mirrors-nyj.hawkhost.com [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 146.5 - min 142.4 (97.2%), max 150.6 (102.8%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 73.4 - min 73.2 (99.7%), max 77.9 (106.1%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 74.3 - min 73.3 (98.6%), max 78.1 (105.0%)
    
    US CHI ord.mirror.rackspace.com [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 124.4 - min 123.5 (99.3%), max 125.4 (100.8%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 91.5 - min 91.3 (99.8%), max 92.2 (100.8%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 93.3 - min 92.1 (98.7%), max 95.6 (102.5%)
    
    US LAX mirror.alma.lax1.serverforge.org [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 87.3 - min 83.8 (96.0%), max 88.8 (101.8%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 129.0 - min 128.6 (99.7%), max 131.5 (101.9%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 130.0 - min 128.8 (99.1%), max 135.2 (104.0%)
    

    I'll again split it into regions.
    Europe - Consistently very good results, except for the swiss target (as usual. Leaseweb seems to really dislike adfinis-on-exoscale.ch g), BUT they make up for that by not one but *three major targets solidly above 1 Gb/s, one in fact almost 3 Gb/s. I couldn't be much happier.

    Asia/Oceania - not outright bad but quite half-cooked. I mean, how does one explain Iran and Siberia solidly above 100 Mb/s and Singapore with still decent about 70 Mb/s but India (in between those) not even 50 Mb/s? Similarly, China Mainland, Japan, and Ozzyland about or above 40 Mb/s, but Hongkong not even 20 Mb? Also, both secondary the Iran target as well as the secondary Japan target are complete failures, but that can be forgiven. But still the question comes up whether someone in Leaseweb's NOC has drinking problem ... that's weird, really weird.

    Africa - Decent, really decent.

    America - Also really decent, even very good

    TL;DR Normally my verdict would be "very good, go and buy it!" but the really weird spots in their connectivity lead to a verdict of "quite good but with caveats".
    The caveats boiling down to: if you want a really, really nice NL VPS and pretty much care only about Europe and America connectivity, with very decent Africa results thrown in, and can live with a mixture of lottery and not exactly great Asia connectivity, this one is for you. If however halfway decent and consistent connectivity to Asia and Oceania is even just somewhat important to you I suggest to look elsewhere."

    Sorry, but there's lesson to be learned here for Leaseweb: If you run a global network then bloody do it consistently and well! (and don't employ NOC people with a drinking problem).

    But again: If good connectivity to Asia and Oceania isn't important to you then this VPS is a really hot buy and recommended.

    Thanked by 3zGato HostDZire jolo22
  • jsgjsg Member, Resident Benchmarker

    You thought "3 Leaseweb (or Leaseweb connectivity based) VPS. and that's it" ... you thought wrong.
    Because there's more, to be precise, 2 India VPS, one with Xeon and one with Epyc.
    And that's a very good thing in my book because, sorry for putting it bluntly, I've seen quite a few indian providers who seemed to be between shady and crooks. But India is an important region and also geographically well located, so I'm really glad to finally know an indian provider who not only seems to be trustworthy and professional but who also seems to really know how to build really good VPSs and sells them for a decent or even very tasty price -> @HostDZire.

    To those who now think that I'm shilling, fuck off! If I sound like very positive re HostDZire then only because I, also as a person and customer, really like their products and service. If they were not I'd say so without hesitation because my loyalty is with our community and not with this or that provider.

    Now, with that out of the way, let's get at the meat.

    Version 2.5.0a, (c) 2018+ jsg (->lowendtalk.com)
    Machine: amd64, Arch.: amd64, Model: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2699A v4 @ 2.40GHz
    OS, version: FreeBSD 14.2, Mem.: 3.989 GB
    CPU - Cores: 2, Family/Model/Stepping: 6/79/1
    Cache: 32K/32K L1d/L1i, 256K L2, 55M 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 ssse3 fma cx16
              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 fpcsds rdseed
              adx smap syscall nx pdpe1gb rdtscp lm lahf_lm lzcnt
    
    AES? Yes
    Nested Virt.? No
    HW RNG? Yes
    
    ProcMem SC [MB/s]: avg 215.9 - min 87.9 (40.7 %), max 343.5 (159.1 %)
    ProcMem MA [MB/s]: avg 549.6 - min 430.5 (78.3 %), max 656.4 (119.4 %)
    ProcMem MB [MB/s]: avg 575.7 - min 458.6 (79.7 %), max 660.5 (114.7 %)
    ProcMem AES [MB/s]: avg 638.7 - min 634.5 (99.3 %), max 640.2 (100.2 %)
    ProcMem RSA [kp/s]: avg 91.1 - min 87.9 (96.5 %), max 94.8 (104.1 %)
    

    First: This box has AVX2 which is a big plus (if you don't know why, just ask and I'll explain, possibly more than you care to know *g).
    Only the "nested" flag isn't available, which however seems reasonable for a box with only 2 cores anyway.
    And for what it is it is really is very decent.

    Now let's look at the disk ...

