All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
RIYAD multi-location benchmarks and reviews
I'll start with a somewhat critical remark: I didn't want to look at and benchmark the current @RIYAD promo because it looks so desirable, but because, at least to me, it looks not at all tasty due to the still high prices. So I wondered what kind of miraculous wonder ice cream they sell and asked them whether they'd provide me with access for benchmarking. And they did, without any hesitation and even very generously as in no "72 hrs max." or similar condition and even with six locations!
Thank you for that, RIYAD and kudos, you seem to have big balls!
Which locations? Well, read on and see ... btw, all reviews are based on 45+ benchmark runs.
I'll start with the PL location:
Version 2.5.0a, (c) 2018+ jsg (->lowendtalk.com)
Machine: amd64, Arch.: amd64, Model: AMD Ryzen 9 7950X 16-Core Processor
OS, version: FreeBSD 14.2, Mem.: 5.989 GB
CPU - Cores: 4, Family/Model/Stepping: 25/97/2
Cache: 32K/32K L1d/L1i, 1024K L2, 64M L3
Std. Flags: fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat
pse36 cflsh mmx fxsr sse sse2 sse3 pclmulqdq ssse3 fma cx16 sse4_1
sse4_2 popcnt aes xsave osxsave avx f16c rdrnd hypervisor
Ext. Flags: syscall nx mmxext fxsr_opt pdpe1gb rdtscp lm lahf_lm cmp_legacy svm
cr8_legacy lzcnt sse4a misalignsse 3dnowprefetch osvw perfctr_core
AES? Yes
InNested Virt.? Yes
HW RNG? Yes
ProcMem SC [MB/s]: avg 448.3 - min 172.5 (38.5 %), max 729.6 (162.8 %)
ProcMem MA [MB/s]: avg 1850.0 - min 1540.0 (83.2 %), max 2350.0 (127.0 %)
ProcMem MB [MB/s]: avg 2006.7 - min 1800.0 (89.7 %), max 2210.0 (110.1 %)
ProcMem AES [MB/s]: avg 1978.0 - min 1919.4 (97.0 %), max 2004.0 (101.3 %)
ProcMem RSA [kp/s]: avg 182.3 - min 172.5 (94.6 %), max 191.3 (105.0 %)
Wow! Just wow! One of the best results I ever saw. And yes, the flags also are there, no AVX2 though.
Let's see if the disk also has excellent performance ...
--- Disk 4 KB - Buffered ---
Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 12.63 - min 12.13 (96.1%), max 13.28 (105.2%)
Write rnd. [MB/s]: avg 11.04 - min 10.21 (92.5%), max 11.64 (105.4%)
Read seq. [MB/s]: avg 24.02 - min 20.56 (85.6%), max 25.73 (107.1%)
Read rnd. [MB/s]: avg 20.70 - min 19.40 (93.7%), max 22.04 (106.5%)
--- Disk 4 KB - Sync/Direct ---
Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 12.45 - min 11.68 (93.8%), max 13.22 (106.2%)
Write rnd. [MB/s]: avg 10.97 - min 10.45 (95.2%), max 11.41 (104.0%)
Read seq. [MB/s]: avg 24.04 - min 22.91 (95.3%), max 25.26 (105.1%)
Read rnd. [MB/s]: avg 20.53 - min 19.52 (95.1%), max 21.74 (105.9%)
--- Disk 64 KB - Buffered ---
Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 140.21 - min 133.21 (95.0%), max 147.92 (105.5%)
Write rnd. [MB/s]: avg 117.48 - min 112.61 (95.9%), max 123.04 (104.7%)
Read seq. [MB/s]: avg 4754.05 - min 4148.86 (87.3%), max 5646.63 (118.8%)
Read rnd. [MB/s]: avg 281.98 - min 269.75 (95.7%), max 307.50 (109.0%)
--- Disk 64 KB - Sync/Direct ---
Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 21.75 - min 19.92 (91.6%), max 26.42 (121.5%)
Write rnd. [MB/s]: avg 10.95 - min 9.91 (90.5%), max 13.01 (118.8%)
Read seq. [MB/s]: avg 4767.72 - min 4128.60 (86.6%), max 5537.50 (116.1%)
Read rnd. [MB/s]: avg 286.88 - min 271.68 (94.7%), max 307.17 (107.1%)
--- Disk 1 MB - Buffered ---
Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 196.92 - min 189.95 (96.5%), max 205.02 (104.1%)
Write rnd. [MB/s]: avg 355.71 - min 341.63 (96.0%), max 381.36 (107.2%)
Read seq. [MB/s]: avg 6885.16 - min 6371.78 (92.5%), max 7738.79 (112.4%)
Read rnd. [MB/s]: avg 1453.16 - min 1271.11 (87.5%), max 1560.72 (107.4%)
--- Disk 1 MB - Sync/Direct ---
Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 62.25 - min 59.20 (95.1%), max 69.07 (110.9%)
Write rnd. [MB/s]: avg 43.11 - min 41.86 (97.1%), max 47.20 (109.5%)
Read seq. [MB/s]: avg 6895.55 - min 6434.08 (93.3%), max 7578.43 (109.9%)
