All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
Clouvider Dallas promo VPS benchmark and review (incl. extended targets set)
Although I'm often somewhat impressed by Clouvider I usually don't (and didn't till now) buy from them because I find them to be relatively expensive. I did assume though that you get something for your money, e.g. quality, reliability, and a polished user interface.
The former I still have to (reasonably) assume, the latter, the polished interface, is indeed there. And it's the small things like. e.g. automagic (non-english) keyboard layout support that make a panel a pain or a joy to use. Usually the first steps in the panel, setting up a VPS from an ISO, are cumbersome and something I quite dislike due to the need of finding out what to press for, say a '/', etc.
Not so with Clouvider. They are one of the rather few providers who make an ISO install via VNC with a non-english keyboard a breeze. Very nice!
But why did I buy that VPS anyway? Because, pardon me if that sounds weird, I already have a very good US VPS (in WDC from @HostDZire) but not any really good one somewhere "in the middle of the USA" (I'm quite Europe-centric, so Dallas, Kansas, Denver etc. all fit that bill g). So this Clouvider VPS seemed to be a good choice, especially with the 50% rebate.
Which at the same time is my first major complaint: that rebate is for the *first year only, and I really dislike that. A lot. So much that I'm unlikely to renew it.
Now let's look at that box, as usual sysinfo, processor, and memory first. Based on a bit over 30 runs.
Version 2.5.0a, (c) 2018+ jsg (->lowendtalk.com)
Machine: amd64, Arch.: amd64, Model: Intel(R) Xeon(R) Silver 4210R CPU @ 2.40GHz
OS, version: FreeBSD 14.2, Mem.: 3.989 GB
CPU - Cores: 2, Family/Model/Stepping: 6/85/7
Cache: 32K/32K L1d/L1i, 1024K L2, 13M L3
Std. Flags: fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat
pse36 cflsh mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss sse3 pclmulqdq vmx ssse3 fma cx16
pdcm pcid sse4_1 sse4_2 x2apic movbe popcnt tsc_deadline aes xsave
osxsave avx f16c rdrnd hypervisor
Ext. Flags: fsgsbase tsc_adjust bmi1 avx2 smep bmi2 erms invpcid mpx pat pse36
rdseed adx smap clflushopt clwb sha umip pku ospke syscall nx pdpe1gb
rdtscp lm lahf_lm lzcnt
AES? Yes
InNested Virt.? Yes
HW RNG? Yes
ProcMem SC [MB/s]: avg 182.1 - min 69.6 (38.2 %), max 314.1 (172.5 %)
ProcMem MA [MB/s]: avg 515.8 - min 455.8 (88.4 %), max 583.1 (113.1 %)
ProcMem MB [MB/s]: avg 528.9 - min 480.1 (90.8 %), max 569.4 (107.7 %)
ProcMem AES [MB/s]: avg 995.6 - min 953.3 (95.8 %), max 1021.5 (102.6 %)
ProcMem RSA [kp/s]: avg 76.1 - min 69.6 (91.5 %), max 84.6 (111.2 %)
Not bad but also not great. From a premium provider like Clouvider and in that price class I expected better, something like a Scalable Gold or an Epyc. But at least all the flag goodies, incl. AVX2 are there.
For my purpose/use case though that's really good enough.
So, on to the disk ...
