Howdy, Stranger!

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


Community Review: KiloServe 365 MB KVM (Yearly)
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.

Community Review: KiloServe 365 MB KVM (Yearly)

maxexcloomaxexcloo Member
edited November 2011 in Reviews

image

KiloServe is a company I've wanted to review for a while as they seem to have a fairly good reputation and have been in business for a while. Since I had some free time I decided to bite the bullet and purchase a KVM365 plan for testing and hosting some websites.


Disclaimer: I am in no way affiliated with KiloServe. This review was requested by staff from KiloServe but the service was fully paid for by myself.


Basics:

The VPS plan is based in LA, USA and comes with 365 MB of RAM, 365 GB of bandwidth (monthly) and 15 GB of disk space. KVM plans are managed by a standard SolusVM install (with SSL) and include commonly used templates such as CentOS (5 and 6), Ubuntu and Debian (unfortunately Debian 6 was not included, although this was soon amended with a ticket). On the downside both torrenting and IRC are prohibited making the servers a little bit less useful to some users.


Support:

Initial setup was very fast and the server was running in under five minutes from payment however the welcome email did contain plain text passwords which could be considered a security risk by some (personally I just change the passwords if this is the case). Since the KVM ISO list did not contain Debian 6 I put in a ticket requesting it. Within 10 minutes I had a reply stating that it was being added and soon after that it appeared on my ISO list.


Setup:

After the ISO was added I proceded to install Debian 6 as normal (installing nothing but the SSH server). After it was installed I used my minimisation script to clean out any unneeded packages and to set up SSH login protection. One thing I did notice was that commands sent from SolusVM were processed rather slowly (my KVM often took about a minute to power off after clicking the button).


Defaults:

Default RAM usage was pretty low for a KVM server with about 13 MB used on a stock Debian 6 install:

root@kilo:~# free -m
             total       used       free     shared    buffers     cached
Mem:           356         52        304          0         26         12
-/+ buffers/cache:         13        343
Swap:         2007          0       2007

Default disk usage was also fairly low:

root@kilo:~# df -h
Filesystem            Size  Used Avail Use% Mounted on
/dev/sda1             1.9G  358M  1.5G  20% /
tmpfs                 179M     0  179M   0% /lib/init/rw
udev                  174M  112K  174M   1% /dev
tmpfs                 179M     0  179M   0% /dev/shm
/dev/sda2              12G  156M   11G   2% /home



Basic Information:

/proc/cpuinfo showed 4 cores which matched the plan description:

root@kilo:~# cat /proc/cpuinfo
processor       : 0
vendor_id       : GenuineIntel
cpu family      : 6
model           : 13
model name      : QEMU Virtual CPU version (cpu64-rhel6)
stepping        : 3
cpu MHz         : 3058.352
cache size      : 4096 KB
fdiv_bug        : no
hlt_bug         : no
f00f_bug        : no
coma_bug        : no
fpu             : yes
fpu_exception   : yes
cpuid level     : 4
wp              : yes
flags           : fpu de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pse36 clflush mmx fxsr sse sse2 syscall nx lm pni cx16 hypervisor lahf_lm
bogomips        : 6116.70
clflush size    : 64
cache_alignment : 64
address sizes   : 40 bits physical, 48 bits virtual
power management:

processor       : 1
vendor_id       : GenuineIntel
cpu family      : 6
model           : 13
model name      : QEMU Virtual CPU version (cpu64-rhel6)
stepping        : 3
cpu MHz         : 3058.352
cache size      : 4096 KB
fdiv_bug        : no
hlt_bug         : no
f00f_bug        : no
coma_bug        : no
fpu             : yes
fpu_exception   : yes
cpuid level     : 4
wp              : yes
flags           : fpu de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pse36 clflush mmx fxsr sse sse2 syscall nx lm pni cx16 hypervisor lahf_lm
bogomips        : 6116.70
clflush size    : 64
cache_alignment : 64
address sizes   : 40 bits physical, 48 bits virtual
power management:

