LowEndTalk's 15th Birthday Is This Saturday! Who's Doing a Special Offer?

avsisp · July 2025

@JohnnySac said:

@avsisp said:

@plumberg said:

@avsisp said:

@plumberg said:

@avsisp said:

@JohnnySac said:

@avsisp said:
1) How to enable VM-x without setting CPU to Host? Do other virtualized processors allow this? Reason I ask is there have been past CVEs including some that happened on VirtualBox that relied on the CPU set to host allowing escape to host OS and management of host processes/memory tables. So I'd high advise hosts and I definitely myself won't set it to host unless it's my own VM that's trusted.

FYI Most users on LET prefer CPU host passthrough and most providers do enable it.

If a host does that's their business and when they get these people that escape the VM and takeover the whole host or steal user data, that's on them. I won't be one to do so - as it is a very big security risk and makes no sense. Might as well just give them an LXC container at that point - about the same security level then.

Genuinely curious how a guest would take control with pass-through enabled?

There have been previous CVEs where because 2 processes share same core and it isn't virtualized they can control eachother processes and if a process happens to be a host one they can grab it and execute malicious code arbitrarily.

Thanks
How does not enabling pass through prevent this?

Simply setting the CPU to anything except for Host normally will create a virtualized processor and driver that cannot talk directly to host CPU and process feeds without going through the hypervisor's virtualization stack.

KVM with host-passthrough still provides hardware-based isolation using VT-x/AMD-V. It’s not the same attack surface or containment model as a container, which shares the host kernel directly.

And while I understand opting out for safety, there’s also a real performance and feature tradeoff, especially for workloads needing AVX, AES, or nested KVM.

Nesting and AES can be enabled without setting to Host and passing directly through with risks. The only thing I'm still curious about is VT-x which I've found out now apparently setting it to Skylake or similar should provide. Or something as close to the host CPU as possible. I'll try it later and if all works out, I can enable it without setting to Host.

AES is actually enabled already by default on the x86-64-AES-v2 that is enabled by default.

JohnnySac · July 2025

@plumberg said:

@JohnnySac said:

@avsisp said:

@plumberg said:

@avsisp said:

@plumberg said:

@avsisp said:

@JohnnySac said:

@avsisp said:
1) How to enable VM-x without setting CPU to Host? Do other virtualized processors allow this? Reason I ask is there have been past CVEs including some that happened on VirtualBox that relied on the CPU set to host allowing escape to host OS and management of host processes/memory tables. So I'd high advise hosts and I definitely myself won't set it to host unless it's my own VM that's trusted.

FYI Most users on LET prefer CPU host passthrough and most providers do enable it.

If a host does that's their business and when they get these people that escape the VM and takeover the whole host or steal user data, that's on them. I won't be one to do so - as it is a very big security risk and makes no sense. Might as well just give them an LXC container at that point - about the same security level then.

Genuinely curious how a guest would take control with pass-through enabled?

There have been previous CVEs where because 2 processes share same core and it isn't virtualized they can control eachother processes and if a process happens to be a host one they can grab it and execute malicious code arbitrarily.

Thanks
How does not enabling pass through prevent this?

Simply setting the CPU to anything except for Host normally will create a virtualized processor and driver that cannot talk directly to host CPU and process feeds without going through the hypervisor's virtualization stack.

KVM with host-passthrough still provides hardware-based isolation using VT-x/AMD-V. It’s not the same attack surface or containment model as a container, which shares the host kernel directly.

And while I understand opting out for safety, there’s also a real performance and feature tradeoff, especially for workloads needing AVX, AES, or nested KVM.

Could these features be enabled without pass-through? So workloads could still take advantage of the native flags?

Yes, some CPU features like AVX and AES can be enabled but not nested virtualization (at least I've never seen it).

avsisp · July 2025

@JohnnySac said:

@plumberg said:

@JohnnySac said:

@avsisp said:

@plumberg said:

@avsisp said:

@plumberg said:

@avsisp said:

@JohnnySac said:

@avsisp said:
1) How to enable VM-x without setting CPU to Host? Do other virtualized processors allow this? Reason I ask is there have been past CVEs including some that happened on VirtualBox that relied on the CPU set to host allowing escape to host OS and management of host processes/memory tables. So I'd high advise hosts and I definitely myself won't set it to host unless it's my own VM that's trusted.