--- Disk 4 KB - Buffered ---
Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 4.78 - min 4.29 (89.7%), max 5.32 (111.2%)
Write rnd. [MB/s]: avg 4.39 - min 3.95 (90.0%), max 4.78 (108.9%)
Read seq. [MB/s]: avg 10.68 - min 9.33 (87.4%), max 11.90 (111.4%)
Read rnd. [MB/s]: avg 8.52 - min 7.24 (85.0%), max 9.58 (112.4%)
--- Disk 4 KB - Sync/Direct ---
Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 4.64 - min 4.10 (88.4%), max 5.16 (111.3%)
Write rnd. [MB/s]: avg 4.33 - min 3.90 (90.2%), max 4.81 (111.2%)
Read seq. [MB/s]: avg 10.66 - min 9.33 (87.5%), max 12.18 (114.2%)
Read rnd. [MB/s]: avg 8.55 - min 7.58 (88.7%), max 9.59 (112.2%)
--- Disk 64 KB - Buffered ---
Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 47.19 - min 42.07 (89.1%), max 52.68 (111.6%)
Write rnd. [MB/s]: avg 44.39 - min 37.44 (84.3%), max 48.70 (109.7%)
Read seq. [MB/s]: avg 1171.08 - min 630.81 (53.9%), max 1395.29 (119.1%)
Read rnd. [MB/s]: avg 114.22 - min 101.92 (89.2%), max 126.67 (110.9%)
--- Disk 64 KB - Sync/Direct ---
Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 6.04 - min 5.37 (88.9%), max 6.68 (110.6%)
Write rnd. [MB/s]: avg 3.62 - min 3.31 (91.4%), max 3.97 (109.6%)
Read seq. [MB/s]: avg 956.81 - min 537.58 (56.2%), max 1398.22 (146.1%)
Read rnd. [MB/s]: avg 113.65 - min 100.11 (88.1%), max 125.50 (110.4%)
--- Disk 1 MB - Buffered ---
Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 82.12 - min 67.17 (81.8%), max 104.01 (126.7%)
Write rnd. [MB/s]: avg 144.45 - min 115.62 (80.0%), max 180.55 (125.0%)
Read seq. [MB/s]: avg 2199.08 - min 1802.65 (82.0%), max 2403.08 (109.3%)
Read rnd. [MB/s]: avg 621.17 - min 544.32 (87.6%), max 684.89 (110.3%)
--- Disk 1 MB - Sync/Direct ---
Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 22.98 - min 21.19 (92.2%), max 25.83 (112.4%)
Write rnd. [MB/s]: avg 16.69 - min 14.79 (88.6%), max 18.34 (109.9%)
Read seq. [MB/s]: avg 1973.58 - min 1117.18 (56.6%), max 2471.04 (125.2%)
Read rnd. [MB/s]: avg 641.77 - min 583.52 (90.9%), max 690.76 (107.6%)
--- Disk IOps (Sync/Direct) ---
Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 21.39 - min 18.75 (87.7%), max 23.86 (111.6%)
IOps : avg 5475.72 - min 4799.11 (87.6%), max 6108.45 (111.6%)
Decent, I'd say. Not great by any means but solidly decent, > 20 MB/s and 5k or 5.5 k IOps is fine for most needs, except very heavy DB focused use cases.
Now to the connectivity which after all, let's be honest, probably is a major factor when looking at Clouvider offers.
--- Europe ---
NO OSL mirror.terrahost.no [F: 0]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 82.2 - min 54.6 (66.4%), max 88.4 (107.5%)
Ping [ms]: avg 128.1 - min 127.1 (99.2%), max 129.2 (100.9%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 139.4 - min 127.1 (91.2%), max 172.6 (123.8%)
UK LON lon.speedtest.clouvider.net [F: 0]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 97.0 - min 62.9 (64.8%), max 103.0 (106.2%)
Ping [ms]: avg 110.5 - min 107.5 (97.3%), max 111.9 (101.2%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 111.0 - min 107.5 (96.8%), max 124.3 (112.0%)
UK KNT www.mirrorservice.org [F: 0]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 98.0 - min 71.7 (73.2%), max 102.7 (104.8%)
Ping [ms]: avg 105.8 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 112.7 (106.5%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 133.3 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 276.7 (207.7%)
NL AMS nl.mirrors.clouvider.net [F: 0]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 90.8 - min 85.8 (94.5%), max 93.1 (102.6%)
Ping [ms]: avg 121.3 - min 118.0 (97.2%), max 126.3 (104.1%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 121.5 - min 118.1 (97.2%), max 126.7 (104.3%)
NL AMS mirrors.xtom.nl [F: 0]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 93.4 - min 90.3 (96.7%), max 96.0 (102.7%)