processor       : 2
vendor_id       : GenuineIntel
cpu family      : 6
model           : 13
model name      : QEMU Virtual CPU version (cpu64-rhel6)
stepping        : 3
cpu MHz         : 3058.352
cache size      : 4096 KB
fdiv_bug        : no
hlt_bug         : no
f00f_bug        : no
coma_bug        : no
fpu             : yes
fpu_exception   : yes
cpuid level     : 4
wp              : yes
flags           : fpu de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pse36 clflush mmx fxsr sse sse2 syscall nx lm pni cx16 hypervisor lahf_lm
bogomips        : 6116.70
clflush size    : 64
cache_alignment : 64
address sizes   : 40 bits physical, 48 bits virtual
power management:

processor       : 3
vendor_id       : GenuineIntel
cpu family      : 6
model           : 13
model name      : QEMU Virtual CPU version (cpu64-rhel6)
stepping        : 3
cpu MHz         : 3058.352
cache size      : 4096 KB
fdiv_bug        : no
hlt_bug         : no
f00f_bug        : no
coma_bug        : no
fpu             : yes
fpu_exception   : yes
cpuid level     : 4
wp              : yes
flags           : fpu de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pse36 clflush mmx fxsr sse sse2 syscall nx lm pni cx16 hypervisor lahf_lm
bogomips        : 6116.70
clflush size    : 64
cache_alignment : 64
address sizes   : 40 bits physical, 48 bits virtual
power management:

/proc/meminfo showed some standard results:

root@kilo:~# cat /proc/meminfo
MemTotal:         365168 kB
MemFree:          311516 kB
Buffers:           27280 kB
Cached:            12616 kB
SwapCached:            0 kB
Active:            31084 kB
Inactive:          11516 kB
Active(anon):       2708 kB
Inactive(anon):      104 kB
Active(file):      28376 kB
Inactive(file):    11412 kB
Unevictable:           0 kB
Mlocked:               0 kB
HighTotal:             0 kB
HighFree:              0 kB
LowTotal:         365168 kB
LowFree:          311516 kB
SwapTotal:       2056184 kB
SwapFree:        2056184 kB
Dirty:                 0 kB
Writeback:             0 kB
AnonPages:          2708 kB
Mapped:             3456 kB
Shmem:               116 kB
Slab:               6468 kB
SReclaimable:       2560 kB
SUnreclaim:         3908 kB
KernelStack:         704 kB
PageTables:          188 kB
NFS_Unstable:          0 kB
Bounce:                0 kB
WritebackTmp:          0 kB
CommitLimit:     2238768 kB
Committed_AS:       8144 kB
VmallocTotal:     654348 kB
VmallocUsed:        6572 kB
VmallocChunk:     639664 kB
HardwareCorrupted:     0 kB
HugePages_Total:       0
HugePages_Free:        0
HugePages_Rsvd:        0
HugePages_Surp:        0
Hugepagesize:       4096 kB
DirectMap4k:        9196 kB
DirectMap4M:      364544 kB

Inode allocation was decent (this was however controlled by my install so KiloServe has nothing to do with this):

root@kilo:~# df -i
Filesystem            Inodes   IUsed   IFree IUse% Mounted on
/dev/sda1             122160   15279  106881   13% /
tmpfs                  45646       3   45643    1% /lib/init/rw
udev                   44540     516   44024    2% /dev
tmpfs                  45646       1   45645    1% /dev/shm
/dev/sda2             732960      15  732945    1% /home

vmstat showed that the system was under little load:

root@kilo:~# vmstat
procs -----------memory---------- ---swap-- -----io---- -system-- ----cpu----
 r  b   swpd   free   buff  cache   si   so    bi    bo   in   cs us sy id wa
 0  0      0 311516  27280  12616    0    0    27     3   17   10  0  0 100  0
«1

Comments

  • Tests:

    Each test was run three times and the middle ranked test was picked.

    The Cachefly speed test showed great results:

    root@kilo:~# wget -O /dev/null http://cachefly.cachefly.net/100mb.test
    --2011-11-04 19:40:54--  http://cachefly.cachefly.net/100mb.test
    Resolving cachefly.cachefly.net... 205.234.175.175
    Connecting to cachefly.cachefly.net|205.234.175.175|:80... connected.
    HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK
    Length: 104857600 (100M) [application/octet-stream]
    Saving to: `/dev/null'
    
    100%[====>] 104,857,600 31.9M/s   in 3.1s    
    
    2011-11-04 19:40:57 (31.9 MB/s) - `/dev/null' saved [104857600/104857600]
    