Read rnd. [MB/s]: avg 1485.63 - min 1320.46 (88.9%), max 1570.29 (105.7%)
--- Disk IOps (Sync/Direct) ---
Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 44.67 - min 42.93 (96.1%), max 45.93 (102.8%)
IOps : avg 11435.36 - min 10989.15 (96.1%), max 11758.44 (102.8%)
Yay! Not the best NVMe I ever tested IIRC but certainly among the best and quite close to the best.
Impressive. But even more impressive: the very low spread. Their worst spread is better than many VPS's I've benchmarked best spread! Say "business class" without saying "business class"!
So, let's see how the connectivity is. Considering what I saw so far as well as the quite central location (in Europe), my expectations are high.
--- Europe ---
NO OSL mirror.terrahost.no [F: 0]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 266.7 - min 201.2 (75.5%), max 323.4 (121.2%)
Ping [ms]: avg 33.2 - min 33.1 (99.7%), max 33.3 (100.3%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 42.0 - min 33.2 (79.1%), max 54.4 (129.6%)
UK LON lon.speedtest.clouvider.net [F: 0]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 399.4 - min 346.9 (86.9%), max 428.1 (107.2%)
Ping [ms]: avg 25.7 - min 25.5 (99.3%), max 27.6 (107.5%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 27.0 - min 25.5 (94.6%), max 29.5 (109.4%)
NL AMS nl.mirrors.clouvider.net [F: 0]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 441.0 - min 274.3 (62.2%), max 504.1 (114.3%)
Ping [ms]: avg 23.0 - min 22.7 (98.9%), max 23.1 (100.6%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 23.7 - min 22.9 (96.8%), max 26.2 (110.7%)
DE FRA fra.lg.core-backbone.com [F: 0]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 397.8 - min 358.2 (90.0%), max 431.4 (108.5%)
Ping [ms]: avg 26.4 - min 26.3 (99.4%), max 26.6 (100.6%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 27.4 - min 26.3 (96.0%), max 30.1 (109.8%)
FR PAR mirror.in2p3.fr [F: 0]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 241.9 - min 149.1 (61.7%), max 302.8 (125.2%)
Ping [ms]: avg 37.4 - min 37.3 (99.7%), max 37.5 (100.3%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 98.8 - min 37.4 (37.8%), max 396.9 (401.5%)
IT MIL it1.mirror.vhosting-it.com [F: 0]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 407.3 - min 336.4 (82.6%), max 435.2 (106.8%)
Ping [ms]: avg 26.5 - min 26.3 (99.4%), max 26.7 (100.9%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 28.8 - min 26.4 (91.7%), max 75.8 (263.4%)
ES MAD mirror.es.stackscale.com [F: 44]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 0.0 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 0.0 (0.0%)
Ping [ms]: avg 49.8 - min 49.7 (99.8%), max 50.0 (100.4%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 49.8 - min 49.7 (99.8%), max 50.0 (100.4%)
RO BUC almalinux.mirrors.orange.ro [F: 0]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 321.7 - min 272.4 (84.7%), max 348.0 (108.2%)
Ping [ms]: avg 32.2 - min 32.1 (99.8%), max 32.4 (100.8%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 39.0 - min 32.1 (82.2%), max 233.5 (598.2%)
RU MOS speedtest.hostkey.ru [F: 0]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 259.1 - min 194.0 (74.9%), max 275.4 (106.3%)
Ping [ms]: avg 42.0 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 43.2 (102.9%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 43.9 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 58.3 (132.7%)
--- Asia/Oceania ---
RU SIB mirror.truenetwork.ru [F: 0]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 117.3 - min 112.3 (95.7%), max 123.4 (105.1%)
Ping [ms]: avg 96.2 - min 96.0 (99.8%), max 97.0 (100.9%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 96.4 - min 96.0 (99.6%), max 103.8 (107.7%)
IR TEH mirror.mobinhost.com [F: 0]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 117.4 - min 36.3 (30.9%), max 132.8 (113.0%)