Ping [ms]: avg 119.7 - min 119.6 (99.9%), max 119.8 (100.1%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 120.4 - min 119.6 (99.4%), max 139.1 (115.6%)
DE FRA mirror.plusline.net [F: 0]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 88.2 - min 60.4 (68.5%), max 94.5 (107.2%)
Ping [ms]: avg 119.0 - min 117.8 (99.0%), max 119.6 (100.5%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 120.6 - min 118.1 (97.9%), max 140.1 (116.2%)
FR PAR mirror.in2p3.fr [F: 0]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 97.3 - min 70.2 (72.2%), max 102.0 (104.8%)
Ping [ms]: avg 110.4 - min 108.3 (98.1%), max 111.3 (100.8%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 198.7 - min 111.1 (55.9%), max 371.0 (186.7%)
IT MIL it1.mirror.vhosting-it.com [F: 0]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 89.8 - min 75.0 (83.5%), max 92.6 (103.1%)
Ping [ms]: avg 120.2 - min 119.6 (99.5%), max 122.7 (102.1%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 151.4 - min 120.1 (79.3%), max 449.8 (297.1%)
RO BUC almalinux.mirrors.orange.ro [F: 0]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 78.8 - min 76.7 (97.3%), max 81.6 (103.6%)
Ping [ms]: avg 137.4 - min 137.3 (99.9%), max 137.7 (100.2%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 212.0 - min 139.5 (65.8%), max 382.1 (180.2%)
RU MOS speedtest.hostkey.ru [F: 0]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 77.6 - min 59.5 (76.7%), max 79.1 (102.0%)
Ping [ms]: avg 141.9 - min 140.8 (99.2%), max 142.2 (100.2%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 157.0 - min 142.1 (90.5%), max 159.6 (101.7%)
--- Asia / Oceania ---
RU SIB mirror.truenetwork.ru [F: 0]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 55.9 - min 51.3 (91.8%), max 58.8 (105.2%)
Ping [ms]: avg 194.1 - min 192.3 (99.1%), max 198.5 (102.3%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 199.6 - min 192.5 (96.5%), max 226.3 (113.4%)
IR SHI ir.almalinux.sindad.cloud [F: 0]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 59.1 - min 57.2 (96.8%), max 60.4 (102.1%)
Ping [ms]: avg 185.2 - min 182.9 (98.8%), max 186.8 (100.9%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 191.3 - min 185.1 (96.8%), max 221.5 (115.8%)
IN MUM mirrors.piconets.webwerks.in [F: 0]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 45.8 - min 41.8 (91.2%), max 48.3 (105.5%)
Ping [ms]: avg 231.6 - min 156.9 (67.7%), max 247.9 (107.0%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 261.7 - min 237.7 (90.8%), max 384.2 (146.8%)
SG SGP mirror.jingk.ai [F: 0]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 52.6 - min 50.4 (95.9%), max 53.7 (102.2%)
Ping [ms]: avg 207.6 - min 207.3 (99.9%), max 208.8 (100.6%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 299.8 - min 226.3 (75.5%), max 512.2 (170.8%)
SG SGP mirror.sg.gs [F: 1]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 46.4 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 50.3 (108.2%)
Ping [ms]: avg 224.0 - min 223.9 (100.0%), max 224.3 (100.1%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 227.9 - min 223.9 (98.2%), max 232.1 (101.8%)
CN HKG mirrors.xtom.hk [F: 0]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 46.6 - min 45.4 (97.4%), max 47.6 (102.0%)
Ping [ms]: avg 235.4 - min 235.3 (99.9%), max 236.4 (100.4%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 248.6 - min 235.4 (94.7%), max 277.0 (111.4%)
CN NAJ mirror.nyist.edu.cn [F: 2]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 34.5 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 45.5 (131.6%)
Ping [ms]: avg 273.5 - min 243.9 (89.2%), max 308.1 (112.7%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 316.9 - min 247.2 (78.0%), max 502.3 (158.5%)
CN BEJ mirrors.bfsu.edu.cn [F: 7]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 31.0 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 49.2 (158.5%)