    --- Disk 4 KB - Buffered ---
    Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 16.32 - min 15.88 (97.3%), max 16.82 (103.0%)
    Write rnd. [MB/s]: avg 16.17 - min 15.63 (96.7%), max 16.63 (102.9%)
    Read seq. [MB/s]:  avg 44.79 - min 41.69 (93.1%), max 47.58 (106.2%)
    Read rnd. [MB/s]:  avg 40.54 - min 38.94 (96.0%), max 43.03 (106.1%)
    --- Disk 4 KB - Sync/Direct ---
    Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 15.88 - min 15.32 (96.5%), max 16.43 (103.5%)
    Write rnd. [MB/s]: avg 15.99 - min 15.54 (97.2%), max 16.47 (103.0%)
    Read seq. [MB/s]:  avg 44.80 - min 42.03 (93.8%), max 47.25 (105.5%)
    Read rnd. [MB/s]:  avg 40.76 - min 38.15 (93.6%), max 43.04 (105.6%)
    
    --- Disk 64 KB - Buffered ---
    Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 136.16 - min 132.51 (97.3%), max 140.42 (103.1%)
    Write rnd. [MB/s]: avg 161.49 - min 157.29 (97.4%), max 166.64 (103.2%)
    Read seq. [MB/s]:  avg 2510.66 - min 2307.04 (91.9%), max 2773.37 (110.5%)
    Read rnd. [MB/s]:  avg 500.63 - min 480.24 (95.9%), max 516.06 (103.1%)
    --- Disk 64 KB - Sync/Direct ---
    Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 13.11 - min 12.33 (94.1%), max 14.40 (109.8%)
    Write rnd. [MB/s]: avg 6.73 - min 6.17 (91.6%), max 7.62 (113.1%)
    Read seq. [MB/s]:  avg 2070.76 - min 1918.60 (92.7%), max 2246.63 (108.5%)
    Read rnd. [MB/s]:  avg 502.51 - min 477.94 (95.1%), max 520.16 (103.5%)
    
    --- Disk 1 MB - Buffered ---
    Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 195.90 - min 191.59 (97.8%), max 199.70 (101.9%)
    Write rnd. [MB/s]: avg 408.06 - min 390.99 (95.8%), max 421.97 (103.4%)
    Read seq. [MB/s]:  avg 3575.66 - min 3302.05 (92.3%), max 3891.28 (108.8%)
    Read rnd. [MB/s]:  avg 1658.31 - min 1512.88 (91.2%), max 1761.68 (106.2%)
    --- Disk 1 MB - Sync/Direct ---
    Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 33.58 - min 31.24 (93.0%), max 40.10 (119.4%)
    Write rnd. [MB/s]: avg 21.44 - min 19.56 (91.2%), max 27.53 (128.4%)
    Read seq. [MB/s]:  avg 2727.04 - min 2644.83 (97.0%), max 2866.48 (105.1%)
    Read rnd. [MB/s]:  avg 1673.29 - min 1479.22 (88.4%), max 1753.98 (104.8%)
    --- Disk IOps (Sync/Direct) ---
    Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 45.05 - min 44.64 (99.1%), max 45.49 (101.0%)
    IOps             : avg 11533.83 - min 11428.90 (99.1%), max 11645.98 (101.0%)
    

    Excuse me? You bloody fuckers throw an NVMe at me that runs circles around the already quite nice Leaseweb VPS, tsk? OK, OK, not a high-end speed deamon but a really fast disk with high IOps.
    And now, instead of apologizing for throwing that thing at me, you expect me to honestly say what I think? OK, albeit grumbling: I think that so far this VPS smells like a "buy! buy! buy!"

    But there's still one open question, the connectivity of that thing. Maybe I'll have my revenge after all ... * evil grin

    --- Europe ---
    
    NO OSL mirror.terrahost.no [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 66.9 - min 48.5 (72.5%), max 80.9 (121.0%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 139.5 - min 138.9 (99.6%), max 145.7 (104.4%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 175.4 - min 139.0 (79.2%), max 308.2 (175.7%)
    
    UK KNT www.mirrorservice.org [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 76.3 - min 32.7 (42.9%), max 91.9 (120.5%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 127.5 - min 127.0 (99.6%), max 134.2 (105.3%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 156.1 - min 127.5 (81.7%), max 307.0 (196.7%)
    
    NL AMS mirrors.xtom.nl [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 93.1 - min 84.0 (90.3%), max 98.1 (105.4%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 118.0 - min 116.8 (99.0%), max 119.4 (101.2%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 119.3 - min 116.8 (97.9%), max 126.1 (105.7%)
    
    DE FRA fra.lg.core-backbone.com [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 84.5 - min 57.8 (68.4%), max 93.9 (111.2%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 121.8 - min 118.5 (97.3%), max 131.6 (108.0%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 131.6 - min 118.8 (90.3%), max 145.7 (110.7%)
    
    FR PAR mirror.in2p3.fr [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 90.5 - min 59.9 (66.2%), max 95.5 (105.6%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 118.9 - min 118.3 (99.5%), max 120.4 (101.3%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 153.0 - min 118.3 (77.3%), max 747.8 (488.6%)
    