    Ping Tests (as with DMB Hosting, IPv6 did not appear to be included):

    root@kilo:~# ping -c 3 google.com
    PING google.com (74.125.225.83) 56(84) bytes of data.
    64 bytes from ord08s07-in-f19.1e100.net (74.125.225.83): icmp_req=1 ttl=53 time=60.9 ms
    64 bytes from ord08s07-in-f19.1e100.net (74.125.225.83): icmp_req=2 ttl=53 time=60.8 ms
    64 bytes from ord08s07-in-f19.1e100.net (74.125.225.83): icmp_req=3 ttl=53 time=60.8 ms
    
    --- google.com ping statistics ---
    3 packets transmitted, 3 received, 0% packet loss, time 2003ms
    rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 60.881/60.903/60.937/0.285 ms
    
    root@kilo:~# ping6 -c 3 ipv6.google.com
    connect: Network is unreachable
    

    Disk IO on KiloServe is unreal, the fastest I have ever seen (on a VPS):

    root@kilo:~# dd if=/dev/zero of=test bs=64k count=16k conv=fdatasync; rm test
    16384+0 records in
    16384+0 records out
    1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB) copied, 3.27329 s, 328 MB/s
    

    IOPing showed good results as well:

    root@kilo:~/ioping-0.6# ./ioping -c 10 .
    4096 bytes from . (ext4 /dev/disk/by-uuid/0c0ba166-f6d6-473e-9dd5-ccbbb44ced5c): request=1 time=0.2 ms
    4096 bytes from . (ext4 /dev/disk/by-uuid/0c0ba166-f6d6-473e-9dd5-ccbbb44ced5c): request=2 time=0.3 ms
    4096 bytes from . (ext4 /dev/disk/by-uuid/0c0ba166-f6d6-473e-9dd5-ccbbb44ced5c): request=3 time=0.2 ms
    4096 bytes from . (ext4 /dev/disk/by-uuid/0c0ba166-f6d6-473e-9dd5-ccbbb44ced5c): request=4 time=0.2 ms
    4096 bytes from . (ext4 /dev/disk/by-uuid/0c0ba166-f6d6-473e-9dd5-ccbbb44ced5c): request=5 time=0.3 ms
    4096 bytes from . (ext4 /dev/disk/by-uuid/0c0ba166-f6d6-473e-9dd5-ccbbb44ced5c): request=6 time=0.2 ms
    4096 bytes from . (ext4 /dev/disk/by-uuid/0c0ba166-f6d6-473e-9dd5-ccbbb44ced5c): request=7 time=0.2 ms
    4096 bytes from . (ext4 /dev/disk/by-uuid/0c0ba166-f6d6-473e-9dd5-ccbbb44ced5c): request=8 time=0.3 ms
    4096 bytes from . (ext4 /dev/disk/by-uuid/0c0ba166-f6d6-473e-9dd5-ccbbb44ced5c): request=9 time=0.3 ms
    4096 bytes from . (ext4 /dev/disk/by-uuid/0c0ba166-f6d6-473e-9dd5-ccbbb44ced5c): request=10 time=0.2 ms
    
    --- . (ext4 /dev/disk/by-uuid/0c0ba166-f6d6-473e-9dd5-ccbbb44ced5c) ioping statistics ---
    10 requests completed in 9009.9 ms, 4268 iops, 16.7 mb/s
    min/avg/max/mdev = 0.2/0.2/0.3/0.0 ms
    

    Geekbench results were very good:

    Geekbench 2.1.13 : http://www.primatelabs.ca/geekbench/
    
    System Information
      Platform:                  Linux x86 (32-bit)
      Compiler:                  GCC 4.1.2 20070925 (Red Hat 4.1.2-33)
      Operating System:          Linux 2.6.32-5-686 i686
      Model:                     Linux PC (QEMU Virtual CPU version (cpu64-rhel6))
      Motherboard:               Unknown Motherboard
      Processor:                 QEMU Virtual CPU version (cpu64-rhel6)
      Processor ID:              GenuineIntel Family 6 Model 13 Stepping 3
      Logical Processors:        4
      Physical Processors:       1
      Processor Frequency:       3.06 GHz
      L1 Instruction Cache:      64.0 KB
      L1 Data Cache:             64.0 KB
      L2 Cache:                  512 KB
      L3 Cache:                  0.00 B
      Bus Frequency:             0.00 Hz
      Memory:                    357 MB
      Memory Type:               N/A
      SIMD:                      1
      BIOS:                      N/A
      Processor Model:           QEMU Virtual CPU version (cpu64-rhel6)
      Processor Cores:           4
    