Ping [ms]: avg 192.1 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 219.1 (114.1%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 407.3 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 1140.2 (280.0%)
JP OSA mirrors.xtom.jp [F: 0]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 71.0 - min 59.4 (83.7%), max 75.3 (106.1%)
Ping [ms]: avg 154.4 - min 149.4 (96.8%), max 166.9 (108.1%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 158.5 - min 149.5 (94.3%), max 191.4 (120.8%)
AU SYD mirror.internet.asn.au [F: 0]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 68.7 - min 68.2 (99.3%), max 70.0 (101.8%)
Ping [ms]: avg 164.3 - min 164.1 (99.9%), max 165.3 (100.6%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 166.2 - min 164.2 (98.8%), max 167.5 (100.8%)
AU SYD gsl-syd.mm.fcix.net [F: 0]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 64.8 - min 61.5 (94.8%), max 65.7 (101.5%)
Ping [ms]: avg 170.2 - min 170.1 (99.9%), max 170.4 (100.1%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 172.3 - min 170.2 (98.8%), max 195.8 (113.7%)
AU SYD mirrors.xtom.au [F: 0]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 67.7 - min 66.7 (98.6%), max 68.8 (101.6%)
Ping [ms]: avg 164.6 - min 164.0 (99.6%), max 175.6 (106.7%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 173.5 - min 164.3 (94.7%), max 284.5 (164.0%)
--- Africa ---
ZA JOB mirror.datakeepers.co.za [F: 0]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 42.9 - min 42.7 (99.6%), max 43.6 (101.6%)
Ping [ms]: avg 263.8 - min 263.5 (99.9%), max 264.5 (100.3%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 269.0 - min 263.7 (98.0%), max 311.8 (115.9%)
KE NAI mirror.liquidtelecom.com [F: 0]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 45.2 - min 44.0 (97.2%), max 46.4 (102.5%)
Ping [ms]: avg 244.1 - min 244.0 (99.9%), max 244.9 (100.3%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 246.3 - min 244.0 (99.1%), max 263.4 (106.9%)
--- America ---
US NYC nyc.mirrors.clouvider.net [F: 0]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 245.0 - min 165.2 (67.5%), max 276.4 (112.8%)
Ping [ms]: avg 41.8 - min 38.8 (92.9%), max 42.1 (100.8%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 43.7 - min 38.9 (89.0%), max 66.2 (151.4%)
US NYC mirrors-nyj.hawkhost.com [F: 0]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 269.3 - min 222.8 (82.7%), max 283.2 (105.2%)
Ping [ms]: avg 39.7 - min 39.3 (99.0%), max 42.5 (107.1%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 41.3 - min 39.5 (95.7%), max 44.2 (107.1%)
US ASH ash.speedtest.clouvider.net [F: 0]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 216.9 - min 149.0 (68.7%), max 252.6 (116.5%)
Ping [ms]: avg 45.9 - min 42.9 (93.5%), max 47.3 (103.1%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 46.0 - min 42.9 (93.2%), max 48.6 (105.6%)
US WDC speedtest.wdc2.us.leaseweb.net [F: 0]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 249.1 - min 76.1 (30.6%), max 405.8 (162.9%)
Ping [ms]: avg 35.4 - min 35.2 (99.4%), max 35.5 (100.2%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 35.4 - min 35.2 (99.4%), max 35.5 (100.2%)
US PIB mirror.pit.teraswitch.com [F: 0]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 305.5 - min 300.0 (98.2%), max 309.6 (101.3%)
Ping [ms]: avg 35.9 - min 35.8 (99.6%), max 36.8 (102.4%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 38.1 - min 35.9 (94.3%), max 44.4 (116.6%)
US MIA speedtest.mia11.us.leaseweb.net [F: 0]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 383.0 - min 377.5 (98.6%), max 393.3 (102.7%)
Ping [ms]: avg 28.6 - min 28.4 (99.4%), max 28.7 (100.4%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 28.7 - min 28.5 (99.4%), max 28.9 (100.7%)
US CHI ord.mirror.rackspace.com [F: 0]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 422.6 - min 372.6 (88.2%), max 435.0 (102.9%)