    IT MIL it1.mirror.vhosting-it.com [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 60.5 - min 38.0 (62.8%), max 71.8 (118.5%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 185.4 - min 178.4 (96.2%), max 298.3 (160.9%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 193.6 - min 178.5 (92.2%), max 344.6 (178.0%)
    
    ES MAD mirror.es.stackscale.com [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 80.4 - min 35.6 (44.2%), max 90.5 (112.5%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 129.3 - min 128.1 (99.1%), max 146.9 (113.6%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 146.7 - min 128.2 (87.4%), max 282.8 (192.7%)
    
    RO BUC mirrors.hosterion.ro [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 79.2 - min 51.5 (65.0%), max 83.7 (105.7%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 136.4 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 138.6 (101.6%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 139.4 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 153.1 (109.8%)
    
    RU MOS speedtest.hostkey.ru [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 74.4 - min 55.8 (75.1%), max 78.2 (105.2%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 147.8 - min 146.3 (99.0%), max 148.7 (100.6%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 154.5 - min 146.9 (95.1%), max 166.9 (108.0%)
    
    --- Asia / Oceania ---
    
    RU SIB mirror.truenetwork.ru [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 53.7 - min 48.9 (91.0%), max 57.8 (107.7%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 196.8 - min 193.6 (98.4%), max 200.9 (102.1%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 204.6 - min 194.0 (94.8%), max 235.9 (115.3%)
    
    IR SHI ir.almalinux.sindad.cloud [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 56.6 - min 43.8 (77.3%), max 60.7 (107.3%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 189.6 - min 188.0 (99.2%), max 192.3 (101.4%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 200.8 - min 188.6 (93.9%), max 222.0 (110.6%)
    
    IN MUM mirrors.piconets.webwerks.in [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 849.5 - min 697.1 (82.1%), max 895.6 (105.4%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 0.4 - min 0.3 (68.4%), max 1.0 (227.9%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 0.9 - min 0.4 (44.9%), max 22.2 (2490.9%)
    
    SG SGP mirror.jingk.ai [F: 4]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 174.5 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 202.5 (116.0%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 57.8 - min 55.3 (95.7%), max 59.6 (103.2%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 90.4 - min 58.4 (64.6%), max 244.2 (270.1%)
    
    CN HKG mirrors.xtom.hk [F: 55]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 32.9 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 141.0 (428.5%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 79.7 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 99.4 (124.7%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 80.9 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 102.8 (127.1%)
    
    CN BEJ mirrors.bfsu.edu.cn [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 80.5 - min 68.0 (84.4%), max 89.0 (110.6%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 145.2 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 156.3 (107.6%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 145.2 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 156.3 (107.6%)
    
    JP OSA mirrors.xtom.jp [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 78.4 - min 66.1 (84.3%), max 85.8 (109.5%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 135.9 - min 129.3 (95.2%), max 147.5 (108.6%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 140.9 - min 129.4 (91.9%), max 162.8 (115.6%)
    
    AU SYD mirrors.xtom.au [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 71.4 - min 63.3 (88.6%), max 78.6 (110.0%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 150.1 - min 144.1 (96.0%), max 159.8 (106.4%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 157.5 - min 146.7 (93.2%), max 209.6 (133.1%)
    
    --- Africa ---
    
    ZA JOB mirror.datakeepers.co.za [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 47.6 - min 22.1 (46.4%), max 52.1 (109.3%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 232.1 - min 229.2 (98.8%), max 246.6 (106.3%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 240.5 - min 229.3 (95.4%), max 726.5 (302.1%)
    
    KE NAI mirror.liquidtelecom.com [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 43.5 - min 24.9 (57.1%), max 46.4 (106.6%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 245.5 - min 245.1 (99.8%), max 246.7 (100.5%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 294.5 - min 245.2 (83.2%), max 1439.3 (488.7%)
    
    --- America ---
    
    US NYC nyc.mirrors.clouvider.net [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 55.5 - min 43.6 (78.6%), max 63.8 (115.1%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 210.8 - min 200.7 (95.2%), max 298.9 (141.8%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 235.1 - min 200.7 (85.4%), max 1443.3 (613.9%)
    
    US CHI linux-mirrors.fnal.gov [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 49.8 - min 43.3 (86.9%), max 53.1 (106.6%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 211.6 - min 210.8 (99.6%), max 218.5 (103.2%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 223.3 - min 210.8 (94.4%), max 256.4 (114.8%)
    
    US LAX mirror.alma.lax1.serverforge.org [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 45.9 - min 32.1 (70.0%), max 49.6 (108.1%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 246.3 - min 242.7 (98.5%), max 254.3 (103.2%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 247.0 - min 242.7 (98.3%), max 254.3 (103.0%)
    

    I'll again split it into regions
    Europe - Failure (mine). Can't complain. I mean those results aren't orgasm inducing but they are quite decent (except for the swiss target failing. Have you learned that from Leaseweb? g).
    Asia / Oceania - Do you *want
    to provoke me? How am I supposed to complain about over 170 Mb/s to SGP, about 80 Mb/s to both China targets, nearly 80 Mb/s to the Japan target, and still over 70 Mb/s to Ozzyland?
    My only consolation is that the secondary Japan target is a complete failure.
    Africa - kind of decent as well.
    America - Haha, this is my victory moment! Those results are quite poor.
    What? That's seriously far away from India and hence better results can hardly be expected? Good explanation - but not keeping me from doing my victory dance * evil grin

    Joking aside: what a nice VPS! In fact I'm thinking that this VPS likely is the best of the bunch (read: more attractive than the Leaseweb Asian VPSs) in terms of Asia connectivity.
    I think the only way to make this box unattractive was to make this box too expensive. So, what's the price, also for a 4 vCores, 6 or 8 GB version? And why is there no LET promo yet, and I mean a really tasty one, Mr. HostDZire?

