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.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
Comments
I guess it depends what you do with it, and whether your use case even lets you notice a few minutes of network flap or not.
@singsing it was hours in our case, not a few minutes
Oh yeah, I remember I did notice one longer outage.
OVH BHS VPS 2016
http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench3/3347570
It's ok I think, it feels fast. Better than their old Vz nodes for sure.
They've got a pretty rock solid network over there.. Definitely an option.
With 41 outages over a week that no one takes care about.
I use monitoring tool. No downtimes detected.
You don't seem to understand that the old (OpenVZ) VPSes and the new (KVM) ones are completely different. The new ones use the same infrastructure as RunAbove, which has been extremely reliable.
The whole reason for the drastically changed offerings is because the old ones weren't up to par and they knew it. You ought to give them some credit for trying to fix things.
From my point of view, Customer pays, they don't care. It's their responsibility to deliver good service, not their Customers.
If 'old Openvz' platform went downhill like this, any of their platforms can go downhill the same way, and they may ignore it the same way. They are simply not trustworthy for anything in production for me.
BTW: Told about CA location. May be Europe locations has a bad uptime.
Updating to add that I just signed up for VPS SSD 2. While several notches up price-wise from their old OpenVZ, it seems to be quite zippy. Absolutely no comparison in terms of performance. Too early to report on connection drop issues, but there's reason to be optimistic for now.
We have a few enterprise servers in their North American location (BHS) for candian accessibility, 100% uptime over the last 16 months. I'd say they are pretty rock solid.
I'm pretty sure the network of their enterprise servers is managed a bit differently than their budget OpenVZ.
If you want to have a solid, cheap OVH VPS, runabove.com is still the way to go.
Any justification to that? The new VPS-SSD are based on the same tech and not any less solid than Runabove (arguable more as they come with SLA), also they are unmetered.
As another difference, on some RunAbove instances I saw quite a bit of CPU contention with other customers (the "st" value in top), and nearly always zero at VPS-SSD.
The only pro I can think of for the OVH VPS SSD is unlimited traffic (vs 1TB on runabove) and maybe their SLA, but since it's the same technology, runabove should be pretty stable aswell.
Can't say bad things about the uptime on runabove aswell:
Mkay,
Actually Runabove is 10 Gbps, people get 2-5 Gbit in iperf.
Not necessarily, only depending on how bad it is (some nodes were worse than others), although you can delete and recreate the VPS until you land on a lightly loaded node.
Also I believe you can control the VPS-SSD IPs in api.ovh.com regarding firewall/antiDDoS, and at Runabove you can only request those things via tickets.
So it's not that Runabove is hands down better, more a case of "pick one or another depending on what you need".
I signed up yesterday with OVH for one of their 2016 VPSes; I really like it
Is it possible to downgrade ?
Not that I am aware, due to the fact its not OpenVZ, so downgrades of a disk/file system is not an automated task (Which is what OVH rely on to keep costs low)
Benchmark for the OVH VPS SSD 2016 located in Gravelines:
Network traceroutes when the firewall has been set to permanent mitigation (traceroute from DigitalOcean NL to the OVH VPS):
Before (traceroute):
After (traceroute):
Clearly a pretty big difference with the firewall turned off and on (but that's expected xD)
Speedtests (from FreeVPS Bench):
Before:
After:
No noticeable changes/differences here with the speedtests.
ioping tests (3x)
CPU Information:
UnixBench (via serverbear, link below):
# # # # # # # ##### ###### # # #### # # # # ## # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # ## ##### ##### # # # # ###### # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # ## # # # # #### # # # # # ##### ###### # # #### # # Version 5.1.3 Based on the Byte Magazine Unix Benchmark Multi-CPU version Version 5 revisions by Ian Smith, Sunnyvale, CA, USA January 13, 2011 johantheghost at yahoo period com 1 x Dhrystone 2 using register variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 x Double-Precision Whetstone 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 x Execl Throughput 1 2 3 1 x File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks 1 2 3 1 x File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks 1 2 3 1 x File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks 1 2 3 1 x Pipe Throughput 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 x Pipe-based Context Switching 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 x Process Creation 1 2 3 1 x System Call Overhead 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 x Shell Scripts (1 concurrent) 1 2 3 1 x Shell Scripts (8 concurrent) 1 2 3 1 x Dhrystone 2 using register variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 x Double-Precision Whetstone 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 x Execl Throughput 1 2 3 1 x File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks 1 2 3 1 x File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks 1 2 3 1 x File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks 1 2 3 1 x Pipe Throughput 