Ping [ms]: avg 87.5 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 96.1 (109.9%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 99.3 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 144.6 (145.6%)
IN MUM mirrors.piconets.webwerks.in [F: 0]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 77.3 - min 70.7 (91.4%), max 83.7 (108.2%)
Ping [ms]: avg 134.7 - min 90.1 (66.9%), max 136.5 (101.3%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 143.0 - min 132.2 (92.4%), max 159.7 (111.7%)
SG SGP mirror.sg.gs [F: 15]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 42.2 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 67.1 (158.9%)
Ping [ms]: avg 107.6 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 183.6 (170.6%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 108.2 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 187.9 (173.7%)
CN HKG mirrors.xtom.hk [F: 0]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 53.9 - min 52.0 (96.6%), max 55.8 (103.6%)
Ping [ms]: avg 200.3 - min 200.0 (99.8%), max 200.8 (100.2%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 201.1 - min 200.0 (99.4%), max 222.8 (110.8%)
CN BEJ mirrors.bfsu.edu.cn [F: 0]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 39.3 - min 31.3 (79.5%), max 41.9 (106.6%)
Ping [ms]: avg 257.0 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 263.5 (102.5%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 258.0 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 267.5 (103.7%)
JP OSA mirrors.xtom.jp [F: 0]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 39.6 - min 37.8 (95.5%), max 42.0 (106.0%)
Ping [ms]: avg 272.7 - min 265.4 (97.3%), max 276.1 (101.2%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 275.3 - min 271.1 (98.5%), max 280.9 (102.0%)
AU SYD mirror.internet.asn.au [F: 0]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 42.5 - min 42.1 (99.0%), max 42.8 (100.7%)
Ping [ms]: avg 266.0 - min 265.5 (99.8%), max 266.9 (100.3%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 266.3 - min 265.5 (99.7%), max 268.7 (100.9%)
--- Africa ---
ZA JOB mirror.datakeepers.co.za [F: 0]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 56.0 - min 49.7 (88.7%), max 58.9 (105.0%)
Ping [ms]: avg 185.7 - min 185.5 (99.9%), max 185.8 (100.1%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 187.9 - min 186.0 (99.0%), max 203.8 (108.5%)
KE NAI mirror.liquidtelecom.com [F: 0]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 63.0 - min 52.2 (82.8%), max 72.7 (115.5%)
Ping [ms]: avg 164.6 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 196.4 (119.3%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 171.5 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 202.2 (117.9%)
--- America ---
US NYC nyc.mirrors.clouvider.net [F: 0]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 115.9 - min 93.6 (80.8%), max 120.9 (104.2%)
Ping [ms]: avg 91.4 - min 91.3 (99.8%), max 91.6 (100.2%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 94.2 - min 91.4 (97.0%), max 96.7 (102.7%)
US CHI ord.mirror.rackspace.com [F: 0]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 100.1 - min 97.9 (97.8%), max 102.2 (102.1%)
Ping [ms]: avg 110.2 - min 110.1 (99.9%), max 110.4 (100.2%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 116.4 - min 110.1 (94.6%), max 142.4 (122.3%)
US LAX mirror.alma.lax1.serverforge.org [F: 0]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 63.9 - min 32.0 (50.1%), max 70.0 (109.6%)
Ping [ms]: avg 172.6 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 209.0 (121.1%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 173.5 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 212.9 (122.7%)
US SJO mirrors.xtom.us [F: 0]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 71.7 - min 69.1 (96.3%), max 73.7 (102.8%)
Ping [ms]: avg 154.7 - min 154.7 (100.0%), max 154.9 (100.1%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 155.0 - min 154.7 (99.8%), max 164.6 (106.2%)
As usual split into continents/regions.