  • jsgjsg Member, Resident Benchmarker

    Finally to the last VPS, another @HostDZire India VPS but this time with an Epyc processor

    First, as usual ...

    Version 2.5.0a, (c) 2018+ jsg (->lowendtalk.com)
    Machine: amd64, Arch.: amd64, Model: AMD EPYC 7K62 48-Core Processor            
    OS, version: FreeBSD 14.2, Mem.: 7.989 GB
    CPU - Cores: 4, Family/Model/Stepping: 23/49/0
    Cache: 32K/32K L1d/L1i, 512K L2, 192M 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
              extapic cr8_legacy lzcnt sse4a misalignsse 3dnowprefetch osvw
    
    AES? Yes
    Nested Virt.? No
    HW RNG? Yes
    
    ProcMem SC [MB/s]: avg 232.8 - min 87.5 (37.6 %), max 364.7 (156.7 %)
    ProcMem MA [MB/s]: avg 977.5 - min 812.7 (83.1 %), max 1190.0 (121.7 %)
    ProcMem MB [MB/s]: avg 1061.8 - min 936.2 (88.2 %), max 1200.0 (113.0 %)
    ProcMem AES [MB/s]: avg 1148.8 - min 1135.1 (98.8 %), max 1154.7 (100.5 %)
    ProcMem RSA [kp/s]: avg 103.4 - min 87.5 (84.6 %), max 108.4 (104.8 %)
    

    No AVX2, meeeh. But otherwise: WOW! All boxes ticked, except for "nested" which with 4 vCores may make sense for some. Very good results!

    I guess the disk performance is similar to the other India VPS, let's see ...

    --- Disk 4 KB - Buffered ---
    Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 11.03 - min 9.83 (89.1%), max 11.87 (107.6%)
    Write rnd. [MB/s]: avg 10.76 - min 10.27 (95.5%), max 11.96 (111.2%)
    Read seq. [MB/s]:  avg 27.26 - min 23.67 (86.8%), max 29.61 (108.6%)
    Read rnd. [MB/s]:  avg 23.92 - min 17.16 (71.7%), max 27.21 (113.8%)
    --- Disk 4 KB - Sync/Direct ---
    Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 10.96 - min 10.32 (94.1%), max 12.10 (110.4%)
    Write rnd. [MB/s]: avg 10.84 - min 10.08 (93.0%), max 11.97 (110.4%)
    Read seq. [MB/s]:  avg 27.48 - min 24.41 (88.8%), max 29.55 (107.5%)
    Read rnd. [MB/s]:  avg 24.18 - min 21.84 (90.3%), max 26.59 (110.0%)
    
    --- Disk 64 KB - Buffered ---
    Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 101.07 - min 93.82 (92.8%), max 111.37 (110.2%)
    Write rnd. [MB/s]: avg 115.28 - min 110.15 (95.5%), max 125.67 (109.0%)
    Read seq. [MB/s]:  avg 2567.24 - min 2303.08 (89.7%), max 2906.02 (113.2%)
    Read rnd. [MB/s]:  avg 327.57 - min 287.37 (87.7%), max 369.43 (112.8%)
    --- Disk 64 KB - Sync/Direct ---
    Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 10.84 - min 10.04 (92.7%), max 12.42 (114.6%)
    Write rnd. [MB/s]: avg 5.88 - min 5.41 (92.0%), max 6.61 (112.4%)
    Read seq. [MB/s]:  avg 2389.18 - min 2114.52 (88.5%), max 2615.07 (109.5%)
    Read rnd. [MB/s]:  avg 326.02 - min 195.43 (59.9%), max 346.11 (106.2%)
    
    --- Disk 1 MB - Buffered ---
    Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 162.77 - min 155.02 (95.2%), max 174.99 (107.5%)
    Write rnd. [MB/s]: avg 339.45 - min 320.42 (94.4%), max 370.78 (109.2%)
    Read seq. [MB/s]:  avg 3875.63 - min 3612.01 (93.2%), max 4613.37 (119.0%)
    Read rnd. [MB/s]:  avg 1320.16 - min 1231.81 (93.3%), max 1521.97 (115.3%)
    --- Disk 1 MB - Sync/Direct ---
    Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 39.44 - min 37.77 (95.8%), max 42.60 (108.0%)
    Write rnd. [MB/s]: avg 26.91 - min 25.85 (96.1%), max 28.46 (105.8%)
    Read seq. [MB/s]:  avg 3408.70 - min 3222.72 (94.5%), max 3900.08 (114.4%)
    Read rnd. [MB/s]:  avg 1314.11 - min 1228.03 (93.4%), max 1476.73 (112.4%)
    --- Disk IOps (Sync/Direct) ---
    Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 36.13 - min 34.89 (96.6%), max 53.81 (148.9%)
    IOps             : avg 9249.06 - min 8931.43 (96.6%), max 13776.63 (149.0%)
    

    OK, somewhat slower than the other one but still very nice results. Very decent, me like.