    Integer
      Blowfish
        single-threaded scalar    2184 ||||||||
        multi-threaded scalar     9222 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
      Text Compress
        single-threaded scalar    2203 ||||||||
        multi-threaded scalar     8419 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
      Text Decompress
        single-threaded scalar    2293 |||||||||
        multi-threaded scalar     9248 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
      Image Compress
        single-threaded scalar    1973 |||||||
        multi-threaded scalar     7603 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
      Image Decompress
        single-threaded scalar    1729 ||||||
        multi-threaded scalar     6855 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
      Lua
        single-threaded scalar    3476 |||||||||||||
        multi-threaded scalar    10145 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
    
    Floating Point
      Mandelbrot
        single-threaded scalar    2651 ||||||||||
        multi-threaded scalar    10721 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
      Dot Product
        single-threaded scalar    4341 |||||||||||||||||
        multi-threaded scalar    17876 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
        single-threaded vector    5069 ||||||||||||||||||||
        multi-threaded vector    22631 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
      LU Decomposition
        single-threaded scalar    2688 ||||||||||
        multi-threaded scalar    10790 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
      Primality Test
        single-threaded scalar    4243 ||||||||||||||||
        multi-threaded scalar    13497 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
      Sharpen Image
        single-threaded scalar    7306 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
        multi-threaded scalar    28340 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
      Blur Image
        single-threaded scalar    6605 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
        multi-threaded scalar    26408 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
    
    Memory
      Read Sequential
        single-threaded scalar    4804 |||||||||||||||||||
      Write Sequential
        single-threaded scalar    8299 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
      Stdlib Allocate
        single-threaded scalar    4906 |||||||||||||||||||
      Stdlib Write
        single-threaded scalar    3326 |||||||||||||
      Stdlib Copy
        single-threaded scalar    6747 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
    
    Stream
      Stream Copy
        single-threaded scalar    5568 ||||||||||||||||||||||
        single-threaded vector    7072 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
      Stream Scale
        single-threaded scalar    4589 ||||||||||||||||||
        single-threaded vector    6810 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
      Stream Add
        single-threaded scalar    4446 |||||||||||||||||
        single-threaded vector    6105 ||||||||||||||||||||||||
      Stream Triad
        single-threaded scalar    4550 ||||||||||||||||||
        single-threaded vector    4265 |||||||||||||||||
    
    Integer Score:                5445 |||||||||||||||||||||
    Floating Point Score:        11654 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
    Memory Score:                 5616 ||||||||||||||||||||||
    Stream Score:                 5425 |||||||||||||||||||||
    
    Overall Geekbench Score:      7650 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
    
    Submit results to the Geekbench Result Browser? [Y/n] 
    
    Submission succeeded! Visit the following URL and view your results online:
    
      http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view?id=508365
    
  • Finally, Unixbench also showed great results:

    ========================================================================
       BYTE UNIX Benchmarks (Version 5.1.3)
    
       System: kilo: GNU/Linux
       OS: GNU/Linux -- 2.6.32-5-686 -- #1 SMP Mon Oct 3 04:15:24 UTC 2011
       Machine: i686 (unknown)
       Language: en_US.utf8 (charmap="ANSI_X3.4-1968", collate="ANSI_X3.4-1968")
       CPU 0: QEMU Virtual CPU version (cpu64-rhel6) (6116.7 bogomips)
              x86-64, MMX, Physical Address Ext, SYSENTER/SYSEXIT, SYSCALL/SYSRET
       CPU 1: QEMU Virtual CPU version (cpu64-rhel6) (6116.7 bogomips)
              x86-64, MMX, Physical Address Ext, SYSENTER/SYSEXIT, SYSCALL/SYSRET
       CPU 2: QEMU Virtual CPU version (cpu64-rhel6) (6116.7 bogomips)
              x86-64, MMX, Physical Address Ext, SYSENTER/SYSEXIT, SYSCALL/SYSRET
       CPU 3: QEMU Virtual CPU version (cpu64-rhel6) (6116.7 bogomips)
              x86-64, MMX, Physical Address Ext, SYSENTER/SYSEXIT, SYSCALL/SYSRET
       19:54:06 up 22 min,  1 user,  load average: 0.00, 0.05, 0.03; runlevel 2
    
