Howdy, Stranger!

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


Shells Virtual Desktop
BMail.ag - Secure Email Service
Server.net
CPLicense.net
VPS Server
Buy VPN
Vultr
VMs for AI
HostDare
ReliableSite White-Label Dedicated Hosting for Resellers
InterServer VPS
BMail.ag - Secure Email Service
Best VPN
High-Performance Bare Metal Server Solutions
Karvl.com
Server Mania Cloud Hosting
DataWagon Hosting
AlphaVPS Hosting
Evoxt.com
Clouvider
VPS Hosting with NVMe
Residential IPs in the US & 4G Mobile Proxies in EU & US with Unlimited Bandwidth
ReliableSite White-Label Dedicated Hosting for Resellers
Rabisu - Hosting Solutions
Shells Virtual Desktop
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.

Any infos about index-hosting.de?

15791011

Comments

  • @hyperblast said:

    @dev_vps said:
    @mcs @gbzret4d @IndexHosting @Mumbly

    For 1080p video test, zero dropped frames and cpu utilization is in 50% range. This is extraordinary performance.

    win server you recommend on this machine?!

    I am still running tests. So far, it looks very promising.

    the question is
    will the performance vary when more VPS are assigned on the host server

  • @dev_vps said:

    @hyperblast said:

    @dev_vps said:
    @mcs @gbzret4d @IndexHosting @Mumbly

    For 1080p video test, zero dropped frames and cpu utilization is in 50% range. This is extraordinary performance.

    win server you recommend on this machine?!

    I am still running tests. So far, it looks very promising.

    the question is
    will the performance vary when more VPS are assigned on the host server

    thats always teh question. ;)

    Thanked by 1IndexHosting
  • @dev_vps said:

    @hyperblast said:

    @dev_vps said:
    @mcs @gbzret4d @IndexHosting @Mumbly

    For 1080p video test, zero dropped frames and cpu utilization is in 50% range. This is extraordinary performance.

    win server you recommend on this machine?!

    I am still running tests. So far, it looks very promising.

    the question is
    will the performance vary when more VPS are assigned on the host server

    New servers are deployed and transferred to the host system all the time. You are on a normal production system from us.

  • @IndexHosting said:

    @dev_vps said:

    @hyperblast said:

    @dev_vps said:
    @mcs @gbzret4d @IndexHosting @Mumbly

    For 1080p video test, zero dropped frames and cpu utilization is in 50% range. This is extraordinary performance.

    win server you recommend on this machine?!

    I am still running tests. So far, it looks very promising.

    the question is
    will the performance vary when more VPS are assigned on the host server

    New servers are deployed and transferred to the host system all the time. You are on a normal production system from us.

    Is possible to install custom iso?

  • dev_vpsdev_vps Member
    edited November 2024

    @Rukia said:

    @IndexHosting said:

    @dev_vps said:

    @hyperblast said:

    @dev_vps said:
    @mcs @gbzret4d @IndexHosting @Mumbly

    For 1080p video test, zero dropped frames and cpu utilization is in 50% range. This is extraordinary performance.

    win server you recommend on this machine?!

    I am still running tests. So far, it looks very promising.

    the question is
    will the performance vary when more VPS are assigned on the host server

    New servers are deployed and transferred to the host system all the time. You are on a normal production system from us.

    Is possible to install custom iso?

    yes ... I am running Windows 11 Enterprise OS

  • @dev_vps said:

    @Rukia said:

    @IndexHosting said:

    @dev_vps said:

    @hyperblast said:

    @dev_vps said:
    @mcs @gbzret4d @IndexHosting @Mumbly

    For 1080p video test, zero dropped frames and cpu utilization is in 50% range. This is extraordinary performance.

    win server you recommend on this machine?!

    I am still running tests. So far, it looks very promising.

    the question is
    will the performance vary when more VPS are assigned on the host server

    New servers are deployed and transferred to the host system all the time. You are on a normal production system from us.

    Is possible to install custom iso?

    yes ... I am running Windows 11 Enterprise OS

    I'm wondering whether to try it

  • @hyperblast said:

    @dev_vps said:
    @mcs @gbzret4d @IndexHosting @Mumbly

    For 1080p video test, zero dropped frames and cpu utilization is in 50% range. This is extraordinary performance.

    win server you recommend on this machine?!

    well that it works. I'm not surprised that they will show good indicators initially for those who test the service. But at the same time different users who bought still write and about slowdowns and non-working IP addresses, etc. I'll stand aside again and see what happens next. Doubts were and are, but I will not write anything more about this provider. You can stop tagging me specially, I will periodically watch this thread myself to see how this provider works in the end

  • dev_vpsdev_vps Member
    edited November 2024

    @mcs said:

    @hyperblast said:

    @dev_vps said:
    @mcs @gbzret4d @IndexHosting @Mumbly

    For 1080p video test, zero dropped frames and cpu utilization is in 50% range. This is extraordinary performance.

    win server you recommend on this machine?!

    well that it works. I'm not surprised that they will show good indicators initially for those who test the service. But at the same time different users who bought still write and about slowdowns and non-working IP addresses, etc. I'll stand aside again and see what happens next. Doubts were and are, but I will not write anything more about this provider. You can stop tagging me specially, I will periodically watch this thread myself to see how this provider works in the end

    As a part of testing, I share the tests and benchmark results for others to review. How these numbers can change in future is always a pertinent question, irrespective of the provider.

    With new provider with little history, the skepticism is more especially when prices are low and seemingly non sustainable in long run

  • @dev_vps said:
    @mcs @gbzret4d @IndexHosting @Mumbly

    For 1080p video test, zero dropped frames and cpu utilization is in 50% range. This is extraordinary performance.