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 x Pipe-based Context Switching 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 x Process Creation 1 2 3 1 x System Call Overhead 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 x Shell Scripts (1 concurrent) 1 2 3 1 x Shell Scripts (8 concurrent) 1 2 3 ======================================================================== BYTE UNIX Benchmarks (Version 5.1.3) System: ****************** OS: GNU/Linux -- 3.16.0-4-amd64 -- #1 SMP Debian 3.16.7-ckt11-1+deb8u3 (2015-08-04) Machine: x86_64 (unknown) Language: en_US.utf8 (charmap="UTF-8", collate="UTF-8") CPU 0: Intel Xeon E312xx (Sandy Bridge) (4788.9 bogomips) x86-64, MMX, Physical Address Ext, SYSENTER/SYSEXIT, SYSCALL/SYSRET, Intel virtualization 19:41:09 up 6:31, 1 user, load average: 0.00, 0.01, 0.05; runlevel 5 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Benchmark Run: Sat Sep 05 2015 19:41:09 - 20:09:14 1 CPU in system; running 1 parallel copy of tests Dhrystone 2 using register variables 35378232.0 lps (10.0 s, 7 samples) Double-Precision Whetstone 4510.9 MWIPS (9.8 s, 7 samples) Execl Throughput 6360.9 lps (30.0 s, 2 samples) File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks 1361558.6 KBps (30.0 s, 2 samples) File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks 369757.9 KBps (30.0 s, 2 samples) File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks 3960826.0 KBps (30.0 s, 2 samples) Pipe Throughput 2578918.2 lps (10.0 s, 7 samples) Pipe-based Context Switching 468435.7 lps (10.0 s, 7 samples) Process Creation 14374.8 lps (30.0 s, 2 samples) Shell Scripts (1 concurrent) 9600.2 lpm (60.0 s, 2 samples) Shell Scripts (8 concurrent) 1254.6 lpm (60.0 s, 2 samples) System Call Overhead 5008377.8 lps (10.0 s, 7 samples) System Benchmarks Index Values BASELINE RESULT INDEX Dhrystone 2 using register variables 116700.0 35378232.0 3031.6 Double-Precision Whetstone 55.0 4510.9 820.2 Execl Throughput 43.0 6360.9 1479.3 File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks 3960.0 1361558.6 3438.3 File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks 1655.0 369757.9 2234.2 File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks 5800.0 3960826.0 6829.0 Pipe Throughput 12440.0 2578918.2 2073.1 Pipe-based Context Switching 4000.0 468435.7 1171.1 Process Creation 126.0 14374.8 1140.9 Shell Scripts (1 concurrent) 42.4 9600.2 2264.2 Shell Scripts (8 concurrent) 6.0 1254.6 2091.0 System Call Overhead 15000.0 5008377.8 3338.9 ======== System Benchmarks Index Score 2124.4 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Benchmark Run: Sat Sep 05 2015 20:09:14 - 20:37:18 1 CPU in system; running 1 parallel copy of tests Dhrystone 2 using register variables 35837005.3 lps (10.0 s, 7 samples) Double-Precision Whetstone 4554.1 MWIPS (9.8 s, 7 samples) Execl Throughput 6392.2 lps (29.6 s, 2 samples) File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks 1335788.5 KBps (30.0 s, 2 samples) File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks 373193.4 KBps (30.0 s, 2 samples) File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks 3476162.7 KBps (30.0 s, 2 samples) Pipe Throughput 2585616.8 lps (10.0 s, 7 samples) Pipe-based Context Switching 478237.9 lps (10.0 s, 7 samples) Process Creation 16043.5 lps (30.0 s, 2 samples) Shell Scripts (1 concurrent) 9667.3 lpm (60.0 s, 2 samples) Shell Scripts (8 concurrent) 1264.4 lpm (60.0 s, 2 samples) System Call Overhead 5043687.3 lps (10.0 s, 7 samples) System Benchmarks Index Values BASELINE RESULT INDEX Dhrystone 2 using register variables 116700.0 35837005.3 3070.9 Double-Precision Whetstone 55.0 4554.1 828.0 Execl Throughput 43.0 6392.2 1486.5 File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks 3960.0 1335788.5 3373.2 File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks 1655.0 373193.4 2254.9 File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks 5800.0 3476162.7 5993.4 Pipe Throughput 12440.0 2585616.8 2078.5 Pipe-based Context Switching 4000.0 478237.9 1195.6 Process Creation 126.0 16043.5 1273.3 Shell Scripts (1 concurrent) 42.4 9667.3 2280.0 Shell Scripts (8 concurrent) 6.0 1264.4 2107.4 System Call Overhead 15000.0 5043687.3 3362.5 ======== System Benchmarks Index Score 2131.8ServerBear.com benchmark: http://serverbear.com/benchmark/2015/09/05/JsoQf3jep7ISpwq8
Is it possible to order additional IPs (Failover IPs)?
No - it says they aren't available for 2016 vpses
Your be able to order/use Fail-over IP's/Subnets with them soon however.
Since @joodle forgot a geekbench (more detailed) here it is
http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench3/3370533
I'm probably going to purchase the $8.99/month OVH VPS Cloud 2016 later this week...do the regular 2016 SSD ones (that start at $3.49) have an SLA too?
Nothing on the site says there is, very much doubt there is any, as there not using a HA environment on the standard one's.
Apparently the new OVH lines are going to replace their RunAbove equivalents. They've already limited new RA accounts and at some point they're going to transition existing users over too (maybe once the 2016 line is rolled out worldwide?). The RunAbove brand will be "repositioned" for short-term Labs stuff.
I wonder how this will affect VPS providers out of OVH, the price vs resource point is good, even if you are not a fan of OVH it's likely better to go direct than around.
At least for now, while they are populating the new service and the advertised resources seem to be dedicated for the most part.