Howdy, Stranger!

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

Sign In Register

Quick Links


Categories

In this Discussion

› › Green Value Host Review - 3 Weeks - Page 3
New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.

All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.

Green Value Host Review - 3 Weeks

135

Comments

  • DroidzoneDroidzone Member

    @GreenValueHost said:
    Sorry, UNSUSPENSION fees us what I meant. And no edwardF it's not an SSD.

    You mean you're going to reintroduce that failed algorithm that was infamous for suspending people left and right even without abuse?

    Thanked by 1darkshire
  • VirtovoVirtovo Member

    @joelgm said:

    It appears just the fee to get unsuspended.

  • VirtovoVirtovo Member

    @edwardF said:
    6 hours later:

    CPU model :  Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU           E5620  @ 2.40GHz
Number of cores : 1
CPU frequency :  2401.000 MHz
Total amount of ram : 768 MB
Total amount of swap : 768 MB
System uptime :   6:04,
Download speed from CacheFly: 35.6MB/s
Download speed from Coloat, Atlanta GA: 7.24MB/s
Download speed from Softlayer, Dallas, TX: 29.7MB/s
Download speed from Linode, Tokyo, JP: 4.56MB/s
Download speed from i3d.net, Rotterdam, NL: 4.31MB/s
Download speed from Leaseweb, Haarlem, NL: 10.2MB/s
Download speed from Softlayer, Singapore: 5.04MB/s
Download speed from Softlayer, Seattle, WA: 6.68MB/s
Download speed from Softlayer, San Jose, CA: 12.7MB/s
Download speed from Softlayer, Washington, DC: 11.8MB/s
I/O speed :  47.2 MB/s

    It's an SSD btw.

    edit: SSD Accelerated.

    I'd say the IO is generally 'OK' for most uses; however I think they guarantee + 100MB/s for every customer. For 'SSD Accelerated' it's not great.

  • DroidzoneDroidzone Member

    Virtovo said: It appears just the fee to get unsuspended.

    So how do they get suspended in the first place?

    Cutting down on abuse in fine in my book. But it needs to be done by hand, and manually verified, and not allow an automated script to run amok.

  • InfinityInfinity Member, Host Rep

    Hm, if you have an abusive client then give them one chance and they're gone, if it's major pack their bags up for them. I don't see the point in introducing fees or anything - why do you want abusive customers in the first place..

    Thanked by 2Dylan Droidzone
  • MunMun Member

    @GreenValueHost, does @edwardF -or- those abusers have "Pure" intentions, you could terminate them for that....

  • AmitzAmitz Member

    Pure intentions... I have them all day. Just see where that leads to... ;)

  • iceTwyiceTwy Member

    @Amitz said:
    Pure intentions... I have them all day. Just see where that leads to... ;)

    Being divided by zero?

  • AmitzAmitz Member

    Yes. Got divided by Zero, received Cucumber. See - That's the downside.

  • jebberjebber Member

    I don't know how to run a VPS service - so I'm just thinking out loud...

    If a provider had a list of "good" users who never hogged resources; and had a list big enough to completely fill up a server; they could message all of them informing them that they had been flagged as a "good" user and ask if they would like to be moved to a server full of other users who had never hogged resources.

    If I got a message like that I would happily move - even if it required some down time during the move.

    The way I picture it, resource hogs could be separated from reasonable users.

    Let the hogs battle it out and let the reasonable users enjoy better service.

    Thanked by 1mpkossen
  • Mark_RMark_R Member

    @jebber said:
    I don't know how to run a VPS service - so I'm just thinking out loud...

    If a provider had a list of "good" users who never hogged resources; and had a list big enough to completely fill up a server; they could message all of them informing them that they had been flagged as a "good" user and ask if they would like to be moved to a server full of other users who had never hogged resources.

    If I got a message like that I would happily move - even if it required some down time during the move.

    The way I picture it, resource hogs could be separated from reasonable users.

    Let the hogs battle it out and let the reasonable users enjoy better service.

    You cannot mark someone as "resource hog" just because he fully uses the service that he paid for, if it causes problems then the provider should've done something about that to begin with instead of allowing it to happen and whining afterwards.

    Thanked by 2Licensecart jvnadr
  • VirtovoVirtovo Member

    Mark_R said: You cannot mark someone as "resource hog" just because he fully uses the service that he paid for, if it causes problems then the provider should've done something about that to begin with instead of allowing it to happen and whining afterwards.

    That's not how it works for shared or VPS hosting. The main issue here appears IO related. Now you can either impose strict IO limits on people which leads to people complaining about poor IO (see OVH budget line comments) or you give people access to the IO they need but ask them to play nice.

  • Mark_RMark_R Member

    @Virtovo said:
    That's not how it works for shared or VPS hosting. The main issue here appears IO related. Now you can either impose strict IO limits on people which leads to people complaining about poor IO (see OVH budget line comments) or you give people access to the IO they need but ask them to play nice.

    That playing nice thing obviously doesn't always work out. I think that enforcing limits on the virtualmachines is a really good way to deal with it and atleast everyone can get guaranteed the stated resources at all times. aslong the limits are fair I see no problem with enforcing them.

