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

› › LE VPS in NYC area with low latency to FRA
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.

LE VPS in NYC area with low latency to FRA

dfroedfroe Member, Host Rep
edited October 2016 in Requests

I was wondering whether there are any LowEnd providers offering VPS hosted in the NYC metro area?

I am searching for a small VPS with low(est) latency to Europe. There are a bunch of offers from East Coast DataCenters like Atlanta, Buffalo, or even Chicago. But I have found only very few offers located nearer to NYC area and thus offering lower latency to Europe.

So far I have tested a VPS in Choopa's DC. I meassured very good latency to Europe, significantly better than others in Buffalo or Atlanta. Unfortunately throughput varied a lot in my tests.

Latency tests to Telefonica Frankfurt (62.53.12.0):

  • Choopa NJ: 85 ms
  • RamNode NY: 88 ms
  • Speedfast Chicago (Virmach): 110 ms
  • ColoCrossing Buffalo: 113 ms
  • ColoCrossing Atlanta: 126 ms

I am aware of RamNode so far but they are a bit pricy for my small testing purposes. My intended use is mainly as a monitoring server, with DNS and Mail slave functionality (low traffic, no bulk/spam).

Are there any other choices in NYC metro area or anywhere else with latency below 100 ms RTT to Frankfurt?

Some specs:

  • 1+ vCPU
  • 512+ MB RAM
  • 10+ GB Storage
  • 500+ GB Traffic
  • 1 IPv4 and IPv6

Budget: Yearly plan ≤ 24 $ / year.
Preferable "real" virtualization (KVM, Xen, VMWare, HyperV) to use a recent kernel, tunnel interfaces etc.

Offers welcome. ;-)

Comments

  • PetaByetPetaByet Member

    HostUS in Washington DC could be an option:

    PING 62.53.12.0 (62.53.12.0) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 62.53.12.0: icmp_seq=1 ttl=56 time=89.6 ms
64 bytes from 62.53.12.0: icmp_seq=2 ttl=56 time=89.6 ms
64 bytes from 62.53.12.0: icmp_seq=3 ttl=56 time=89.6 ms
64 bytes from 62.53.12.0: icmp_seq=4 ttl=56 time=89.6 ms

--- 62.53.12.0 ping statistics ---
4 packets transmitted, 4 received, 0% packet loss, time 3093ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 89.619/89.629/89.635/0.006 ms

    I have several OVZ boxes with them and am very pleased.

    Choopa NJ would also be a good choice (I personally use them), though your throughout tests may have been affected by other VPS users on the same server.

    Thanked by 1AlexanderM
  • FrankZFrankZ Veteran
    edited October 2016

    MyCustomHosting Montreal
    I would think that @MCHPhil could set you up with a KVM and those specs for < 24 $ / year.

    PING 62.53.12.0 (62.53.12.0) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 62.53.12.0: icmp_seq=1 ttl=55 time=87.8 ms
64 bytes from 62.53.12.0: icmp_seq=2 ttl=55 time=87.7 ms
64 bytes from 62.53.12.0: icmp_seq=3 ttl=55 time=87.8 ms
--- 62.53.12.0 ping statistics ---
3 packets transmitted, 3 received, 0% packet loss, time 2874ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 87.765/87.830/87.871/0.246 ms

    Quadix Wilkes Barre, PA - I don't know who is currently selling KVM, Xen, VMWare, HyperV VPSes in this DC

    PING 62.53.12.0 (62.53.12.0) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 62.53.12.0: icmp_seq=1 ttl=55 time=88.8 ms
64 bytes from 62.53.12.0: icmp_seq=2 ttl=55 time=89.0 ms
--- 62.53.12.0 ping statistics ---
2 packets transmitted, 2 received, 0% packet loss, time 1558ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 88.885/88.946/89.008/0.304 ms
  • AmitzAmitz Member
    edited October 2016

    Of course you meant "Low End" VPS with "LE VPS". But if you read that with a french accent, then it immediately sounds premium.

    Thanked by 2PrincessOfCats ehhthing
  • bersybersy Member

    Check @harisp NY offers.

  • mokafumokafu Member

    had similar needs in the past, and vps in NJ from @davidgestiondbi was perfect

    LG: http://lg-nj.gdbi.pw/

    Thanked by 1gestiondbi
  • gestiondbigestiondbi Member, Patron Provider

    I got the perfect plan for you!