    Connectivity probably also very similar, I guess. Let's have a look ...

    --- Europe ---
    
    NO OSL mirror.terrahost.no [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 66.3 - min 58.1 (87.6%), max 77.7 (117.2%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 148.7 - min 144.8 (97.4%), max 157.7 (106.1%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 185.4 - min 144.9 (78.2%), max 685.1 (369.6%)
    
    UK KNT www.mirrorservice.org [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 77.1 - min 51.9 (67.3%), max 90.7 (117.6%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 145.4 - min 144.2 (99.2%), max 148.1 (101.8%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 151.1 - min 144.3 (95.5%), max 284.5 (188.3%)
    
    NL AMS mirrors.xtom.nl [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 93.1 - min 88.2 (94.8%), max 96.8 (104.0%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 117.0 - min 116.8 (99.8%), max 117.5 (100.4%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 119.6 - min 116.9 (97.7%), max 127.9 (106.9%)
    
    DE FRA fra.lg.core-backbone.com [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 78.9 - min 72.8 (92.3%), max 88.2 (111.8%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 124.5 - min 118.7 (95.3%), max 131.9 (106.0%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 133.5 - min 118.9 (89.1%), max 144.2 (108.1%)
    
    FR PAR mirror.in2p3.fr [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 89.9 - min 83.3 (92.7%), max 94.1 (104.6%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 120.3 - min 118.6 (98.6%), max 121.6 (101.0%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 153.4 - min 118.7 (77.4%), max 480.1 (312.9%)
    
    IT MIL it1.mirror.vhosting-it.com [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 60.9 - min 52.1 (85.6%), max 67.2 (110.4%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 181.8 - min 178.0 (97.9%), max 194.8 (107.1%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 187.1 - min 178.7 (95.5%), max 258.8 (138.3%)
    
    ES MAD mirror.es.stackscale.com [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 79.6 - min 72.9 (91.6%), max 87.5 (109.9%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 143.1 - min 142.6 (99.7%), max 143.6 (100.4%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 156.4 - min 142.6 (91.2%), max 623.9 (398.9%)
    
    RO BUC mirrors.hosterion.ro [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 76.0 - min 71.9 (94.6%), max 78.8 (103.7%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 138.1 - min 137.6 (99.7%), max 145.3 (105.2%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 141.1 - min 137.6 (97.5%), max 151.4 (107.3%)
    
    RU MOS speedtest.hostkey.ru [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 73.4 - min 65.8 (89.5%), max 76.9 (104.7%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 147.8 - min 146.3 (99.0%), max 150.1 (101.6%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 155.1 - min 146.8 (94.6%), max 169.9 (109.5%)
    
    --- Asia / Oceania ---
    
    RU SIB mirror.truenetwork.ru [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 54.4 - min 50.3 (92.6%), max 58.6 (107.8%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 199.0 - min 194.8 (97.9%), max 207.3 (104.2%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 204.5 - min 195.0 (95.4%), max 217.5 (106.4%)
    
    IR TEH mirror.mobinhost.com [F: 2]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 56.1 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 62.4 (111.2%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 187.9 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 246.8 (131.3%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 195.9 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 258.4 (131.9%)
    
    IN MUM mirrors.piconets.webwerks.in [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 859.1 - min 718.4 (83.6%), max 896.2 (104.3%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 0.5 - min 0.4 (79.2%), max 2.2 (435.6%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 0.6 - min 0.4 (63.7%), max 2.2 (350.4%)
    
    SG SGP mirror.jingk.ai [F: 6]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 170.1 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 199.7 (117.4%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 63.3 - min 58.0 (91.6%), max 71.6 (113.1%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 89.2 - min 60.2 (67.5%), max 228.7 (256.5%)
    
    CN HKG mirrors.xtom.hk [F: 55]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 31.4 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 137.3 (437.3%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 77.2 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 90.8 (117.6%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 78.9 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 112.4 (142.5%)
    
    CN BEJ mirrors.bfsu.edu.cn [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 79.0 - min 52.5 (66.5%), max 89.0 (112.8%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 142.0 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 156.4 (110.1%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 142.2 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 156.4 (110.0%)
    
    JP OSA mirrors.xtom.jp [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 78.8 - min 70.0 (88.9%), max 88.2 (111.9%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 139.5 - min 131.4 (94.2%), max 148.8 (106.7%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 143.0 - min 131.5 (92.0%), max 155.9 (109.0%)
    
    AU SYD mirror.internet.asn.au [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 71.6 - min 63.3 (88.4%), max 78.2 (109.1%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 153.5 - min 149.2 (97.2%), max 159.6 (104.0%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 160.7 - min 149.3 (92.9%), max 182.2 (113.4%)
    