Ping [ms]: avg 22.3 - min 22.1 (99.2%), max 22.4 (100.6%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 31.4 - min 23.5 (75.0%), max 45.8 (146.1%)
US CHI speedtest.chi11.us.leaseweb.net [F: 0]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 464.7 - min 450.8 (97.0%), max 477.8 (102.8%)
Ping [ms]: avg 23.8 - min 23.6 (99.0%), max 24.0 (100.7%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 24.0 - min 23.6 (98.4%), max 24.5 (102.2%)
US ATL atl.speedtest.clouvider.net [F: 0]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 693.5 - min 652.3 (94.1%), max 722.2 (104.1%)
Ping [ms]: avg 15.4 - min 15.3 (99.2%), max 15.6 (101.2%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 15.7 - min 15.3 (97.3%), max 21.0 (133.6%)
US PHO phx.speedtest.clouvider.net [F: 0]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 431.6 - min 289.0 (67.0%), max 449.7 (104.2%)
Ping [ms]: avg 24.3 - min 24.1 (99.3%), max 24.5 (101.0%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 25.2 - min 24.1 (95.5%), max 31.7 (125.6%)
US PHO speedtest.phx1.us.leaseweb.net [F: 0]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 463.6 - min 458.5 (98.9%), max 468.9 (101.2%)
Ping [ms]: avg 23.4 - min 23.3 (99.5%), max 23.5 (100.3%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 24.0 - min 23.4 (97.4%), max 30.0 (124.8%)
US PTL mirrors.cat.pdx.edu [F: 0]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 199.5 - min 194.8 (97.7%), max 203.0 (101.8%)
Ping [ms]: avg 55.5 - min 55.4 (99.8%), max 55.7 (100.3%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 58.5 - min 55.8 (95.4%), max 60.9 (104.2%)
US LAX mirror.alma.lax1.serverforge.org [F: 0]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 309.9 - min 277.2 (89.5%), max 324.0 (104.6%)
Ping [ms]: avg 34.4 - min 34.1 (99.2%), max 36.1 (105.0%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 36.9 - min 34.8 (94.3%), max 40.1 (108.7%)
US SJO mirrors.xtom.us [F: 0]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 286.3 - min 262.1 (91.5%), max 292.0 (102.0%)
Ping [ms]: avg 38.5 - min 38.4 (99.8%), max 38.6 (100.3%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 45.9 - min 38.5 (83.8%), max 62.8 (136.7%)
US LAX la.speedtest.clouvider.net [F: 0]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 154.9 - min 136.0 (87.8%), max 159.7 (103.1%)
Ping [ms]: avg 69.8 - min 69.6 (99.7%), max 71.2 (102.0%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 71.7 - min 69.6 (97.0%), max 83.3 (116.1%)
US LAX speedtest.lax12.us.leaseweb.net [F: 0]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 332.8 - min 325.0 (97.6%), max 336.8 (101.2%)
Ping [ms]: avg 31.1 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 33.3 (107.1%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 31.2 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 33.3 (106.9%)
US SEA speedtest.sea11.us.leaseweb.net [F: 0]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 182.8 - min 181.9 (99.5%), max 183.9 (100.6%)
Ping [ms]: avg 59.4 - min 59.3 (99.8%), max 59.6 (100.3%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 59.5 - min 59.4 (99.7%), max 59.7 (100.3%)
CA MTL speedtest.mtl2.ca.leaseweb.net [F: 0]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 290.4 - min 284.2 (97.9%), max 296.1 (102.0%)
Ping [ms]: avg 37.3 - min 37.1 (99.4%), max 38.1 (102.1%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 37.5 - min 37.1 (98.9%), max 38.1 (101.6%)
As usual I'll split it into continents/regions.
Europe - quite good actually. Btw. I show both targets for a few locations, mainly because Clouvider -> Clouvider connectivity is good, no surprise there, but it occasionally actually is slightly worse than other nearby targets. Btw 2: Clouvider seems to run his owns fibers/wavelengths between some of their locations, yet, e.g. to NL Twelve99 beats them (by a bee stick).
