All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
Virtono promo VPS benchmark and review
I got myself one of the flash sale 2vCores, 4 GB memory, 80 GB SSD, 3 TB traffic volume VPS ...
and of bloody course benchmarked it right away.
First, half a compliment: I purchased it during the weekend and still have no reply to my ticket - BUT: the VPS became active yesterday, sunday after some delay.
Here's the results, based on 23 runs, as usual processor and memory first (+ some sysinfo)
Version 2.5.0a, (c) 2018+ jsg (->lowendtalk.com)
Machine: amd64, Arch.: amd64, Model: Intel(R) Xeon(R) Gold 5218 CPU @ 2.30GHz
OS, version: FreeBSD 14.2, Mem.: 3.989 GB
CPU - Cores: 2, Family/Model/Stepping: 6/85/7
Cache: 32K/32K L1d/L1i, 1024K L2, 22M L3
Std. Flags: fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat
pse36 cflsh mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss sse3 pclmulqdq vmx ssse3 fma cx16
pdcm pcid sse4_1 sse4_2 x2apic movbe popcnt tsc_deadline aes xsave
osxsave avx f16c rdrnd hypervisor
Ext. Flags: fsgsbase tsc_adjust bmi1 avx2 smep bmi2 erms invpcid mpx pat pse36
rdseed adx smap clflushopt clwb sha umip pku ospke syscall nx pdpe1gb
rdtscp lm lahf_lm lzcnt
AES? Yes
Nested Virt.? Yes
HW RNG? Yes
ProcMem SC [MB/s]: avg 160.2 - min 52.8 (32.9 %), max 309.0 (192.8 %)
ProcMem MA [MB/s]: avg 459.9 - min 418.2 (90.9 %), max 515.5 (112.1 %)
ProcMem MB [MB/s]: avg 468.8 - min 418.6 (89.3 %), max 537.0 (114.6 %)
ProcMem AES [MB/s]: avg 943.6 - min 892.9 (94.6 %), max 990.1 (104.9 %)
ProcMem RSA [kp/s]: avg 65.2 - min 52.8 (80.9 %), max 78.0 (119.7 %)
A 2nd Gen Xeon Gold, nice! The most relevant flags (for us here) are all green, nice. The processor&mem theoretically roughly on AMD Epyc level, nice - not so nice though is the very high spread which basically boils down to a lottery; sometimes you get performance that is so low that a stone-age E5v2 would look like a race horse next to this VPS, and sometimes you get Epyc-like performance.
But then to be fair, This VPS was sold at 10% of its normal price (which btw. is ridiculously expensive), so of course corners are cut and heftily so.
About the best news is that we finally can get Xeon based VPS with an acceptable, albeit not great, AES in hardware performance. RSA still is "Xeon-Level as we know it" i.e. rather poor.
Now on to the drive ...
--- Disk 4 KB - Buffered ---
Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 4.58 - min 3.92 (85.6%), max 5.57 (121.6%)
Write rnd. [MB/s]: avg 4.67 - min 3.47 (74.4%), max 5.85 (125.4%)
Read seq. [MB/s]: avg 10.65 - min 8.58 (80.6%), max 14.41 (135.3%)
Read rnd. [MB/s]: avg 8.27 - min 5.94 (71.8%), max 12.53 (151.6%)
--- Disk 4 KB - Sync/Direct ---
Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 4.56 - min 3.57 (78.3%), max 5.65 (123.9%)
Write rnd. [MB/s]: avg 4.59 - min 3.41 (74.3%), max 5.62 (122.4%)
Read seq. [MB/s]: avg 11.39 - min 8.72 (76.6%), max 16.09 (141.3%)
Read rnd. [MB/s]: avg 8.31 - min 6.66 (80.2%), max 10.26 (123.5%)
--- Disk 64 KB - Buffered ---
Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 45.51 - min 34.70 (76.2%), max 57.44 (126.2%)
Write rnd. [MB/s]: avg 49.27 - min 38.83 (78.8%), max 61.83 (125.5%)
Read seq. [MB/s]: avg 773.35 - min 652.51 (84.4%), max 1008.89 (130.5%)
Read rnd. [MB/s]: avg 123.94 - min 82.37 (66.5%), max 153.94 (124.2%)
--- Disk 64 KB - Sync/Direct ---
Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 4.87 - min 4.30 (88.3%), max 5.94 (121.9%)
Write rnd. [MB/s]: avg 3.13 - min 2.83 (90.4%), max 3.66 (116.9%)
Read seq. [MB/s]: avg 814.28 - min 645.09 (79.2%), max 1072.18 (131.7%)
Read rnd. [MB/s]: avg 124.12 - min 81.01 (65.3%), max 157.50 (126.9%)
--- Disk 1 MB - Buffered ---
Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 79.53 - min 57.10 (71.8%), max 106.38 (133.8%)
Write rnd. [MB/s]: avg 153.30 - min 101.89 (66.5%), max 201.11 (131.2%)
Read seq. [MB/s]: avg 1678.78 - min 1096.51 (65.3%), max 2194.93 (130.7%)
Read rnd. [MB/s]: avg 648.37 - min 433.46 (66.9%), max 819.06 (126.3%)
--- Disk 1 MB - Sync/Direct ---
Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 20.99 - min 19.30 (91.9%), max 24.06 (114.6%)
Write rnd. [MB/s]: avg 15.90 - min 14.48 (91.1%), max 19.36 (121.8%)
Read seq. [MB/s]: avg 1825.64 - min 1411.76 (77.3%), max 2227.13 (122.0%)
Read rnd. [MB/s]: avg 665.20 - min 468.08 (70.4%), max 860.89 (129.4%)
--- Disk IOps (Sync/Direct) ---
Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 20.45 - min 19.72 (96.4%), max 20.62 (100.8%)