Europe - Slightly half-cooked, not so much because a few secondary targets failed and, albeit very few, primary ones too, but mainly because I don't see a single Gb/s number or close to that. Plus the weird IT or FR result with Paris achieving only a bit under 250 Mb/s but Italy slightly over 400 Mb/s.
All in all decent to good connectivity but clearly not up to par with the the outstanding processor, memory, and disk results.
Asia / Oceania - I'll start with the positive: almost all secondary targets were reached, including all Iran and Ozzyland targets. Otherwise OK, within the normal range but nothing to write home about.
Africa - quite good actually.
America - besides the usual (in that region) half-cooked, decent results, not great but decent to the east coast and even to Chicago, but (not at all uncommon) mediocre results to the west coast
TL;DR/verdict: If your use case requires really high performance and a really fast NVMe but connectivity doesn't need to be particularly high, especially outside of Europe, this VPS is a good choice. I personally (caveat, I'm very Europe-centric) would not hesitate to use this VPS e.g. for a seriously dynamic and DB driven site.
Comments
Now on to the RO VPS, well kind of, you'll see ...
Slightly worse than the PL VPS, but frankly, clearly in "your car 'only' goes 250 km/h while mine goes 265 km/h" terrain that is, basically irrelevant, except maybe for very few extreme cases. I'm perfectly fine with what I see and call it excellent.
Now, to the disk.
IOps : avg 7743.20 - min 7498.19 (96.8%), max 7989.22 (103.2%)
Here the difference is significant and this one is, while still really good, clearly significantly less performant than the PL VPS. The spread is similarly low though.
Maybe connectivity can compensate?
Sorry, no it can't. In fact I couldn't even measure it, but that's not @RIYAD's fault but due to an obviously incompetently configured - by the DC! - firewall/DDOS protection system. Those idiots obviously follow the rule "someone with chopped off legs can't kick you". What a bunch of clueless imbeciles. Frankly, RIYAD should look for another DC, a professional one ...
TL;DR/verdict: Assuming it costs the same as the other VPS I'd clearly take one of those.
you ate with this review ngl good job king
So, let's move on the FI VPS which I got somewhat later but with high expectations.
YAY! Again an oustanding and excellent result, just a bee stick slower than the PL VPS, a difference which IMO can be ignored.
Very nice indeed!
How's the disk?
Yay again! A bit slower than the PL disk but who cares when you get about 40 MB/s and about 10k IOps?
So, lets look at the connectivity.
As usual split into continents/regions.
Europe - While I would expect at least a few Gb/s numbers in the close-by region from a VPS in that price class, over 500 Mb/s to NO is a decent start.
And about or over 250 Mb/s to at least all of western Europe is decent as well, although the ES target as well as a couple of secondary targets failed.
But Moscow achieving even over 600 Mb/s not only is comforting but actually breaks the record held by the LT VPS of @Hosteroid so far. Nice!