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Benchmark Run: Fri Nov 04 2011 19:54:06 - 20:22:25
    4 CPUs in system; running 1 parallel copy of tests
    
    Dhrystone 2 using register variables       16604288.8 lps   (10.0 s, 7 samples)
    Double-Precision Whetstone                     3236.0 MWIPS (10.1 s, 7 samples)
    Execl Throughput                               4074.4 lps   (29.8 s, 2 samples)
    File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks        822195.8 KBps  (30.0 s, 2 samples)
    File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks          215533.1 KBps  (30.0 s, 2 samples)
    File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks       1747124.6 KBps  (30.0 s, 2 samples)
    Pipe Throughput                             1397073.3 lps   (10.0 s, 7 samples)
    Pipe-based Context Switching                 341646.2 lps   (10.0 s, 7 samples)
    Process Creation                               8919.0 lps   (30.0 s, 2 samples)
    Shell Scripts (1 concurrent)                   7366.8 lpm   (60.0 s, 2 samples)
    Shell Scripts (8 concurrent)                   2957.4 lpm   (60.0 s, 2 samples)
    System Call Overhead                        1317068.5 lps   (10.0 s, 7 samples)
    
    System Benchmarks Index Values               BASELINE       RESULT    INDEX
    Dhrystone 2 using register variables         116700.0   16604288.8   1422.8
    Double-Precision Whetstone                       55.0       3236.0    588.4
    Execl Throughput                                 43.0       4074.4    947.5
    File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks          3960.0     822195.8   2076.3
    File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks            1655.0     215533.1   1302.3
    File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks          5800.0    1747124.6   3012.3
    Pipe Throughput                               12440.0    1397073.3   1123.0
    Pipe-based Context Switching                   4000.0     341646.2    854.1
    Process Creation                                126.0       8919.0    707.9
    Shell Scripts (1 concurrent)                     42.4       7366.8   1737.5
    Shell Scripts (8 concurrent)                      6.0       2957.4   4929.1
    System Call Overhead                          15000.0    1317068.5    878.0
                                                                       ========
    System Benchmarks Index Score                                        1338.2
    
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Benchmark Run: Fri Nov 04 2011 20:22:25 - 20:50:45
    4 CPUs in system; running 4 parallel copies of tests
    
    Dhrystone 2 using register variables       66086854.8 lps   (10.0 s, 7 samples)
    Double-Precision Whetstone                    12921.1 MWIPS (10.1 s, 7 samples)
    Execl Throughput                              23541.8 lps   (29.9 s, 2 samples)
    File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks        764702.5 KBps  (30.0 s, 2 samples)
    File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks          171526.5 KBps  (30.0 s, 2 samples)
    File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks       2390502.8 KBps  (30.0 s, 2 samples)
    Pipe Throughput                             5511619.3 lps   (10.0 s, 7 samples)
    Pipe-based Context Switching                1269416.2 lps   (10.0 s, 7 samples)
    Process Creation                              76388.6 lps   (30.0 s, 2 samples)
    Shell Scripts (1 concurrent)                  27024.5 lpm   (60.0 s, 2 samples)
    Shell Scripts (8 concurrent)                   3557.9 lpm   (60.0 s, 2 samples)
    System Call Overhead                        4785736.0 lps   (10.0 s, 7 samples)
    
    System Benchmarks Index Values               BASELINE       RESULT    INDEX
    Dhrystone 2 using register variables         116700.0   66086854.8   5663.0
    Double-Precision Whetstone                       55.0      12921.1   2349.3
    Execl Throughput                                 43.0      23541.8   5474.8
    File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks          3960.0     764702.5   1931.1
    File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks            1655.0     171526.5   1036.4
    File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks          5800.0    2390502.8   4121.6
    Pipe Throughput                               12440.0    5511619.3   4430.6
    Pipe-based Context Switching                   4000.0    1269416.2   3173.5
    Process Creation                                126.0      76388.6   6062.6
    Shell Scripts (1 concurrent)                     42.4      27024.5   6373.7
    Shell Scripts (8 concurrent)                      6.0       3557.9   5929.9
    System Call Overhead                          15000.0    4785736.0   3190.5
                                                                       ========
    System Benchmarks Index Score                                        3680.4
    



    Conclusion:

    In conclusion I believe that KiloServe is a very good host with great performance. Ahe prices and response times for support are also very competitive and I would not hesitate to recommend KiloServe to anyone in need of a quality VPS. Finally, their TOS protects their service from abusers creating a more stable and speedy enviroment for legitimate users.