IOps : avg 5234.52 - min 5047.34 (96.4%), max 5279.59 (100.9%)
Decent, really decent and a tight but really adequate IOps level. 20 dot something MB/s and a bit over 5000 IOps (4k/4t, seq. write) is plenty enough for most jobs and the spread is relatively tight. Is it really an SSD, good quality, well cached and highly likely a (obviously sufficiently large) array -or- is it a mediocre (in terms of performance) NVMe? Me not know but my strong guess is the former. Either way, well done Virtono!
Finally the last important element in a server, connectivity (exactly the same targets as in my recent "who's the bestest?" shootout with the better one taken when two were available).
--- Europe ---
NO TRH mirror.archlinux.no [F: 9]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 119.3 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 261.2 (218.9%)
Ping [ms]: avg 52.7 - min 52.4 (99.4%), max 53.6 (101.7%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 53.1 - min 52.5 (98.9%), max 54.7 (103.1%)
UK LON lon.speedtest.clouvider.net [F: 2]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 178.7 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 423.5 (237.0%)
Ping [ms]: avg 48.6 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 258.8 (533.0%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 48.6 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 258.8 (533.0%)
NL AMS nl.mirrors.clouvider.net [F: 5]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 196.7 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 467.0 (237.4%)
Ping [ms]: avg 26.4 - min 19.5 (74.0%), max 151.8 (575.8%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 32.0 - min 19.6 (61.3%), max 151.8 (474.4%)
DE FRA mirror.plusline.net [F: 3]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 296.9 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 634.1 (213.6%)
Ping [ms]: avg 19.6 - min 19.1 (97.5%), max 23.1 (117.9%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 21.6 - min 19.2 (89.1%), max 34.4 (159.6%)
FR PAR mirror.in2p3.fr [F: 3]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 194.6 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 452.3 (232.4%)
Ping [ms]: avg 21.5 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 28.4 (132.2%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 50.3 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 106.0 (210.9%)
CH GEN pkg.adfinis-on-exoscale.ch [F: 6]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 198.5 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 424.2 (213.8%)
Ping [ms]: avg 34.2 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 42.9 (125.4%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 37.2 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 78.4 (210.9%)
IT MIL it1.mirror.vhosting-it.com [F: 0]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 539.3 - min 46.8 (8.7%), max 766.5 (142.1%)
Ping [ms]: avg 3.7 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 10.6 (285.8%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 27.9 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 203.0 (728.7%)
ES MAD mirror.es.stackscale.com [F: 9]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 96.4 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 224.4 (232.7%)
Ping [ms]: avg 57.8 - min 56.5 (97.8%), max 76.3 (132.0%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 63.9 - min 56.5 (88.5%), max 97.7 (153.0%)
RO almalinux.mirrors.orange.ro [F: 5]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 119.6 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 284.4 (237.7%)
Ping [ms]: avg 51.5 - min 51.2 (99.5%), max 52.3 (101.6%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 52.8 - min 51.2 (97.0%), max 67.9 (128.7%)
RU MOS mirror.yandex.ru [F: 8]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 73.6 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 212.9 (289.1%)
Ping [ms]: avg 49.1 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 55.8 (113.7%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 74.7 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 120.6 (161.5%)
--- Asia / Oceania ---
RU SIB mirror.truenetwork.ru [F: 22]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 0.0 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 0.0 (0.0%)
Ping [ms]: avg 128.8 - min 123.9 (96.2%), max 145.0 (112.6%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 128.8 - min 123.9 (96.2%), max 145.0 (112.6%)