Asia / Oceania - The results are similar to the PL ones, often a bee stick faster, except for Ozzyland which achieved significantly worse results.
Oh, and almost all secondary targets not only were reached but most also achieved results very similar to the primary one.
Africa - Good, very similar to the PL results.
America - Slightly worse (than the PL results) on the east coast, very similar on the west coast.
TL;DR/Verdict: Basically the same as for the PL VPS but I personally would prefer this one as I don't care about somewhat better or worse processor, memory or disk performance at the highest end but I do care for really good connectivity to Russia. But of course YMMV and the PL VPS might be the more attractive one for you.
But, at least in my view, the real (inhouse) competitor isn't the PL VPS but the NO VPS.
So, let's look at the NO VPS ...
As usual sysinfo, processor, and memory first
It gets boring although in a luxurious way *g
So I won't even mention slight differences, the result anyway is "Yay! Very, very nice indeed!"
Maybe the disk performance is not that similar, let's look.
Nuh, again boring in a luxurious way *g
Why would I even look at and discuss minor to tiny differences with an NVMe north of 10k IOps ...
Rather let's look at the really interesting factor, connectivity. Will it be even better than the FI VPS?
As usual split into continents/regions.
Europe - Yessir! Very solidly above 5 Gb/s to close by targets (the secondary NO target achieved better than 1 Gb/s as well). Although, actually that super-target seems to be very, very close by as in "in the same DC" which it seems, being the terrahost/@gigahost DC is a big, big plus by itself!
I won't go through all the targets and compare the numbers but rather simply tell you my impression: this in my eyes is the most attractive of the bunch so far, modulo the Moscow target being in normal terrain again.
All in all I'm enchanted by this VPS.
Asia / Oceania - First, again almost all secondary targets reached with similar results (to the primary one). All in all the numbers are similar to the FI VPS with a slight tendency towards a bit better and a few ones slightly worse. Ozzyland however is significantly better on this NO VPS.
Africa - Good again.
America - Within the same ballpark but a bit better than both the PL and the FI VPS. All in all quite nice results.
TL;DR/Verdict: Basically a slightly better mix of my PL and my FI verdict. So far this is the one I'd pick. Really nice.
On to the UK VPS.
As usual ...
Hmm, another VPS that's significantly less performant than the best ones (wrt. processor and memory). That said those results still blow all E5v4, most (or even all?) Xeon Scalable and most Epyc based VPSs out of the water. So, yes, slower than the best but still damn fast enough.
And the disk, does it keep up with the others?
Hmmm, nope, not quite; significantly below both 40MB/s and 10 k IOps. That said, still a disk good enough for most tasks, even more demanding ones.
For connectivity I expect something very similar but maybe slightly better across the ocean. Let's see.
As usual split into continents/regions.
Europe - Yes, similar to the others so far, modulo a few extremes. What I noticed though is that with this VPS the FR/IT ratio makes much more sense. Also, while only few Gb/s results (plural, counting NL, AMS as close enough), all in all higher and more consistent results within Europe; only really far away targets like RU, MOS and RO achieve less than 300 - 400 Mb/s ... and still don't look bad. Nice! I like what I see.
Asia / Oceania - Also kind of similar, although at the higher end of the spectrum and the best of the bunch with quite a few targets.
Africa - Very good.
America - Clearly the best of the bunch, probably not unexpected.
TL;DR/Verdict: Really nice, but there is a 'but', namely the significantly weaker processor, memory, and disk performance. Now, granted, that won't be a live or die issue for 99% of use cases but still, it itches me. On the other hand, if you want decent or even very good connectivity globally this one clearly is the best compromise. As I personally don't care about global but only about European connectivity I'd clearly go with the NO VPS. But many want good global connectivity and for them this is the best choice I guess.
Finally and à propos "global", how about a jump across the Atlantic and a closer look at he US (Dallas IIRC) VPS?
As usual ...
Yay, top class again. Very nice indeed!
The disk as well?