    I dont know if this is possible with openvz but with KVM it works (enforcing IO, Network, CPU.)

  • edwardFedwardF Member

    @Mark_R said:
    I think that enforcing limits on the virtualmachines is a really good way to deal with it and atleast everyone can get guaranteed the stated resources at all times. aslong the limits are fair I see no problem with enforcing them.

    That's what I think too. What's the point in giving resources if you're not allowed to use them? They should be giving less resources to begin with if they want people to use less.

  • edwardFedwardF Member
    edited June 2014

    My website went down for another 20 minutes this morning. This is far too much time, so I'm updating my review.

    Edit: just noticed I can't update my post! Gah.

    Thanked by 1darkshire
  • definedcodedefinedcode Member

    @Jack said:
    edwardF What are you using to monitor it?

    Its UptimeRobot.

  • J1021J1021 Member

    Jack said: What are you using to monitor it?

    @Jack Looks like UptimeRobot.

  • edwardFedwardF Member

    @Jack said:
    Lol, you can't say that's reliable.

    I'm using Uptime robot. Do you have a reason to believe it's unreliable? As I mentioned in my first review, I've experienced downtime where neither myself or others were able to access the VPS.

  • Mark_RMark_R Member

    @Jack said:
    Yes, many sources say so too, I haven't used it recently but when I did it sucked.

    That could've been the monitoring method that you have selected back then. I'm using uptimerobot to monitor all my servers with the "ping" method and it always returned reliable information.

  • J1021J1021 Member

    I find UptimeRobot is unreliable when monitoring over IPv6.

  • edwardFedwardF Member

    I've added Pingdom monitoring as well.

  • GunterGunter Member
    edited June 2014

    @Jack said:
    Lol, you can't say that's reliable

    What do you recommend then?

    I only chose it because it integrates with Rage4 DNS.

  • forthcloudforthcloud Member

    @Amitz said:
    Now introducing unsuspecting fees! Fees that nobody suspected! :)
    That is the greatest new thing right after the spanish inquisition! ;)

    That won't help :)

    They just need to get more nodes and create less containers on each node.

  • darkshiredarkshire Member

    @edwardF
    i would say just switch to a real provider and be done with it

  • eddynetwebeddynetweb Member

    Virtovo said: I/O speed : 47.2 MB/s

    That I/O is very... interesting...

    If you want to limit abuse, stop with the heavy resources. People are bound to try to run applications that are heavy on RAM, that will surly impact the I/O;CPU.

  • edwardFedwardF Member
    edited June 2014

    @darkshire said:
    edwardF
    i would say just switch to a real provider and be done with it

    Yep. I do not recommend Green Value Host at all now. My site is down again right now, according to me and "downforeveryoneorjustme.com".

    I also can't SSH into it. And I can't access my client page to reboot it. Once I view my Products and Services page, if I click on anything it starts loading forever. It finally loaded after a few minutes with this:

    Additionally, I ran the same test of this webpage: http://trnkit.info/ (an old domain I had) for the new VPS that Green Value Host gave me on their Dallas node. It has better performance than the Los Angeles node, but it is still slow.

    Here is the load test: http://loadimpact.com/test/view/1696596

    It is not awful but comparatively, my Blue Host (with 5+ other sites) test for a bigger static site (100kb), maintains a relatively consistent output of 160ms for up to 50 concurrent users. (I know that the minimum response time is of course determined by the two servers locations, but GVH's is not flat).

    Note that that is also the second server GVH gave me. The first one is worse.

    Time to look for a new host! Recommendations welcome :P

    edit: top confirms that the server went down and has only been up for 30 minutes now. (I did not restart it).

    Thanked by 1darkshire
  • namhuynamhuy Member

    you should do your hw b4 order from any provider. there are TONS of "good" reviews about GVH

  • edwardFedwardF Member

    @namhuy said:
    you should do your hw b4 order from any provider. there are TONS of "good" reviews about GVH

    I don't think that trying to run a static website without 20 minutes of down time per day is unreasonable on the HW that this VPS has.

  • darkshiredarkshire Member

    @edwardF said:
    I don't think that trying to run a static website without 20 minutes of down time per day is unreasonable on the HW that this VPS has.

    its run by a teenager, who spends more time scheming up plans to get a girl, then he does running his own business (i have IRC logs to prove it :P ) what do you expect ?

  • jnguyenjnguyen Member
    edited June 2014

    There are stability issues with la4. We're aware of that and we're actively working on getting that permanently resolved.

    I would greatly appreciate it if you could submit a ticket to let us know of issues and give us a chance to resolve them instead of treating LET as if it were our primary technical helpdesk. It seems like you just purchased a service just to bash us over it. And if that's the case, you're more than welcome to leave.

    @darkshire You're making it seem as we're a one man show. We're not. You're making it seem like we're ran entirely by teenagers. We're not. I'm a minor, I'm open about that, but I'm the only minor in this company out of the several staff we have. There are two legal adults that represent us publicly on this forum, and they both have a role in the day-to-day operations of GVH.

    Thanked by 1AlexU
This discussion has been closed.