    Whats the point of these YouTube tests if you never force the codec?
    Last week you screenshoted AV1, now its VP9 and you completly ignore that when rating VPSes.
    VP9 is 2x less complex to decode than AV1 and even ancient Core 2 Quad is enough for it, you do not need 20x faster newer Ryzen for that.

    If you would force H264 codec on YouTube then you would decode 720p on Pentium 4 from 2001.

  • @dev_vps said:

    @mcs said:

    @hyperblast said:

    @dev_vps said:
    @mcs @gbzret4d @IndexHosting @Mumbly

    For 1080p video test, zero dropped frames and cpu utilization is in 50% range. This is extraordinary performance.

    win server you recommend on this machine?!

    well that it works. I'm not surprised that they will show good indicators initially for those who test the service. But at the same time different users who bought still write and about slowdowns and non-working IP addresses, etc. I'll stand aside again and see what happens next. Doubts were and are, but I will not write anything more about this provider. You can stop tagging me specially, I will periodically watch this thread myself to see how this provider works in the end

    As a part of testing, I share the tests and benchmark results for others to review. How these numbers can change in future is always a pertinent question, irrespective of the provider.

    With new provider with little history, the skepticism is more especially when prices are low and seemingly non sustainable in long run

    I have no complaints about you. I know that you are doing a useful thing, I would do the same and share it with users here. And there should be a normal practice on the forum all the time - so that there are users who check providers for quality services from the start, especially new ones. It would also be possible to put together a team of experts a long time ago that would check the reliability of the legal side, the existence of the company and other aspects. All this can be done on the forum, but so far the administration here on the forum has no such desire. And then it would be an even more professional, reliable and high-quality forum. And most importantly, people would have more trust and reliability both in suppliers and the forum, and most importantly, if they lost money because of bad providers, it would happen many times less. I thought, looked and got fired up with the idea of ​​creating my own forum. Although for me this forum is very good in many other aspects - there are still many nuances that I do not quite like.

  • @mcs said:
    It would also be possible to put together a team of experts a long time ago that would check the reliability of the legal side, the existence of the company and other aspects. All this can be done on the forum, but so far the administration here on the forum has no such desire.

    You are describing Patron Provider tag that was implemented 2 years ago. People here will go crazy when I'll say it, but this decision eliminated most scams and summerhosts. What else do you exactly want to do? Completly ban provider that do not send financial statements just to be sure that they are sustainable?

    If you want to tighten the requirements even more then legit, cheap providers will resign, because its too much hassle for little profit and big scammers will still invest their time faking everything. Heavy rules also lead to corruption, everywhere in the web, everywhere in the world. Financially or just because "they were too nice and I couldnt refuse".

    LET is already a top-notch community with basically no scams at this point. When you doubt it just go to any FB group. I know how well LET is managed and moderated, because I used to mod 20k-100k FB groups until 2021. There wasnt single day without PM spammer, scammer and every week someone's family receiced death threat over discussion on topics like "which Linux distro is best".

    Have you ever moderated such big community that you are giving such definitive statements?

  • dev_vpsdev_vps Member
    edited November 2024

    YABS

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Basic System Info
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     CPU Model          : AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D 16-Core Processor
     CPU Cores          : 2 @ 4192.124 MHz
     CPU Cache          : 512 KB
     AES-NI             : ✔ Enabled
     VM-x/AMD-V         : ✔ Enabled
     Total Disk         : 59.0 GB (2.7 GB Used)
     Total RAM          : 4.8 GB (422.9 MB Used)
     System uptime      : 0 days, 0 hour 31 min
     Load average       : 0.16, 0.34, 0.20
     OS                 : Debian GNU/Linux 12
     Arch               : x86_64 (64 Bit)
     Kernel             : 6.1.0-16-amd64
     Virtualization     : KVM
     TCP Control        : cubic
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Basic Network Info
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Primary Network    : IPv4
     IPv6 Access        : ✔ Online
     IPv4 Access        : ✔ Online
     ISP                : dataforest GmbH
     ASN                : AS58212 dataforest GmbH
     Host               : dataforest GmbH
     Location           : Frankfurt am Main, Hesse-HE, Germany
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
     fio Disk Speed Tests (Mixed R/W 50/50) (Partition /dev/sda1):
     ---------------------------------
     Block Size | 4k            (IOPS) | 64k           (IOPS)
       ------   | ---            ----  | ----           ----
     Read       | 594.48 MB/s (148.6k) | 3.76 GB/s    (58.7k)
     Write      | 596.05 MB/s (149.0k) | 3.78 GB/s    (59.0k)
     Total      | 1.19 GB/s   (297.6k) | 7.54 GB/s   (117.8k)
                |                      |
     Block Size | 512k          (IOPS) | 1m            (IOPS)
       ------   | ---            ----  | ----           ----
     Read       | 3.02 GB/s     (5.9k) | 3.21 GB/s     (3.1k)
     Write      | 3.18 GB/s     (6.2k) | 3.42 GB/s     (3.3k)
     Total      | 6.21 GB/s    (12.1k) | 6.63 GB/s     (6.4k)
    
     iperf3 Network Speed Tests (IPv4):
     ---------------------------------
     Provider        | Location (Link)           | Send Speed      | Recv Speed      | Ping
     -----           | -----                     | ----            | ----            | ----
     Clouvider       | London, UK (10G)          | 934 Mbits/sec   | 936 Mbits/sec   | 14.1 ms
     Eranium         | Amsterdam, NL (100G)      | 938 Mbits/sec   | 939 Mbits/sec   | 7.07 ms
     Uztelecom       | Tashkent, UZ (10G)        | 733 Mbits/sec   | 528 Mbits/sec   | 97.8 ms
     Leaseweb        | Singapore, SG (10G)       | 230 Mbits/sec   | 669 Mbits/sec   | 211 ms
     Clouvider       | Los Angeles, CA, US (10G) | 544 Mbits/sec   | 317 Mbits/sec   | 139 ms
     Leaseweb        | NYC, NY, US (10G)         | 686 Mbits/sec   | 643 Mbits/sec   | 83.7 ms
     Edgoo           | Sao Paulo, BR (1G)        | 289 Mbits/sec   | 174 Mbits/sec   | 188 ms
    