Nuh. Better than the weak ones in Europe but weaker than the really great ones. But still, at least close to 10k IOps isn't something to complain about. All in all certainly good enough for even most disk bound tasks.
So, let's get to the question probably most of you are interested in: how good is the connectivity? After all, this VPS isn't on the east coast but in Texas AFAIk. Let's see.
As usual split into continents/regions.
Europe - Not surprisingly rather poor (from a european perspective). And no, way less than 100 Mb/s except for London and that only tightly doesn't cut it for a VPS in this class; I've seen significantly better VPS the other way around, not only from e.g. Leaseweb but also from @RIYAD.
Asia / Oceania - More on the mediocre side too except for far east Asia where this VPS beats most (not asian) VPS I've tested and seen so far.
Africa - normal, from America even decent I guess.
America - That's where this box shines. Not only good to very good results but also consistently. In fact I'm not sure I ever saw consistently 250 Mb/s or better throughout whole Murrica.
TL;DR/Verdict: I'd call it the Norway pendant in America. Everything that counts for at least most american customers modulo a less outstanding but still very decent disk plus very good connectivity within Murrica.
Overall (all VPSs) verdict: You probably expect or at least want honesty from a benchmarker and reviewer - and that's what you get.
Frankly, with their normal prices I wouldn't even look at @RIYAD's products. I'd just shrug, think "way too expensive especially for a not very well known and well reputed company", and click away. And even now, with their promo prices, I'd strongly suggest to adapt to the current market situation and prices.
To put it bluntly, if they want to get more attention - and sales - here on LET I think they should make their -40% and -50% promo prices their standard prices and then make promos yet another 20% or so percent lower. I mean 1000 times $10 (pulled out of my ass number just for an example) is better than 50 times $30 or even $50 ...
But OK, my task isn't to advise them and/or to increase their sales but to judge what they offer at the promo prices they have.
Maybe I'm a cheap skate, I always see and have in mind the bang per buck ratio but I'm not sure that I'd buy one of those promo VPS, except maybe their 75% off 4 Ryzen vCores, 8 GB memory, 100 GB NVMe, 8 TB traffic volume and even then I'd insist on the NO location (and mention that I get far higher traffic volume from others like e.g. Leaseweb).
Also: why, when I can get a really nice Leaseweb VPS via @HostDZire for way less $$?
But be that as it may, if I'd get a RIYAD VPS from their current promo I'd see basically 3 options, (a) and my personal favourite, a NO VPS, (b) a UK VPS in case connectivity to Murrica as well as within a major part of Europe was my priority, and (c) their Dallas (IIRC) VPS mainly for its excellent connectivity within the country.
But let's be reasonable, is "only" 30 MB and solidly below 10 k IOps really a problem, and should one only consider a VPS with top-class Ryzen performance, >= 40 MB/s and > 10 k IOps disk? I don't think so, even the less performant here still swim with the big fish.
Finally a point probably underrated (or not even noticed) point: their spread is consistently low to very acceptable, which strongly suggests that those nodes are not densely packed, let alone oversold. In other words, you can expect stability and stable performance from the @RIYAD VPS, which, especially for businesses and for certain kinds of demanding use cases may well be worth to pay a higher price.
Those VPS are relatively expensive even with promo pricing, but they certainly deserve a closer look and some pondering, especially for professional use cases.
What does that mean?
Oh, and thank you!
i can imagine this is you right now
@jsg thank you sharing your test results & feedback 👍
I'm done, all test VPS can be terminated/deleted.
You are welcome and thanks a lot!
In case you feel like it: I'd buy a NO VPS in case you offer me a really tasty special (and recurring, please) price
Friendly regards
Thank you for your tests.
But why not do a full yabs?
Because I prefer to do a real benchmark.
With no references to compare against, no way for people to reproduce the results, and no real world tests, it's useless waste of time.
Which package are you interested in? Perhaps I can provide you with a special offer.
I'll DM you. Thank you.