    Please give KiloServe a try and report on findings! Thanks for reading, tips and suggestions are appreciated!

  • @maxexcloo said: Disk IO on KiloServe is unreal, the fastest I have ever seen (on a VPS):

    I get a bit more on Kazila VPS :P

    # dd if=/dev/zero of=test bs=64k count=16k conv=fdatasync && rm -rf test
    16384+0 records in
    16384+0 records out
    1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB) copied, 3.1851 s, 337 MB/s

    I wonder if it's possible to get 128 MB KVM VPS for $3 monthly. Thank you for review.

  • @iKocka said: I get a bit more on Kazila VPS :P

    I should do a review of them as well, I hear that they are good!

  • What is the cost of this VPS used for testing?

  • iKockaiKocka Member
    edited November 2011

    $39.49 annually.

    Thanked by 1maxexcloo
  • +1 for the review. Nicely formatted.

    Thanked by 2maxexcloo Infinity
  • I've been using them for 2 months now... making it my main VPS after the eNetSouth event. I've been very satisfied so far.

  • sigh was excited to sign up until I realized there was a $3 setup fee with no refund when it's a yearly term :\

    I don't understand it. Usually setup fees are a good way to keep some cash when ppl sign up and cancel a few days later. Paying yearly with no way out is downright scary.

  • Nice =)

    Any idea what processors are using? Must be at least some Nehalems?

  • kiloservekiloserve Member
    edited November 2011

    @tortau said: I don't understand it.

    If you view the benchmarks (337 MB/s) and the price ($36.50/year), this is both one of the fastest and lowest priced KVM VPS on the market.... even when you count in the $2.99 setup fee.

    @iKocka said: I wonder if it's possible to get 128 MB KVM VPS for $3 monthly.

    Unfortunately we will not be getting into the 128MB market. 365MB RAM is the lowest we will go.

    @tortau said: Paying yearly with no way out is downright scary.

    We've been in business for almost 5 years and have provided refunds that our TOS says aren't available because we know when a "refund" is the right thing to do.... regardless of the rules.

  • kiloservekiloserve Member
    edited November 2011

    @yomero said: Any idea what processors are using?