     iperf3 Network Speed Tests (IPv6):
     ---------------------------------
     Provider        | Location (Link)           | Send Speed      | Recv Speed      | Ping
     -----           | -----                     | ----            | ----            | ----
     Clouvider       | London, UK (10G)          | 921 Mbits/sec   | 924 Mbits/sec   | 14.1 ms
     Eranium         | Amsterdam, NL (100G)      | 925 Mbits/sec   | 925 Mbits/sec   | 7.09 ms
     Uztelecom       | Tashkent, UZ (10G)        | 600 Mbits/sec   | 525 Mbits/sec   | 97.0 ms
     Leaseweb        | Singapore, SG (10G)       | 345 Mbits/sec   | 604 Mbits/sec   | 211 ms
     Clouvider       | Los Angeles, CA, US (10G) | 585 Mbits/sec   | 353 Mbits/sec   | 140 ms
     Leaseweb        | NYC, NY, US (10G)         | 747 Mbits/sec   | 640 Mbits/sec   | 83.2 ms
     Edgoo           | Sao Paulo, BR (1G)        | 291 Mbits/sec   | 215 Mbits/sec   | 188 ms
    
     Geekbench 5 Benchmark Test:
     ---------------------------------
     Test            | Value
                     |
     Single Core     | 2054
     Multi Core      | 3952
     Full Test       | https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/23018101
    
     Geekbench 6 Benchmark Test:
     ---------------------------------
     Test            | Value
                     |
     Single Core     | 2920
     Multi Core      | 5157
     Full Test       | https://browser.geekbench.com/v6/cpu/8599682
    
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Speedtest.net 
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Location         Latency     Loss    DL Speed       UP Speed       Server
    
     Dallas, US       117.85 ms   0.0%    894.27 Mbps    284.09 Mbps    i3D.net - Dallas, TX
     Houston, TX      121.40 ms   0.3%    889.40 Mbps    279.94 Mbps    Ezee Fiber - Houston, TX
     Chicago, IL      107.27 ms   0.0%    927.75 Mbps    296.40 Mbps    Enzu.com - Chicago, IL
     Miami, US        118.57 ms   N/A     879.89 Mbps    283.00 Mbps    Dish Wireless - Miami, FL
     New York, NY      81.31 ms   0.0%    889.85 Mbps    218.46 Mbps    Surfshark Ltd - New York, NY
     Miami, FL        119.86 ms   0.0%    712.98 Mbps    283.61 Mbps    ReliableSite Hosting - Miami, FL
     Spokane, WA      153.47 ms   0.0%    906.33 Mbps    281.48 Mbps    Crunchbits - Spokane, WA
     Seattle, WA      149.16 ms   0.0%    773.60 Mbps    245.76 Mbps    Misaka Network, Inc. - Seattle, WA
     Los Angeles, US  151.02 ms   0.0%    667.61 Mbps    239.31 Mbps    ReliableSite Hosting - Los Angeles, CA
     San Jose, CA     152.00 ms   0.0%    743.97 Mbps    289.45 Mbps    Misaka Network, Inc. - San Jose, CA
    
     London, UK        11.67 ms   0.0%    929.51 Mbps    925.69 Mbps    VeloxServ Communications - London
     Amsterdam, NL     47.00 ms   0.0%    952.78 Mbps    580.75 Mbps    31173 Services AB - Amsterdam
     Paris, FR          9.54 ms   N/A     943.72 Mbps    940.80 Mbps    Axione - Paris
     Frankfurt, DE      0.97 ms   0.0%    928.14 Mbps    928.01 Mbps    Clouvider Ltd - Frankfurt am Main
     Warsaw, PL        19.12 ms   0.0%    931.30 Mbps    924.77 Mbps    Play - Warszawa
     Kyiv, UA          28.17 ms   0.0%    941.02 Mbps    772.60 Mbps    O3 - Kyiv
    
     Bangalore, IN    153.45 ms   0.0%    620.10 Mbps    251.87 Mbps    Bharti Airtel Ltd - Bangalore
     Chennai, IN      183.46 ms   N/A     578.37 Mbps    204.44 Mbps    Jio - Chennai
     Mumbai, IN       106.55 ms   0.0%    534.08 Mbps    268.04 Mbps    i3D.net - Mumbai
     Mumbai, MH       224.83 ms   N/A     601.01 Mbps    139.43 Mbps    Jio - Rajkot
     Delhi, IN        160.21 ms   0.0%    584.73 Mbps    265.13 Mbps    Tata Play Fiber - New Delhi
    
     Jeddah, SA        79.79 ms   0.0%    948.54 Mbps    396.06 Mbps    Saudi Telecom Company
     Dubai, AE        264.69 ms   0.0%    826.85 Mbps    125.21 Mbps    du - Dubai
    
     Hong Kong        203.65 ms   0.0%    800.13 Mbps    110.13 Mbps    Misaka Network, Inc. - Hong Kong
     Sydney           328.91 ms   0.0%    497.18 Mbps    121.70 Mbps    Telstra - Sydney
     Perth            193.83 ms   0.0%    586.65 Mbps    192.64 Mbps    Aussie Broadband - Perth
    