IR SHI mirror.almalinux.sabahost.net [F: 8]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 60.5 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 117.5 (194.1%)
Ping [ms]: avg 99.1 - min 96.6 (97.5%), max 112.4 (113.5%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 104.2 - min 96.7 (92.8%), max 144.3 (138.4%)
IN MUM mirrors.piconets.webwerks.in [F: 7]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 49.2 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 92.2 (187.2%)
Ping [ms]: avg 118.1 - min 117.5 (99.5%), max 122.1 (103.3%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 123.6 - min 117.6 (95.2%), max 160.4 (129.8%)
SG SGP mirror.sg.gs [F: 0]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 48.1 - min 24.0 (49.8%), max 67.2 (139.7%)
Ping [ms]: avg 157.9 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 173.8 (110.1%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 159.7 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 174.5 (109.3%)
CN HKG mirrors.xtom.hk [F: 22]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 0.0 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 0.0 (0.0%)
Ping [ms]: avg 179.2 - min 173.9 (97.1%), max 199.6 (111.4%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 179.2 - min 173.9 (97.1%), max 199.6 (111.4%)
CN NAJ mirror.nyist.edu.cn [F: 6]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 31.6 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 70.8 (224.5%)
Ping [ms]: avg 148.5 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 221.0 (148.9%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 197.5 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 370.2 (187.4%)
JP TOK ftp.udx.icscoe.jp [F: 4]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 28.7 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 43.8 (152.7%)
Ping [ms]: avg 229.0 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 254.0 (110.9%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 230.5 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 266.0 (115.4%)
AU SYD mirror.internet.asn.au [F: 14]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 12.9 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 44.9 (346.6%)
Ping [ms]: avg 244.7 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 272.7 (111.4%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 246.2 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 280.7 (114.0%)
--- Africa ---
ZA JOB mirror.datakeepers.co.za [F: 10]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 28.0 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 62.0 (221.0%)
Ping [ms]: avg 199.9 - min 179.1 (89.6%), max 237.2 (118.7%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 203.3 - min 179.8 (88.4%), max 237.2 (116.7%)
KE NAI mirror.liquidtelecom.com [F: 22]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 0.0 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 0.0 (0.0%)
Ping [ms]: avg 167.3 - min 166.5 (99.5%), max 172.1 (102.9%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 167.3 - min 166.5 (99.5%), max 172.1 (102.9%)
--- America ---
US NYC mirrors-nyj.hawkhost.com [F: 8]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 60.1 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 122.1 (203.2%)
Ping [ms]: avg 97.4 - min 95.1 (97.6%), max 126.0 (129.3%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 99.3 - min 95.1 (95.8%), max 126.0 (126.9%)
US CHI linux-mirrors.fnal.gov [F: 0]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 76.3 - min 41.5 (54.4%), max 99.3 (130.1%)
Ping [ms]: avg 121.2 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 145.0 (119.7%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 123.9 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 145.0 (117.0%)
US LAX mirror.alma.lax1.serverforge.org [F: 9]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 34.3 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 74.4 (216.8%)
Ping [ms]: avg 145.2 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 172.3 (118.7%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 146.9 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 172.3 (117.3%)
Those results, frankly, are mediocre, and that's putting it nicely, especially when considering what you can't see here: many targets, incl. known to be good like terahost/gigahost, Clouvider, xtom are almost or indeed complete failures from Virtono! And that from a DC in IT, Milano which is known to have quite good connectivity!