    DeepNet Solutions OVZ-512: https://clients.gestiondbi.com/?cmd=cart&action=add&id=185

    Around $24USD. or $32CAD.

    We are in the same DC as Choopa and use really similar peering.

    Regards, David

  • ehabehab Member

    +1 for Gestion DBI , go and get the offer :) NOW.

  • dfroedfroe Member, Host Rep
    edited October 2016

    @Amitz: :-D You mean that's one more reason to decide for OVH in Montreal if I was searching for a VPS on the East Coast with a French touch? ;)

    @FrankZ: Phil is a great guy and he is offering amazing deals. I actually had two VPS' with him a few years ago. While I was absolutely satisfied with his service and support, I wasn't with OVH's network performance. Maybe this has changed in the last 2 years so I might give it another try. But at least back then I had just so many dropped ssh sessions etc. making me so frustrated that I canceled the contract.

    @PetaByet: Thanks for the hint towards HostUS (and also generally for the Washington DC area). I have PM'ed them.

    My VPS at Choopa DC is really weired. Generally it is great. They seem to have some burps in their network from time to time (they load-balanced traffic via Telia NYK and Cogent MIA a few weeks ago), but once they fixed it it runs pretty stable. My problem with that VPS is that to some locations my throughput is limited to exactly 1.1 MiB/s - while I can push at full speed from the VPS to other servers, and the clients being limited to 1.1 MiB/s are able to download at full speed from Choopa's LG. Since I can find clients being able to download at full speed, I do not think it is a problem with the VPS. And since the clients with the limited download speed from that Choopa VPS are able to download quickly from other servers, I won't blame them. I can remark that this phenomenon exists since the switched their outbound routing to NTT (at least for all my destinations I could test). It looks suspicious to me as all downloads (wget, iperf2/3, ssh) are throttled at exactly 1.1 MiB/s if they are slow. No mather what day of time I tried. I doubt that's congestion. Reaching 1 MB/s all the time feels just too artificial. I have no clue if I will ever be able to understand this. :-) But nowadays I expect file transfer to be a little bit faster than 1 MB.

    @davidgestiondbi: It would be just too perfect, if it was KVM. :-) Some years ago all my VPS were OVZ but then KVM was adopted by many providers and it became affordable. And well, last year I finished migrating all my VPS (expect one very small test machine) to KVM/Xen/VMware. And to be honest, live became soo much easier. :-) I know that I sometimes have fancy setups (don't know how many of your ever used IPSec with virtual tunnel interfaces [vti] on Linux, but it's great). But with KVM & Co. it just works. So I can now spent more time on implementing crazy stuff, instead of cracking the problem how to get it working within OVZ containers. :-) Same thing for PieLayer (Harisp), they seem to only offer OVZ on the East Coast. I cannot think of any reason why to step back to OVZ today. If it's the money, well, increment my yearly budget by a few bucks if I can then get KVM instead. :)

    Thanked by 1Amitz
  • mokafumokafu Member

    @dfroe The symptoms you're describing could be a bad port on a router

  • DH22DH22 Member

    It is true Choopa's network is not very good anymore. But the providers with best latency will be much more than $24/year.

  • ehabehab Member

    @dfroe i suggest you edit the title and add KVM

    Thanked by 1gestiondbi
  • dfroedfroe Member, Host Rep

    @mokafu said:

    The symptoms you're describing could be a bad port on a router

    Sure. Just some stupid "auto-neg or not" forcing an interface to fall back to 10 Mbps - which more or less equals 1 MiB/s. But let this happen on some network interface somewhere within Choopa's network - no chance to get this addressed; at least not with LET providers, which is comprehensible. I can see that Choopa does a lot of balancing within their network and towards their upstreams (ECMP and so on). So maybe some DC guy will see and fix this issue someday and my handbrake will vanish suddenly. To bad my own home VDSL line is affected. Workaround for file transfers is by SSH'ing via another VPS to the Choopa VPS (where the limit does not exist). Meh, you simply cannot have everything. :)

    @ehab said:

    i suggest you edit the title and add KVM

    Makes sense now we have a good one for OVZ (GestionDBI).

    But may I ask how to edit the title of an already started discussion? :-O Though I've been reading here for years, I actually didn't post that much yet... I don't see an edit button besides the title. :/

  • ehabehab Member

    ohhh, if not then leave it.. sorry i just make noise in threads, didn't know its hard.