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Avg DL Speed       : 793.21 Mbps
     Avg UL Speed       : 396.32 Mbps
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
     Speedtest by Ookla
    
     Server: i3D.net - Dallas, TX 
    Idle Latency:   117.69 ms   (jitter: 0.02ms, low: 117.68ms, high: 117.72ms)
        Download:   859.62 Mbps (data used: 1.3 GB)
                    176.46 ms   (jitter: 57.63ms, low: 117.59ms, high: 236.40ms)
          Upload:   302.52 Mbps (data used: 480.9 MB)
                    174.95 ms   (jitter: 57.10ms, low: 116.29ms, high: 256.74ms)
     Packet Loss:     0.0%
      Result URL: https://www.speedtest.net/result/c/c162c42a-4f92-41c2-8fea-ef43069767dc
    
     Server: RETN - London (id: 31183)
    Idle Latency:    10.98 ms   (jitter: 0.04ms, low: 10.92ms, high: 11.01ms)
        Download:   947.27 Mbps (data used: 980.2 MB)
                     41.06 ms   (jitter: 37.57ms, low: 10.93ms, high: 314.95ms)
          Upload:   941.22 Mbps (data used: 888.9 MB)
                     20.57 ms   (jitter: 0.88ms, low: 10.90ms, high: 26.49ms)
     Packet Loss:     0.0%
      Result URL: https://www.speedtest.net/result/c/f2006b53-e362-4820-a830-f64927b50786
    
     Server: ReliableSite Hosting - Los Angeles, CA 
    Idle Latency:   150.81 ms   (jitter: 0.07ms, low: 150.73ms, high: 150.84ms)
        Download:   584.18 Mbps (data used: 658.0 MB)
                    229.98 ms   (jitter: 66.84ms, low: 152.14ms, high: 453.04ms)
          Upload:   231.15 Mbps (data used: 411.7 MB)
                    226.74 ms   (jitter: 66.98ms, low: 150.94ms, high: 301.33ms)
     Packet Loss:     0.0%
      Result URL: https://www.speedtest.net/result/c/4b20aa95-7506-462d-9073-535660927c25
    
    
     Server: Bharti Airtel Ltd - Bangalore 
    Idle Latency:   138.99 ms   (jitter: 0.07ms, low: 138.98ms, high: 139.26ms)
        Download:   739.06 Mbps (data used: 1.2 GB)
                    223.92 ms   (jitter: 66.61ms, low: 147.60ms, high: 456.88ms)
          Upload:   230.95 Mbps (data used: 409.6 MB)
                    232.00 ms   (jitter: 67.76ms, low: 155.36ms, high: 309.33ms)
     Packet Loss:     0.0%
      Result URL: https://www.speedtest.net/result/c/5d22e08b-f8aa-468c-9a1f-1df71ffb5a9a
    
    

  • Run apt install lxde -y

  • @AXYZE said:

    @mcs said:
    It would also be possible to put together a team of experts a long time ago that would check the reliability of the legal side, the existence of the company and other aspects. All this can be done on the forum, but so far the administration here on the forum has no such desire.

    You are describing Patron Provider tag that was implemented 2 years ago. People here will go crazy when I'll say it, but this decision eliminated most scams and summerhosts. What else do you exactly want to do? Completly ban provider that do not send financial statements just to be sure that they are sustainable?

    If you want to tighten the requirements even more then legit, cheap providers will resign, because its too much hassle for little profit and big scammers will still invest their time faking everything. Heavy rules also lead to corruption, everywhere in the web, everywhere in the world. Financially or just because "they were too nice and I couldnt refuse".

    LET is already a top-notch community with basically no scams at this point. When you doubt it just go to any FB group. I know how well LET is managed and moderated, because I used to mod 20k-100k FB groups until 2021. There wasnt single day without PM spammer, scammer and every week someone's family receiced death threat over discussion on topics like "which Linux distro is best".

    Have you ever moderated such big community that you are giving such definitive statements?

    I understand what moderation is, and I have seen many other examples where more has been done than here. I will not argue with you that it is difficult to make such a process ideal here. But there are problems with fraud on the site and there are many of them. If you think that everyone will refuse complex checks, since they will not have a profit and so on - then so be it, let everything be as it is. I no longer care how and what is implemented here. I will simply review the proposals and quietly and peacefully check them in a personal key for myself and I do not need anything else here.

  • @mcs said:

    @AXYZE said:

    @mcs said:
    It would also be possible to put together a team of experts a long time ago that would check the reliability of the legal side, the existence of the company and other aspects. All this can be done on the forum, but so far the administration here on the forum has no such desire.

    You are describing Patron Provider tag that was implemented 2 years ago. People here will go crazy when I'll say it, but this decision eliminated most scams and summerhosts. What else do you exactly want to do? Completly ban provider that do not send financial statements just to be sure that they are sustainable?

    If you want to tighten the requirements even more then legit, cheap providers will resign, because its too much hassle for little profit and big scammers will still invest their time faking everything. Heavy rules also lead to corruption, everywhere in the web, everywhere in the world. Financially or just because "they were too nice and I couldnt refuse".

    LET is already a top-notch community with basically no scams at this point. When you doubt it just go to any FB group. I know how well LET is managed and moderated, because I used to mod 20k-100k FB groups until 2021. There wasnt single day without PM spammer, scammer and every week someone's family receiced death threat over discussion on topics like "which Linux distro is best".

    Have you ever moderated such big community that you are giving such definitive statements?

    I understand what moderation is, and I have seen many other examples where more has been done than here. I will not argue with you that it is difficult to make such a process ideal here. But there are problems with fraud on the site and there are many of them. If you think that everyone will refuse complex checks, since they will not have a profit and so on - then so be it, let everything be as it is. I no longer care how and what is implemented here. I will simply review the proposals and quietly and peacefully check them in a personal key for myself and I do not need anything else here.