So, sorry @virtono, but those results are mediocre at best. A single european target, in Italy, "next door" achieves (a bit) over 500 Mb/s, Asia connectivity is poor, Africa connectivity is poor, America connectivity is poor, and european connectivity really isn't worth writing home about either but only acceptable.
@xHosts, @Chunkserve, ZeroCloud, and some other providers here on LET offer better, in some cases even far better, performance and/or connectivity for less money. Let me close with a clou: Even some of YOUR locations offer far better connectivity, Virtono!
TL;DR that Virtono box is disappointing and not recommended, sorry.
Comments
very detailed, so long that I'll switch to ggl translator to help read through lest I miss some points.
you also mentioned terahost, xtom for comparisons. could you list more providers?
Please note that those providers were mentioned in the context of targets that is, servers my benchmark tried to reach and download from. And I mentioned them as particularly well known as very well working and connected examples. So, not being able to achieve decent results (or even none at all) with them is a clear indicator of poor connectivity of the tested system (in this case my Virtono Milano VPS).
With 5 months of my Virtono Hong Kong vps, the experience has been similar. The hardware, cpu and disk, is decent. Not the best, but not a complaint.
The network really isn't good, though. Even though it might seem like a good deal on the surface with the resources given, it's more than cancelled out by the poor network quality.
I do have a Virtono VPS (UK) with acceptable to decent connectivity. It seems to depend a lot (more than usual) on the location, but for a Milan location to have mediocre or even crappy connectivity seems odd to me. Virtono Hongkong connectivity not being great meanwhile doesn't surprise me ...
I've had a Virtono VM in Milan since September and while the first 5-6 months were great, since February I have had a lot of network downtime, with 95% packetloss for days.
Support says the fixed it this weekend so let's see how long it lasts this time.
My Bucharest VM with Virtono have been flawless, so it seems to be very location dependent.
It depends on location, I have some VMs that have been flawless so far, but some that are a bit hit or miss sometimes.
a ticket usually solves the issues for some time, but they've at least returned once or twice already, which is a bit annoying
@virtono
I have got HU and PL locations, both baby servers and both run very well.
I got one in Milan during BF (as it seemed to have good pings). Initially, network was good during the day, but a complete mess during the evening (with high packet loss). Since maybe February network seems to be stable for me, but latency has generally gone up (with a lot more traffic now routed via Frankfurt).
Next year, I'll cancel it. The internet is really bad...
Thanks for the heads up. I ordered a Sydney 8G server last week and put up a small but modded Minecraft server on it earlier today. Haven't noticed anything concerning so far. Will monitor.
Sydney is fine like @zGato said it depends on location
I've had Sydney for 10+ months now not a single issue or downtime
Awesome - music to my wallet
@Chunkserve also offers you twice the downtime and 1% the support. Ticket open with them now since Friday, May 9th, 2025 (19:38) for a server not working and being offline and still no updates to the ticket. Virtrtualizor just continues to return "Error 1) The operation could not be completed". Wonder how many others on the same node also don't have services currently...
Never had any issue like this with @virtono, in fact pretty damn stable if you ask me.
My server in LA:
21:24:03 up 60 days, 7:51They also answer tickets pretty quickly anytime I have had to put one in. So that's two more reasons to go with Virtono than Chunkserve any day.
I had Virtono VPS in Toronto and Sydney on a BF deal a while ago. Seemed ok, but shortly after both servers were migrated to servers physically in the US instead without communications. Sydney was eventually moved back to Sydney but not the Toronto one. Cancelled at end of billing period. Poor customer service and comms.
FWIW: My @virtono "Milano" (IT) VPS meanwhile seems to be in NL ...
Well, I did open a ticket re the miraculous relocation (and also do to their invoicing me for a Milano VPS) about a week ago. So far no reaction.
Sad, really sad (once upon a time they were a decent provider).
They've been ignoring my refund ticket for like a month as well. Not surprised at this point.