Asia / Oceania - Only one of 3 Iran targets reached but with decent performance. webwerks, India, known to be very well connected, somehow is slower than SGP, and even HongKong is (very slightly) faster, strange. On the positive side both China locations (plus HKG) show decent results, nice. Japan and Australia are routed via the west coast and IIJ and not only achieve decent results but even all three Ozzyland targets are reached and show similar results. Most other Asia targets also are routed via the west coast by different carriers, mostly decent ones like twelve99 or GTT.
Africa - between meeh and acceptable.
America - Clearly my usual relatively small set of targets doesn't cut it when testing a VPS (a) from a good provider, and (b) purchased to serve as reference.
So, here you go: a significantly extended set of America targets (plus I internally ran the same set, minus WDC, from my WDC Leaseweb / HostDZire VPS and will mention significant differences).
East coast: decent (maybe even good and I simply don't know the routing situation well enough), but, at least in my books, not great (but certainly not at all poor).
west coast: there this VPS looks better than my WDC LW VPS, although funnily my WDC LW VPS achieves better results to Clouvider's LAX node than the Clouvider Dallas VPS!
"the big in between the coasts" - The Clouvider VPS does a lot better to Phoenix than the WDC VPS, duh, and achieves quite similar results to Chicago (as the WDC VPS) and the same goes for Miami.
All in all I personally like my LW WDC VPS better but am not disappointed by my Clouvider Dallas VPS, although I'll likely replace it by another provider once the first year is over.
IMO this VPS absolutely is worth it's rebated (-50%) price but at least for me personally it's not worth the normal full price. The VPS itself i.e. the hardware is quite plain, certainly not bad but neither in any way outstanding, and the connectivity is quite good, but that alone isn't sufficient. For about or close to $70/yr I'd expect an EPYC and about double the disk performance (plus the good Clouvider connectivity) and more than about half of the traffic volume I get from Leaseweb with a lower price tag (or even just about a quarter without the "post your order number" game)..
TL;DR: for my particular use case, am happy with that Clouvider VPS - at the 50% off price! - and while I see no reason to recommend against buying it I also do not see enough good arguments to recommend it, except for the promo price I paid but that promo is almost over (so, hurry, if you want one while they're kind of cheap!)
Comments
ur such a yappy diva we love when you clock us with your random benchmark posts
i hope both sides of your pillow are cold tonight cunty
Clouvider really in hard situation we all want three fire triangle network,disk,cpu
Not my take but an interesting one and one that probably many have, so I'll comment.
I personally am not at all unhappy with both the processor/memory and disk performance. Simple reason: it's good enough for I guess 90% of the typical use cases like dynamic websites with a not huge number of visits per day/hour/minute. Of bloody course a site like LET/LEB would run slow as a snail on that VPS but that's not the @Clouvider's VPS fault.
In short I know what I need and, when looking for a server I go for what I actually need rather than for number porn and "a current Epyc is the bare minimum!!!".
Looking from that "feet on the ground" and guided by reality angle the reviewed Clouvider VPS is quite decent. The spread for example isn't bad at all and, more importantly, the avg. values are relatively close to the peaks which translates to "not too densely populated".
Similarly the disk performance is easily good enough for "mostly reading" use cases which most dynamic websites are.
And connectivity clearly is in the top class, not the best but in the group of the best.
All that isn't the problem. The problem is the VPS's price and, to make it worse, the fact that the promo price is not recurring. THAT IMO is the killer factor.
And the fact that with a "10 Gb/s adapter" not a single Gb/s result was achieved puts salt in the wound.
In short Clouvider does offer a "three fire triangle", but sadly all in all not an attractive one.
And since e.g. and in particular Leaseweb became available on LET that is, to normal people the game has changed, especially for providers who are based on "we offer top class connectivity" (and even run our own fibers and/or wave lengths) the game has changed significantly. Besides, even "we are a business class provider" doesn't cut it anymore because, well, so is Leaseweb.
If Clouvider asked me for advice I'd focus on two points, (a) a Scalable Gold is the minimum in that class, and (b) those prices aren't really tenable anymore, neither are non-recurring promo prices.