    You haven't moderated cryptocurrency communities and channels yet - where the types of fraud are much wider and more diverse, but even in this case there are many mechanisms that protect users and are better implemented than here, although it is much more difficult to do there. I say again that I will not criticize or suggest anything more here - it still does not lead to anything in the end.

  • dev_vpsdev_vps Member
    edited November 2024

    @IndexHosting
    Looks like there is some issue on the host server
    I can not reach the VPS

    @hyperblast -- this reminds me of HT-Hosting

  • Ryzen host node is down.
    Epyc is up.

  • There is no Ryzen node down. All servers will be migrated from iNTERWERK (193.25.XXX at the beginning) to maincubes (as announced). We are already working on the website problems.

  • @IndexHosting said:

    There is no Ryzen node down. All servers will be migrated from iNTERWERK (193.25.XXX at the beginning) to maincubes (as announced). We are already working on the website problems.

    Then why I was getting **Critical Error" on the web page?

  • MumblyMumbly Member
    edited November 2024

    I (we) didn't actually know that, I think. I saw you mention the Ryzen migration to Maincubes once or twice in this thread, but that was it - no predicted date or anything specific. If you sent a notification to clients, it was probably before the LET crowd became your clientele.

    So, what's the plan? Are you moving physical servers from location A to location B, or...? Any ETA?
    Do the IPs stay the same? :)

  • I've been testing their VPS for over 10 days now. It's still in the evaluation period, but the recent YABS test results have shown a significant drop in performance. This might lead me to make some decisions.

    some of the YABS results below:

    yabs-20241020.log

    # ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## #
    #              Yet-Another-Bench-Script              #
    #                     v2024-06-09                    #
    # https://github.com/masonr/yet-another-bench-script #
    # ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## #
    
    Sun Oct 20 03:10:37 PM CST 2024
    
    Basic System Information:
    ---------------------------------
    Uptime     : 0 days, 1 hours, 26 minutes
    Processor  : AMD EPYC 9334 32-Core Processor
    CPU cores  : 4 @ 2695.944 MHz
    AES-NI     : ✔ Enabled
    VM-x/AMD-V : ✔ Enabled
    RAM        : 11.7 GiB
    Swap       : 0.0 KiB
    Disk       : 146.6 GiB
    Distro     : Debian GNU/Linux 12 (bookworm)
    Kernel     : 6.11.4-x64v4-xanmod1
    VM Type    : KVM
    IPv4/IPv6  : ✔ Online / ✔ Online
    
    IPv6 Network Information:
    ---------------------------------
    ISP        : dataforest GmbH
    ASN        : AS58212 dataforest GmbH
    Host       : dataforest GmbH
    Location   : Frankfurt am Main, Hesse (HE)
    Country    : Germany
    
    fio Disk Speed Tests (Mixed R/W 50/50) (Partition /dev/sda1):
    ---------------------------------
    Block Size | 4k            (IOPS) | 64k           (IOPS)
      ------   | ---            ----  | ----           ----
    Read       | 236.70 MB/s  (59.1k) | 1.74 GB/s    (27.2k)
    Write      | 237.33 MB/s  (59.3k) | 1.75 GB/s    (27.3k)
    Total      | 474.03 MB/s (118.5k) | 3.49 GB/s    (54.5k)
               |                      |
    Block Size | 512k          (IOPS) | 1m            (IOPS)
      ------   | ---            ----  | ----           ----
    Read       | 2.84 GB/s     (5.5k) | 2.58 GB/s     (2.5k)
    Write      | 3.00 GB/s     (5.8k) | 2.75 GB/s     (2.6k)
    Total      | 5.84 GB/s    (11.4k) | 5.34 GB/s     (5.2k)
    
    Geekbench 5 Benchmark Test:
    ---------------------------------
    Test            | Value
                    |
    Single Core     | 1113
    Multi Core      | 3493
    Full Test       | https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/22979271
    
    Geekbench 6 Benchmark Test:
    ---------------------------------
    Test            | Value
                    |
    Single Core     | 1446
    Multi Core      | 4728
    Full Test       | https://browser.geekbench.com/v6/cpu/8396603
    
    YABS completed in 9 min 49 sec
    

    yabs-20241102.log

    # ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## #
    #              Yet-Another-Bench-Script              #
    #                     v2024-06-09                    #
    # https://github.com/masonr/yet-another-bench-script #
    # ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## #
    
    Sat Nov  2 05:54:57 AM CST 2024
    
    Basic System Information:
    ---------------------------------
    Uptime     : 0 days, 12 hours, 33 minutes
    Processor  : AMD EPYC 9334 32-Core Processor
    CPU cores  : 4 @ 2695.948 MHz
    AES-NI     : ✔ Enabled
    VM-x/AMD-V : ✔ Enabled
    RAM        : 11.7 GiB
    Swap       : 0.0 KiB
    Disk       : 146.6 GiB
    Distro     : Debian GNU/Linux 12 (bookworm)
    Kernel     : 6.11.6-x64v4-xanmod1
    VM Type    : KVM
    IPv4/IPv6  : ✔ Online / ✔ Online
    