    --- Africa ---
    
    ZA JOB mirror.datakeepers.co.za [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 48.9 - min 33.5 (68.6%), max 52.3 (107.1%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 227.6 - min 217.3 (95.5%), max 246.4 (108.3%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 235.3 - min 217.6 (92.5%), max 421.0 (178.9%)
    
    KE NAI mirror.liquidtelecom.com [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 44.3 - min 25.8 (58.2%), max 46.4 (104.7%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 241.7 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 245.5 (101.6%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 272.5 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 1028.1 (377.3%)
    
    --- America ---
    
    US NYC nyc.mirrors.clouvider.net [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 53.8 - min 49.2 (91.3%), max 61.3 (113.8%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 212.0 - min 209.2 (98.7%), max 216.0 (101.9%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 212.9 - min 209.2 (98.3%), max 223.4 (104.9%)
    
    US CHI linux-mirrors.fnal.gov [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 50.1 - min 43.5 (86.9%), max 54.1 (107.9%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 209.1 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 219.6 (105.0%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 221.1 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 252.5 (114.2%)
    
    US LAX mirror.alma.lax1.serverforge.org [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 46.6 - min 43.8 (94.1%), max 48.9 (105.0%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 241.4 - min 234.7 (97.2%), max 249.2 (103.2%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 245.2 - min 234.7 (95.7%), max 259.6 (105.9%)
    

    Normally here I'd say "I'll split ..." but that's not even needed as the two are so similar, basically copies of each other.

    So, I'll keep it short and just point at the other India VPS.

    Thanked by 2zGato HostDZire
  • tldr: stick with WDC

  • jsgjsg Member, Resident Benchmarker

    @Motion3549 said:
    tldr: stick with WDC

    Half Yes. And No.

    Yes, the Asia Leaseweb VPSs look disappointing to me - but that doesn't necessarily mean a lot because I don't know the situation in Asia well. Maybe those VPSs are attractive, maybe not, I simply can't know for sure. Maybe some users from Asia can help out.

    And No, because, obviously depending on price which AFAIK isn't known yet, I think both Indian VPS look like a very good compromise, because really decent Asia/Oceania connectivity but also acceptable to decent in most other regions. I personally think those India VPSs may be winners, if the price is right.

    Whatever, now hard data is out and available here, so everyone can make an informed decision based on his personal needs.

    Thanked by 1HostDZire
  • @HostDZire said:

    @cookie_stamp said:
    me personally I don’t trust this company, write “HostDzire Reviews” in google, and check links for yourself.

    Professional company not rely on one person who decide everything, any wrong move and you lost all the data, “like how is this happened”

    Serious people would rent some space in data centers around the globe, purchase hardware to own whole infrastructure, and not reselling the things.

    I choose to pay more cash, and make a choice more wise, not just jump on the first call girl for a cheap price, it’s better find a wife for life.

    It's important to recognize that it's not possible to satisfy every customer, as expectations can vary widely. In any business, there will be instances where users may feel dissatisfied—particularly when services are denied due to violations or misuse. Unfortunately, some of these situations can result in negative reviews, even when the provider is simply enforcing fair usage policies.

    For example, in our shared RDP services, users engaging in illegal activities are promptly banned. Despite this being necessary and clearly stated in our terms, it sometimes leads to unjustified negative feedback.

    Some clients may take such decisions personally and attempt to impact our reputation. However, we've been in this business for over 10 years, and we believe our long-standing success speaks for itself.

    If you check platforms like LowEndTalk (LET), you’ll find that we’ve served many clients here with very few—if any—negative reviews. We consistently strive to meet and exceed our clients' expectations. That said, no provider—regardless of size, even billion-dollar companies—can fulfill every single expectation 100% of the time.

    Regarding infrastructure, we operate using our own hardware in both India and the Netherlands:

    India: Our Cloud VPS services are hosted in Mumbai at the Iron Mountain Data Center. We fully own the hardware, and have actively posted offers for this location.

    Netherlands: We also have racks in AMS-01 (Leaseweb/IMDC) with our own dedicated hardware. While we haven’t posted public offers for this location yet, the infrastructure is fully under our ownership.

    We remain committed to transparency, reliability, and continuous improvement. Thank you for your continued trust and support.

    Reading your terms of service you seem a little shady and kind of deceptive, I was going to print your terms of service here but I'm not going to,

    buyer beware look for it yourself and read it
    :
    https://hostdzire.com/legal/terms.pdf

  • @jsg said:

    @Motion3549 said:
    tldr: stick with WDC

    Half Yes. And No.

    Yes, the Asia Leaseweb VPSs look disappointing to me - but that doesn't necessarily mean a lot because I don't know the situation in Asia well. Maybe those VPSs are attractive, maybe not, I simply can't know for sure. Maybe some users from Asia can help out.

    And No, because, obviously depending on price which AFAIK isn't known yet, I think both Indian VPS look like a very good compromise, because really decent Asia/Oceania connectivity but also acceptable to decent in most other regions. I personally think those India VPSs may be winners, if the price is right.

    Whatever, now hard data is out and available here, so everyone can make an informed decision based on his personal needs.

    all llm inference endpoints in US/EU, as the framework more mature, the need of low latency is increasing. even now as I use for basic chat query, the latency is affecting the experience.

    that is my use case though.