    Westmere-EP

    Cpu0  :  9.2%us, 11.2%sy,  0.0%ni, 79.5%id,  0.0%wa,  0.0%hi,  0.0%si,  0.0%st
    Cpu1  :  9.1%us, 13.9%sy,  0.0%ni, 77.0%id,  0.0%wa,  0.0%hi,  0.0%si,  0.0%st
    Cpu2  :  3.3%us,  9.3%sy,  0.0%ni, 87.3%id,  0.0%wa,  0.0%hi,  0.0%si,  0.0%st
    Cpu3  :  4.2%us,  5.3%sy,  0.0%ni, 90.6%id,  0.0%wa,  0.0%hi,  0.0%si,  0.0%st
    Cpu4  :  4.6%us,  8.8%sy,  0.0%ni, 86.7%id,  0.0%wa,  0.0%hi,  0.0%si,  0.0%st
    Cpu5  :  3.6%us,  8.3%sy,  0.0%ni, 87.7%id,  0.4%wa,  0.0%hi,  0.0%si,  0.0%st
    Cpu6  :  1.7%us,  3.8%sy,  0.0%ni, 94.4%id,  0.0%wa,  0.0%hi,  0.0%si,  0.0%st
    Cpu7  :  3.6%us,  4.5%sy,  0.0%ni, 91.9%id,  0.0%wa,  0.0%hi,  0.0%si,  0.0%st
    Cpu8  :  3.7%us,  4.1%sy,  0.0%ni, 92.2%id,  0.0%wa,  0.0%hi,  0.0%si,  0.0%st
    Cpu9  :  0.5%us,  1.0%sy,  0.0%ni, 98.6%id,  0.0%wa,  0.0%hi,  0.0%si,  0.0%st
    Cpu10 :  3.0%us,  6.1%sy,  0.0%ni, 90.9%id,  0.0%wa,  0.0%hi,  0.0%si,  0.0%st
    Cpu11 :  4.1%us, 11.0%sy,  0.0%ni, 84.9%id,  0.0%wa,  0.0%hi,  0.0%si,  0.0%st
    Cpu12 :  0.7%us,  1.8%sy,  0.0%ni, 97.4%id,  0.0%wa,  0.0%hi,  0.0%si,  0.0%st
    Cpu13 :  1.4%us,  1.1%sy,  0.0%ni, 97.5%id,  0.0%wa,  0.0%hi,  0.0%si,  0.0%st
    Cpu14 :  1.4%us,  1.8%sy,  0.0%ni, 96.8%id,  0.0%wa,  0.0%hi,  0.0%si,  0.0%st
    Cpu15 :  1.7%us,  5.9%sy,  0.0%ni, 92.4%id,  0.0%wa,  0.0%hi,  0.0%si,  0.0%st
    Cpu16 :  1.1%us,  4.6%sy,  0.0%ni, 94.3%id,  0.0%wa,  0.0%hi,  0.0%si,  0.0%st
    Cpu17 :  0.8%us,  2.4%sy,  0.0%ni, 96.8%id,  0.0%wa,  0.0%hi,  0.0%si,  0.0%st
    Cpu18 :  0.7%us,  1.4%sy,  0.0%ni, 97.9%id,  0.0%wa,  0.0%hi,  0.0%si,  0.0%st
    Cpu19 :  2.6%us,  0.7%sy,  0.0%ni, 96.7%id,  0.0%wa,  0.0%hi,  0.0%si,  0.0%st
    Cpu20 :  1.0%us,  6.3%sy,  0.0%ni, 92.7%id,  0.0%wa,  0.0%hi,  0.0%si,  0.0%st
    Cpu21 :  0.0%us,  0.0%sy,  0.0%ni,100.0%id,  0.0%wa,  0.0%hi,  0.0%si,  0.0%st
    Cpu22 :  1.1%us,  2.9%sy,  0.0%ni, 96.0%id,  0.0%wa,  0.0%hi,  0.0%si,  0.0%st
    Cpu23 :  2.2%us,  3.6%sy,  0.0%ni, 94.3%id,  0.0%wa,  0.0%hi,  0.0%si,  0.0%st
  • kiloserve said: If you view the benchmarks (337 MB/s)

    SAS2/SATA3 ? Very impressive!

  • kiloservekiloserve Member
    edited November 2011

    @miTgiB said: SAS2/SATA3 ? Very impressive!

    Thanks Tim.

    Good guess, they are indeed SAS2 (6Gb/s) drives....thankfully, we completed these nodes before the hard drive shortage.

    BTW, I had a client just this morning tell me that they love your network connectivity/routes.

  • @iKocka said: $39.49 annually.

    Well it's $3.04 x 12 = 36.48 / annually. Plus a $2.99 setup fee. I wouldn't guess the setup fee is charged annually :)

    @tortau said: sigh was excited to sign up until I realized there was a $3 setup fee with no refund when it's a yearly term :\

    I have absolutely no problem paying a one-time setup fee to a reputable provider. Kiloserv is a reputable provider. And what's $3? Maybe 5 minutes of paid time for an experienced sysadmin? If a setup fee helps keep the business viable, go for it!

  • The last time I trusted a "reputable" provider (starts with an "e") and they disappeared after 3 days of payment. It's not so much about the money (2 of my vps are not leb range at all so I'm not afraid to pay for quality) but it's more about this promise of a full year service that makes it a risky proposition.

    Now @kilsoserve, I'm not trying to lump you with other providers so please don't get defensive here. I can tell you are a reputable business but I guess I'm tired of being unable to test a provider without throwing down a good chunk of money. It's like "You don't trust your customers to commit so why should I trust you?". Though I'm quite sure someone would say "why don't you sign up for the regular plans?" sigh

    Anyway, I may or may not sign up some time later (if the LEB plan is still offered). Right now, I have enough LEBs to play with and enough "secondary" dns servers and backups of backups so I'll give it a rest :P

  • kiloservekiloserve Member
    edited November 2011

    @tortau said: so please don't get defensive here. I can tell you are a reputable business but I guess I'm tired of being unable to test a provider without throwing down a good chunk of money. It's like "You don't trust your customers to commit so why should I trust you?".