    IPv6 Network Information:
    ---------------------------------
    ISP        : dataforest GmbH
    ASN        : AS58212 dataforest GmbH
    Host       : dataforest GmbH
    Location   : Frankfurt am Main, Hesse (HE)
    Country    : Germany
    
    fio Disk Speed Tests (Mixed R/W 50/50) (Partition /dev/sda1):
    ---------------------------------
    Block Size | 4k            (IOPS) | 64k           (IOPS)
      ------   | ---            ----  | ----           ----
    Read       | 123.64 MB/s  (30.9k) | 971.05 MB/s  (15.1k)
    Write      | 123.96 MB/s  (30.9k) | 976.16 MB/s  (15.2k)
    Total      | 247.61 MB/s  (61.9k) | 1.94 GB/s    (30.4k)
               |                      |
    Block Size | 512k          (IOPS) | 1m            (IOPS)
      ------   | ---            ----  | ----           ----
    Read       | 2.05 GB/s     (4.0k) | 1.92 GB/s     (1.8k)
    Write      | 2.16 GB/s     (4.2k) | 2.05 GB/s     (2.0k)
    Total      | 4.21 GB/s     (8.2k) | 3.97 GB/s     (3.8k)
    
    Geekbench 5 Benchmark Test:
    ---------------------------------
    Test            | Value
                    |
    Single Core     | 864
    Multi Core      | 2454
    Full Test       | https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/23019161
    
    Geekbench 6 Benchmark Test:
    ---------------------------------
    Test            | Value
                    |
    Single Core     | 1101
    Multi Core      | 3210
    Full Test       | https://browser.geekbench.com/v6/cpu/8606724
    
    YABS completed in 12 min 8 sec
    
  • @Mumbly said:
    I (we) didn't actually know that, I think. I saw you mention the Ryzen migration to Maincubes once or twice in this thread, but that was it - no predicted date or anything specific. If you sent a notification to clients, it was probably before the LET crowd became your clientele.

    So, what's the plan? Are you moving physical servers from location A to location B, or...? Any ETA?
    Do the IPs stay the same? :)

    ip address is changing … I was able to see the new ip address assigned that puzzled me and suddenly the VPS was offline.

    Followed by **critical error” on the web page.

    Thanked by 1Mumbly
  • Meanwhile ryzen node of completely unrelated company Indigioo is also down.

  • tenperatenpera Member
    edited November 2024

    After moving, at Maincubes;

    > # ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## #
    > #              Yet-Another-Bench-Script              #
    > #                     v2024-06-09                    #
    > # https://github.com/masonr/yet-another-bench-script #
    > # ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## #
    > 
    > Fri Nov  1 22:55:33 UTC 2024
    > 
    > Basic System Information:
    > ---------------------------------
    > Uptime     : 0 days, 21 hours, 34 minutes
    > Processor  : AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D 16-Core Processor
    > CPU cores  : 2 @ 4192.124 MHz
    > AES-NI     : ✔ Enabled
    > VM-x/AMD-V : ✔ Enabled
    > RAM        : 7.8 GiB
    > Swap       : 0.0 KiB
    > Disk       : 98.4 GiB
    > Distro     : Debian GNU/Linux 12 (bookworm)
    > Kernel     : 6.1.0-26-amd64
    > VM Type    : KVM
    > IPv4/IPv6  : ✔ Online / ✔ Online
    > 
    > IPv6 Network Information:
    > ---------------------------------
    > ISP        : dataforest GmbH
    > ASN        : AS58212 dataforest GmbH
    > Host       : dataforest GmbH
    > Location   : Frankfurt am Main, Hesse (HE)
    > Country    : Germany
    > 
    > Preparing system for disk tests...
    > [0KGenerating fio test file...
    > [0KRunning fio random mixed R+W disk test with 4k block size...
    > [0KRunning fio random mixed R+W disk test with 64k block size...
    > [0KRunning fio random mixed R+W disk test with 512k block size...
    > [0KRunning fio random mixed R+W disk test with 1m block size...
    > [0Kfio Disk Speed Tests (Mixed R/W 50/50) (Partition /dev/sda1):
    > ---------------------------------
    > Block Size | 4k            (IOPS) | 64k           (IOPS)
    >   ------   | ---            ----  | ----           ---- 
    > Read       | 343.06 MB/s  (85.7k) | 2.96 GB/s    (46.3k)
    > Write      | 343.96 MB/s  (85.9k) | 2.98 GB/s    (46.6k)
    > Total      | 687.02 MB/s (171.7k) | 5.94 GB/s    (92.9k)
    >            |                      |                     
    > Block Size | 512k          (IOPS) | 1m            (IOPS)
    >   ------   | ---            ----  | ----           ---- 
    > Read       | 4.00 GB/s     (7.8k) | 3.30 GB/s     (3.2k)
    > Write      | 4.21 GB/s     (8.2k) | 3.52 GB/s     (3.4k)
    > Total      | 8.22 GB/s    (16.0k) | 6.83 GB/s     (6.6k)
    > 
    > iperf3 Network Speed Tests (IPv4):
    > ---------------------------------
    > Provider        | Location (Link)           | Send Speed      | Recv Speed      | Ping           
    > -----           | -----                     | ----            | ----            | ----           
    > Performing IPv4 iperf3 send test to Clouvider (Attempt #1 of 3)...
    > [0KPerforming IPv4 iperf3 recv test from Clouvider (Attempt #1 of 3)...
    > [0KClouvider       | London, UK (10G)          | 932 Mbits/sec   | 920 Mbits/sec   | 14.2 ms        
    > Performing IPv4 iperf3 send test to Eranium (Attempt #1 of 3)...
    > [0KPerforming IPv4 iperf3 recv test from Eranium (Attempt #1 of 3)...
    > [0KEranium         | Amsterdam, NL (100G)      | 935 Mbits/sec   | 932 Mbits/sec   | 7.50 ms        
    > Performing IPv4 iperf3 send test to Uztelecom (Attempt #1 of 3)...
    > [0KPerforming IPv4 iperf3 recv test from Uztelecom (Attempt #1 of 3)...
    > [0KUztelecom       | Tashkent, UZ (10G)        | 671 Mbits/sec   | 598 Mbits/sec   | 96.6 ms        
    > Performing IPv4 iperf3 send test to Leaseweb (Attempt #1 of 3)...
    > [0KPerforming IPv4 iperf3 recv test from Leaseweb (Attempt #1 of 3)...
    > [0KLeaseweb        | Singapore, SG (10G)       | 304 Mbits/sec   | 574 Mbits/sec   | 210 ms         
    > Performing IPv4 iperf3 send test to Clouvider (Attempt #1 of 3)...
    > [0KPerforming IPv4 iperf3 send test to Clouvider (Attempt #2 of 3)...
    > [0KPerforming IPv4 iperf3 recv test from Clouvider (Attempt #1 of 3)...
    > [0KClouvider       | Los Angeles, CA, US (10G) | 476 Mbits/sec   | 364 Mbits/sec   | 140 ms         
    > Performing IPv4 iperf3 send test to Leaseweb (Attempt #1 of 3)...
    > [0KPerforming IPv4 iperf3 recv test from Leaseweb (Attempt #1 of 3)...
    > [0KLeaseweb        | NYC, NY, US (10G)         | 704 Mbits/sec   | 623 Mbits/sec   | --             
    > Performing IPv4 iperf3 send test to Edgoo (Attempt #1 of 3)...
    > [0KPerforming IPv4 iperf3 recv test from Edgoo (Attempt #1 of 3)...
    > [0KEdgoo           | Sao Paulo, BR (1G)        | 345 Mbits/sec   | 281 Mbits/sec   | 191 ms         
    > 
    > iperf3 Network Speed Tests (IPv6):
    > ---------------------------------
    > Provider        | Location (Link)           | Send Speed      | Recv Speed      | Ping           
    > -----           | -----                     | ----            | ----            | ----           
    > Performing IPv6 iperf3 send test to Clouvider (Attempt #1 of 3)...
    > [0KPerforming IPv6 iperf3 recv test from Clouvider (Attempt #1 of 3)...
    > [0KClouvider       | London, UK (10G)          | 690 Mbits/sec   | 914 Mbits/sec   | 14.2 ms        
    > Performing IPv6 iperf3 send test to Eranium (Attempt #1 of 3)...
    > [0KPerforming IPv6 iperf3 recv test from Eranium (Attempt #1 of 3)...
    > [0KEranium         | Amsterdam, NL (100G)      | 694 Mbits/sec   | 922 Mbits/sec   | 7.40 ms        
    > Performing IPv6 iperf3 send test to Uztelecom (Attempt #1 of 3)...
    > [0KPerforming IPv6 iperf3 recv test from Uztelecom (Attempt #1 of 3)...
    > [0KUztelecom       | Tashkent, UZ (10G)        | 818 Mbits/sec   | 422 Mbits/sec   | 93.7 ms        
    > Performing IPv6 iperf3 send test to Leaseweb (Attempt #1 of 3)...
    > [0KPerforming IPv6 iperf3 recv test from Leaseweb (Attempt #1 of 3)...
    > [0KLeaseweb        | Singapore, SG (10G)       | 381 Mbits/sec   | 534 Mbits/sec   | 210 ms         
    > Performing IPv6 iperf3 send test to Clouvider (Attempt #1 of 3)...
    > [0KPerforming IPv6 iperf3 recv test from Clouvider (Attempt #1 of 3)...
    > [0KClouvider       | Los Angeles, CA, US (10G) | 579 Mbits/sec   | 442 Mbits/sec   | 140 ms         
    > Performing IPv6 iperf3 send test to Leaseweb (Attempt #1 of 3)...
    > [0KPerforming IPv6 iperf3 send test to Leaseweb (Attempt #2 of 3)...
    > [0KPerforming IPv6 iperf3 recv test from Leaseweb (Attempt #1 of 3)...
    > [0KPerforming IPv6 iperf3 recv test from Leaseweb (Attempt #2 of 3)...
    > [0KLeaseweb        | NYC, NY, US (10G)         | 640 Mbits/sec   | 592 Mbits/sec   | --             
    > Performing IPv6 iperf3 send test to Edgoo (Attempt #1 of 3)...
    > [0KPerforming IPv6 iperf3 recv test from Edgoo (Attempt #1 of 3)...
    > [0KEdgoo           | Sao Paulo, BR (1G)        | 355 Mbits/sec   | 219 Mbits/sec   | 191 ms         
    > 
    > Running GB6 benchmark test... *cue elevator music*
    > [0KGeekbench 6 Benchmark Test:
    > ---------------------------------
    > Test            | Value                         
    >                 |                               
    > Single Core     | 2655                          
    > Multi Core      | 4819                          
    > Full Test       | https://browser.geekbench.com/v6/cpu/8607403
    > 
    > YABS completed in 12 min 13 sec
    
  • MumblyMumbly Member
    edited November 2024

    @tenpera said: After moving, at Maincubes;

    How did you get new IP with their control panel down?

  • @Mumbly said: How did you get new IP with ther control panel down?

    They moved me yesterday.

    Thanked by 1Mumbly
  • MumblyMumbly Member
    edited November 2024

    Oh, my...

    I see at https://index-hosting.de

    CyberPanel Installed
    You have successfully installed CyberPanel, please remove this page and upload your website.

    I hope our data didn't just leak tonight and that you're running a patched, non vulnerable version...