  • @painfreepc said:

    @HostDZire said:

    @cookie_stamp said:
    me personally I don’t trust this company, write “HostDzire Reviews” in google, and check links for yourself.

    Professional company not rely on one person who decide everything, any wrong move and you lost all the data, “like how is this happened”

    Serious people would rent some space in data centers around the globe, purchase hardware to own whole infrastructure, and not reselling the things.

    I choose to pay more cash, and make a choice more wise, not just jump on the first call girl for a cheap price, it’s better find a wife for life.

    It's important to recognize that it's not possible to satisfy every customer, as expectations can vary widely. In any business, there will be instances where users may feel dissatisfied—particularly when services are denied due to violations or misuse. Unfortunately, some of these situations can result in negative reviews, even when the provider is simply enforcing fair usage policies.

    For example, in our shared RDP services, users engaging in illegal activities are promptly banned. Despite this being necessary and clearly stated in our terms, it sometimes leads to unjustified negative feedback.

    Some clients may take such decisions personally and attempt to impact our reputation. However, we've been in this business for over 10 years, and we believe our long-standing success speaks for itself.

    If you check platforms like LowEndTalk (LET), you’ll find that we’ve served many clients here with very few—if any—negative reviews. We consistently strive to meet and exceed our clients' expectations. That said, no provider—regardless of size, even billion-dollar companies—can fulfill every single expectation 100% of the time.

    Regarding infrastructure, we operate using our own hardware in both India and the Netherlands:

    India: Our Cloud VPS services are hosted in Mumbai at the Iron Mountain Data Center. We fully own the hardware, and have actively posted offers for this location.

    Netherlands: We also have racks in AMS-01 (Leaseweb/IMDC) with our own dedicated hardware. While we haven’t posted public offers for this location yet, the infrastructure is fully under our ownership.

    We remain committed to transparency, reliability, and continuous improvement. Thank you for your continued trust and support.

    Reading your terms of service you seem a little shady and kind of deceptive, I was going to print your terms of service here but I'm not going to,

    buyer beware look for it yourself and read it
    :
    https://hostdzire.com/legal/terms.pdf

    What specific terms you think it is shady/deceptive?

    Thanked by 1jsg
  • @Motion3549 said:

    @painfreepc said:

    @HostDZire said:

    @cookie_stamp said:
    me personally I don’t trust this company, write “HostDzire Reviews” in google, and check links for yourself.

    Professional company not rely on one person who decide everything, any wrong move and you lost all the data, “like how is this happened”

    Serious people would rent some space in data centers around the globe, purchase hardware to own whole infrastructure, and not reselling the things.

    I choose to pay more cash, and make a choice more wise, not just jump on the first call girl for a cheap price, it’s better find a wife for life.

    It's important to recognize that it's not possible to satisfy every customer, as expectations can vary widely. In any business, there will be instances where users may feel dissatisfied—particularly when services are denied due to violations or misuse. Unfortunately, some of these situations can result in negative reviews, even when the provider is simply enforcing fair usage policies.

    For example, in our shared RDP services, users engaging in illegal activities are promptly banned. Despite this being necessary and clearly stated in our terms, it sometimes leads to unjustified negative feedback.

    Some clients may take such decisions personally and attempt to impact our reputation. However, we've been in this business for over 10 years, and we believe our long-standing success speaks for itself.

    If you check platforms like LowEndTalk (LET), you’ll find that we’ve served many clients here with very few—if any—negative reviews. We consistently strive to meet and exceed our clients' expectations. That said, no provider—regardless of size, even billion-dollar companies—can fulfill every single expectation 100% of the time.

    Regarding infrastructure, we operate using our own hardware in both India and the Netherlands:

    India: Our Cloud VPS services are hosted in Mumbai at the Iron Mountain Data Center. We fully own the hardware, and have actively posted offers for this location.

    Netherlands: We also have racks in AMS-01 (Leaseweb/IMDC) with our own dedicated hardware. While we haven’t posted public offers for this location yet, the infrastructure is fully under our ownership.

    We remain committed to transparency, reliability, and continuous improvement. Thank you for your continued trust and support.

    Reading your terms of service you seem a little shady and kind of deceptive, I was going to print your terms of service here but I'm not going to,

    buyer beware look for it yourself and read it
    :
    https://hostdzire.com/legal/terms.pdf

    What specific terms you think it is shady/deceptive?

    If you don't see any issues with the language of certain lines there especially in like 5.7 and 6.3, well hey enjoy yourself be happy I'm staying for away, for example why does it say torrent and or any file so I can't upload and download more than five of any file at a time even if it's not a torrent, okay I can't host a CDN for my own network okay what exactly can I do with the server or I can't run anything above 10% CPU usage

  • HostDZireHostDZire Member, Patron Provider
    edited June 3

    @painfreepc said:

    @Motion3549 said:

    @painfreepc said:

    @HostDZire said:

    @cookie_stamp said:
    me personally I don’t trust this company, write “HostDzire Reviews” in google, and check links for yourself.

    Professional company not rely on one person who decide everything, any wrong move and you lost all the data, “like how is this happened”

    Serious people would rent some space in data centers around the globe, purchase hardware to own whole infrastructure, and not reselling the things.