    Hi tortau,

    Thanks for being so polite about it all.

    Truth is, we didn't have any of the "cool" yearly plans everybody else has so we made this one up. :)

    This is our only plan based on a year, all of our other plans, are monthly.

  • Taking a look at their site, they have a nice description of their nodes:
    http://kiloserve.com/48-core-nodes

    Pretty impressive stuff. They have room to expand on the memory front too if they move to 8GB sticks of ram.

  • @yokem55 said: Taking a look at their site, they have a nice description of their nodes: http://kiloserve.com/48-core-nodes

    That's awesome! Lol at the Windows task manager in that picture...Very impressive. One downside I guess is if there's hardware failure. I wouldn't want to be the guy trying to figure out which of the 8 processors died, or which of the 32 ram sticks is bad.

  • @maxexcloo well done. thanks for posting your benchmark data.

    I too have one of their 365's. Very impressive for LEB price imho. Great work @kiloserve

  • @kiloserve Heh, thanks for the reply. I was kinda worrying about coming home to a long thread of angry comments so I feel somewhat cheated now. Haha :P

    Anyway, I did notice the monthly plans but I do prefer KVM (I'm hooked on them actually - don't ask why) and it was the only option on your site :(

  • One of the most detailed reviews I've seen, must be refering to it whenever I come across them.

  • @Go59954 said: One of the most detailed reviews I've seen, must be refering to it whenever I come across them.

    More reviews of that type http://www.96mb.com/

  • @rkrazy said: @maxexcloo well done. thanks for posting your benchmark data.

    @Go59954 said: One of the most detailed reviews I've seen, must be refering to it whenever I come across them.

    Thanks! If you're interested have a look at some of my other reviews here: http://www.lowendtalk.com/profile/discussions/38/maxexcloo

  • tonklatonkla Member
    edited November 2011

    After reading his comments on this thread, I bought kvm365 from him. I'm very satisfied with that box, long uptime, very good disk and network I/O, and haven't found any troubles yet.

    BTW, sad story, I've just paid 2nd month for eNetSouth 2GB plan, then my disk suddenly full 100% and can't access they SolusVM page T_T

  • @kiloserve said: Good guess, they are indeed SAS2 (6Gb/s) drives...

    another guess.. What kind disks are you using? 15k rpm? And what raid setup, with how many disks? last time i only can reach ~ 200-250 MB/s with the "same" hard drive..

  • kiloservekiloserve Member
    edited November 2011

    @Mon5t3r said: another guess.. What kind disks are you using? 15k rpm? And what raid setup, with how many disks? last time i only can reach ~ 200-250 MB/s with the "same" hard drive..

    Hi Monst3r

    It's a real pain getting speed out of KVM. To be perfectly honest, our old KVM/Xen-HVM offerings were embarrassingly slow and it took us many tries before we were able to achieve decent speeds.

    With OpenVZ and Xen, you can use 10k drives and still get 300 MB/s+ write speeds but you need 15K drives to come close to that on KVM. The extra RPM's overcome the I/O latency inherent to KVM due to the full virt.

    We now use 15K SAS 6Gb/s drives for KVM, there's really no other way to get good consistent speed out of KVM with only minor degradation as more VPS are added on.

    BTW, I tried to get one of your NL KVM VPS just a day or two ago but you were out of stock. Please PM me if you get stock in and if you remember; I'll check back every so often too :)

    Thanked by 1Mon5t3r
  • kiloservekiloserve Member
    edited November 2011

    @iKocka said: I get a bit more on Kazila VPS :P ... 1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB) copied, 3.1851 s, 337 MB/s

    That's very speedy :)

    Is that XenPV or KVM?

    OpenVZ's and XenPV's will have higher disk I/O speeds than KVM or Xen-HVM due to native disk access as opposed to full virtualization. I think most KVM/XenHVM providers will agree with me that achieving and maintaining 300MB/s+ write speeds on KVM/XenHVM is very difficult.

  • @kiloserve said: Is that XenPV or KVM?

    It's XenPV.

  • I put the server to use by hosting some websites and an EP my friends released :)

Sign In or Register to comment.