  • Indigioo;

    # ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## #
    #              Yet-Another-Bench-Script              #
    #                     v2024-06-09                    #
    # https://github.com/masonr/yet-another-bench-script #
    # ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## #
    
    Fri Nov  1 19:23:53 EDT 2024
    
    Basic System Information:
    ---------------------------------
    Uptime     : 0 days, 18 hours, 45 minutes
    Processor  : AMD EPYC 9334 32-Core Processor
    CPU cores  : 2 @ 2695.948 MHz
    AES-NI     : ✔ Enabled
    VM-x/AMD-V : ✔ Enabled
    RAM        : 5.8 GiB
    Swap       : 975.0 MiB
    Disk       : 72.3 GiB
    Distro     : Debian GNU/Linux 12 (bookworm)
    Kernel     : 6.1.0-26-amd64
    VM Type    : KVM
    IPv4/IPv6  : ✔ Online / ❌ Offline
    
    IPv4 Network Information:
    ---------------------------------
    ISP        : OVH SAS
    ASN        : AS16276 OVH SAS
    Host       : MVNet
    Location   : Frankfurt am Main, Hesse (HE)
    Country    : Germany
    
    Preparing system for disk tests...
    [0KGenerating fio test file...
    [0KRunning fio random mixed R+W disk test with 4k block size...
    [0KRunning fio random mixed R+W disk test with 64k block size...
    [0KRunning fio random mixed R+W disk test with 512k block size...
    [0KRunning fio random mixed R+W disk test with 1m block size...
    [0Kfio Disk Speed Tests (Mixed R/W 50/50) (Partition /dev/sda1):
    ---------------------------------
    Block Size | 4k            (IOPS) | 64k           (IOPS)
      ------   | ---            ----  | ----           ---- 
    Read       | 77.78 MB/s   (19.4k) | 896.93 MB/s  (14.0k)
    Write      | 77.99 MB/s   (19.4k) | 901.65 MB/s  (14.0k)
    Total      | 155.77 MB/s  (38.9k) | 1.79 GB/s    (28.1k)
               |                      |                     
    Block Size | 512k          (IOPS) | 1m            (IOPS)
      ------   | ---            ----  | ----           ---- 
    Read       | 1.70 GB/s     (3.3k) | 2.12 GB/s     (2.0k)
    Write      | 1.79 GB/s     (3.5k) | 2.27 GB/s     (2.2k)
    Total      | 3.50 GB/s     (6.8k) | 4.40 GB/s     (4.2k)
    
    iperf3 Network Speed Tests (IPv4):
    ---------------------------------
    Provider        | Location (Link)           | Send Speed      | Recv Speed      | Ping           
    -----           | -----                     | ----            | ----            | ----           
    Performing IPv4 iperf3 send test to Clouvider (Attempt #1 of 3)...
    [0KPerforming IPv4 iperf3 recv test from Clouvider (Attempt #1 of 3)...
    [0KClouvider       | London, UK (10G)          | 744 Mbits/sec   | 971 Mbits/sec   | 14.6 ms        
    Performing IPv4 iperf3 send test to Eranium (Attempt #1 of 3)...
    [0KPerforming IPv4 iperf3 recv test from Eranium (Attempt #1 of 3)...
    [0KEranium         | Amsterdam, NL (100G)      | 922 Mbits/sec   | 986 Mbits/sec   | 8.31 ms        
    Performing IPv4 iperf3 send test to Uztelecom (Attempt #1 of 3)...
    [0KPerforming IPv4 iperf3 recv test from Uztelecom (Attempt #1 of 3)...
    [0KUztelecom       | Tashkent, UZ (10G)        | 388 Mbits/sec   | 926 Mbits/sec   | 97.6 ms        
    Performing IPv4 iperf3 send test to Leaseweb (Attempt #1 of 3)...
    [0KPerforming IPv4 iperf3 recv test from Leaseweb (Attempt #1 of 3)...
    [0KLeaseweb        | Singapore, SG (10G)       | 167 Mbits/sec   | 689 Mbits/sec   | 210 ms         
    Performing IPv4 iperf3 send test to Clouvider (Attempt #1 of 3)...
    [0KPerforming IPv4 iperf3 recv test from Clouvider (Attempt #1 of 3)...
    [0KClouvider       | Los Angeles, CA, US (10G) | 174 Mbits/sec   | 797 Mbits/sec   | 142 ms         
    Performing IPv4 iperf3 send test to Leaseweb (Attempt #1 of 3)...
    [0KPerforming IPv4 iperf3 recv test from Leaseweb (Attempt #1 of 3)...
    [0KPerforming IPv4 iperf3 recv test from Leaseweb (Attempt #2 of 3)...
    [0KPerforming IPv4 iperf3 recv test from Leaseweb (Attempt #3 of 3)...
    [0KLeaseweb        | NYC, NY, US (10G)         | 199 Mbits/sec   | 904 Mbits/sec   | 83.9 ms        
    Performing IPv4 iperf3 send test to Edgoo (Attempt #1 of 3)...
    [0KPerforming IPv4 iperf3 recv test from Edgoo (Attempt #1 of 3)...
    [0KEdgoo           | Sao Paulo, BR (1G)        | 174 Mbits/sec   | 804 Mbits/sec   | 199 ms         
    
    Running GB6 benchmark test... *cue elevator music*
    [0KGeekbench 6 Benchmark Test:
    ---------------------------------
    Test            | Value                         
                    |                               
    Single Core     | 1085                          
    Multi Core      | 1799                          
    Full Test       | https://browser.geekbench.com/v6/cpu/8607729
    
    YABS completed in 14 min 45 sec
    
  • @dev_vps said: ip address is changing … I was able to see the new ip address assigned that puzzled me and suddenly the VPS was offline.

    It's up already.

    Thanked by 1dev_vps
  • @Mumbly said:

    @dev_vps said: ip address is changing … I was able to see the new ip address assigned that puzzled me and suddenly the VPS was offline.

    It's up already.

    not working for me

This discussion has been closed.