  • doughmanesdoughmanes Member

    +1 for HostUS. Solid support and I'm gonna renew when it comes up for renewal

    Thanked by 1AlexanderM
  • NeoonNeoon Community Contributor, Veteran
    edited October 2016

    If the low latency really matters, for whatever you doing, you set up smokeping and measure this about 1-2 Days and pick the best average.

  • ipasces6ipasces6 Member
    edited October 2016

    @dfroe

    BuyVM?
    They miss on your RAM requirement but if you are running ipsec I am sure you can work with lower memory.
    Then again @francisco may be able to bump up the ram for you ...

    As an aside, why do you use VTI? Iptables gets a little harder to understand but ipsec based VPN doesn't need virtual interfaces. KVM/xen still needed.

  • dfroedfroe Member, Host Rep

    @ipasces6 said: BuyVM?

    Basically yes. But unfortunately no KVM slices in their East Coast Location, yet. And I definitely won't need a dedicated core for that purpose. :) I just got used to all the advantages (or let's say less limits) of KVM so I don't want to go back to OVZ. But besides that, I am still waiting for my first opportunity to grab a slice from Francisco. ;)

    As an aside, why do you use VTI? Iptables gets a little harder to understand but ipsec based VPN doesn't need virtual interfaces. KVM/xen still needed.

    Well, you've got tunnel interfaces for each VPN tunnel, similiar to OpenVPN. This means you can run dynamic routing protocols over it, build meshed VPNs, etc., so it can be easier to integrate it into your "private cloud". ;) Advantage of IPSec/vti compared to OpenVPN is that you can use it to connect to other network gear from commercial vendors for example.

  • jbilohjbiloh Administrator, Veteran

    dfroe said: Choopa NJ: 85 ms

    RamNode NY: 88 ms
    Speedfast Chicago (Virmach): 110 ms
    ColoCrossing Buffalo: 113 ms
    ColoCrossing Atlanta: 126 ms

    Realize I am late to this thread but can you share your route from BUF to your FRA destination? The latency in your report is higher than it should be between BUF and the destination based on the other results you listed.

  • dfroedfroe Member, Host Rep

    @jbiloh said:
    Realize I am late to this thread but can you share your route from BUF to your FRA destination? The latency in your report is higher than it should be between BUF and the destination based on the other results you listed.

    Sure. I used http://lg.buf.colocrossing.com/ to traceroute to 62.53.12.0 which gives me about 110 ms RTT at the moment.

    A traceroute in the other directions looks like this. Subtract 25ms for my VDSL last mile.

    $ mtr -c 4 --report 198.12.127.26
Start: Sun Oct 23 00:03:44 2016
HOST:                             Loss%   Snt   Last   Avg  Best  Wrst StDev
  3.|-- 62.52.200.220              0.0%     4   25.9  26.4  25.9  27.1   0.0
  4.|-- ae17-0.0001.dbrx.01.fra.d  0.0%     4   25.2  25.7  25.2  26.9   0.6
  5.|-- ae0-0.0001.prrx.01.fra.de  0.0%     4   25.7  25.4  25.1  25.7   0.0
  6.|-- ae0-o-grtfraix5.net.telef  0.0%     4   25.9  25.6  25.4  25.9   0.0
  7.|-- ffm-b2-link.telia.net      0.0%     4   25.9  27.6  25.6  32.7   3.3
  8.|-- ffm-bb3-link.telia.net     0.0%     4   26.4  26.3  26.1  26.4   0.0
  9.|-- nyk-bb2-link.telia.net     0.0%     4  120.2 120.3 119.4 121.0   0.0
 10.|-- buf-b1-link.telia.net      0.0%     4  129.9 129.9 129.8 129.9   0.0
 11.|-- colocrossing-ic-314280-bu  0.0%     4  139.3 138.4 137.6 139.3   0.6
 12.|-- ???                       100.0     4    0.0   0.0   0.0   0.0   0.0
 13.|-- ???                       100.0     4    0.0   0.0   0.0   0.0   0.0
 14.|-- ???                       100.0     4    0.0   0.0   0.0   0.0   0.0
 15.|-- lg.buf.colocrossing.com    0.0%     4  137.2 136.7 134.5 137.9   1.3

    Ping'ing my Choopa VPS gives me 20ms less RTT. Meanwhile my satisfaction with Choopa improved slighty because throughput increased during the last weeks. I decided for myself to stick with Choopa. Looks like they are able to deliver decent network performance; just not everytime. :)

Sign In or Register to comment.