    I choose to pay more cash, and make a choice more wise, not just jump on the first call girl for a cheap price, it’s better find a wife for life.

    It's important to recognize that it's not possible to satisfy every customer, as expectations can vary widely. In any business, there will be instances where users may feel dissatisfied—particularly when services are denied due to violations or misuse. Unfortunately, some of these situations can result in negative reviews, even when the provider is simply enforcing fair usage policies.

    For example, in our shared RDP services, users engaging in illegal activities are promptly banned. Despite this being necessary and clearly stated in our terms, it sometimes leads to unjustified negative feedback.

    Some clients may take such decisions personally and attempt to impact our reputation. However, we've been in this business for over 10 years, and we believe our long-standing success speaks for itself.

    If you check platforms like LowEndTalk (LET), you’ll find that we’ve served many clients here with very few—if any—negative reviews. We consistently strive to meet and exceed our clients' expectations. That said, no provider—regardless of size, even billion-dollar companies—can fulfill every single expectation 100% of the time.

    Regarding infrastructure, we operate using our own hardware in both India and the Netherlands:

    India: Our Cloud VPS services are hosted in Mumbai at the Iron Mountain Data Center. We fully own the hardware, and have actively posted offers for this location.

    Netherlands: We also have racks in AMS-01 (Leaseweb/IMDC) with our own dedicated hardware. While we haven’t posted public offers for this location yet, the infrastructure is fully under our ownership.

    We remain committed to transparency, reliability, and continuous improvement. Thank you for your continued trust and support.

    Reading your terms of service you seem a little shady and kind of deceptive, I was going to print your terms of service here but I'm not going to,

    buyer beware look for it yourself and read it
    :
    https://hostdzire.com/legal/terms.pdf

    What specific terms you think it is shady/deceptive?

    If you don't see any issues with the language of certain lines there especially in like 5.7 and 6.3, well hey enjoy yourself be happy I'm staying for away, for example why does it say torrent and or any file so I can't upload and download more than five of any file at a time even if it's not a torrent, okay I can't host a CDN for my own network okay what exactly can I do with the server or I can't run anything above 10% CPU usage

    Hello,


    6.3 Which says 5-10 torrents at a time is for Shared Rdp Service. here is plan
    You can see it clearly says ACCEPTABLE USAGE POLICY - Rdp Or Remote Desktop Services

    We have this limit just to prevent disk overloading. Even in rdp now we have SSD disk in most plans, So we dont really bother customer if we dont see disk overloading in any shared rdp servers, so by keeping this rule we can prevent abusive customers.



    5.3 which says: No CDN or Media Streaming not allowed is for Dedicated Servers
    This was leaseweb terms, so we also added this rule similarly.


    But i must say now this limit we dont have in dedicated server, we will update these terms soon, Thanks for pointing it out.
    Currently we have lots of video filehost customers who use these server, they are facing no issue, we also have many torrent/plex customers.


  • HostDZireHostDZire Member, Patron Provider

    @jsg

    Thank you so much for doing this for us and the community, after seeing this detailed testing and result i must say writing all this just to help community is something rare. People don't do stuff like this unless they get any benefit for this.

    But there are users like you who remain neutral and give honest review so it can help other users to decide. This was the same reason i had asked you to test these vps.
    We never wanted only good things to be said in this review, we wanted what correct and actual, So when people order they can have correct expecations about these vps.

    Now our customers will know what to expect by ordering this vps.
    I will now just give this post link to customers who will ask regarding performance/connectivity.

    So thank you so much for this 🙏

    Thanked by 1jsg
  • daviddavid Member

    Ping time from within APAC is really high for me, for both Singapore and Japan test IPs.

    Singapore

    PING 142.91.98.125 (142.91.98.125) from 192.168.3.101 eth0: 56(84) bytes of data.
    64 bytes from 142.91.98.125: icmp_seq=1 ttl=53 time=190 ms
    64 bytes from 142.91.98.125: icmp_seq=2 ttl=53 time=190 ms
    64 bytes from 142.91.98.125: icmp_seq=3 ttl=53 time=189 ms
    64 bytes from 142.91.98.125: icmp_seq=4 ttl=53 time=191 ms
    64 bytes from 142.91.98.125: icmp_seq=5 ttl=53 time=192 ms
    
    --- 142.91.98.125 ping statistics ---
    5 packets transmitted, 5 received, 0% packet loss, time 4005ms
    rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 189.453/190.454/191.890/0.814 ms
    

    Japan

    PING 23.81.40.200 (23.81.40.200) from 192.168.3.101 eth0: 56(84) bytes of data.
    64 bytes from 23.81.40.200: icmp_seq=2 ttl=54 time=210 ms
    64 bytes from 23.81.40.200: icmp_seq=5 ttl=54 time=207 ms
    
    --- 23.81.40.200 ping statistics ---
    5 packets transmitted, 2 received, 60% packet loss, time 4047ms
    rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 207.103/208.490/209.878/1.387 ms
    

    Comparatively, I can get < 150ms latency to Los Angeles (non-leaseweb).

Sign In or Register to comment.