FYI Most users on LET prefer CPU host passthrough and most providers do enable it.

If a host does that's their business and when they get these people that escape the VM and takeover the whole host or steal user data, that's on them. I won't be one to do so - as it is a very big security risk and makes no sense. Might as well just give them an LXC container at that point - about the same security level then.

Genuinely curious how a guest would take control with pass-through enabled?

There have been previous CVEs where because 2 processes share same core and it isn't virtualized they can control eachother processes and if a process happens to be a host one they can grab it and execute malicious code arbitrarily.

Thanks
How does not enabling pass through prevent this?

Simply setting the CPU to anything except for Host normally will create a virtualized processor and driver that cannot talk directly to host CPU and process feeds without going through the hypervisor's virtualization stack.

KVM with host-passthrough still provides hardware-based isolation using VT-x/AMD-V. It’s not the same attack surface or containment model as a container, which shares the host kernel directly.

And while I understand opting out for safety, there’s also a real performance and feature tradeoff, especially for workloads needing AVX, AES, or nested KVM.

Could these features be enabled without pass-through? So workloads could still take advantage of the native flags?

Yes, some CPU features like AVX and AES can be enabled but not nested virtualization (at least I've never seen it).

See last comment - it can indeed. Even in LXC you can enable nested. Definitely is possible. Just was asking here about the VT-x flag because I've never tried and maybe someone else already knew what to set it to. But I guess Google is your friend lol 😂 Skylake or CPU closest to Host will allow it. And under Options set AMD/VT-x enabled.

AlteredParadox · July 2025

Am I reading the docs wrong? To me it’s just saying pass through passes the exact model and features through, not that it doesn’t virtualize a cpu. - in fact it quite literally states it may strip out features that can’t be virtualized.

“Host passthrough

This passes the host CPU model features, model, stepping, exactly to the guest. Note that KVM may filter out some host CPU model features if they cannot be supported with virtualization. Live migration is unsafe when this mode is used as libvirt / QEMU cannot guarantee a stable CPU is exposed to the guest across hosts. This is the recommended CPU to use, provided live migration is not required.”

avsisp · July 2025

@AlteredParadox said:
Am I reading the docs wrong? To me it’s just saying pass through passes the exact model and features through, not that it doesn’t virtualize a cpu. - in fact it quite literally states it may strip out features that can’t be virtualized.

“Host passthrough

This passes the host CPU model features, model, stepping, exactly to the guest. Note that KVM may filter out some host CPU model features if they cannot be supported with virtualization. Live migration is unsafe when this mode is used as libvirt / QEMU cannot guarantee a stable CPU is exposed to the guest across hosts. This is the recommended CPU to use, provided live migration is not required.”

Not sure. It doesn't say that it does or doesn't make virtual driver and all. I've read before about it and seems it passes it entirely straight through. They really should document it better.

Here's chatgpt's take without special promoting or asking it to lean one way or the other (unbiased as possible) simple asked "Proxmox CPU set to host security risks?" So that it could have said no risk really, etc but it did not definitely say that - complete opposite...

https://chatgpt.com/share/6874e3f7-5184-800f-a5ca-6bf7c6887319

To quote the most worrying part: "which could aid in hypervisor escape or targeted attacks."

JohnnySac · July 2025

@AlteredParadox said:
Am I reading the docs wrong? To me it’s just saying pass through passes the exact model and features through, not that it doesn’t virtualize a cpu. - in fact it quite literally states it may strip out features that can’t be virtualized.

“Host passthrough

This passes the host CPU model features, model, stepping, exactly to the guest. Note that KVM may filter out some host CPU model features if they cannot be supported with virtualization. Live migration is unsafe when this mode is used as libvirt / QEMU cannot guarantee a stable CPU is exposed to the guest across hosts. This is the recommended CPU to use, provided live migration is not required.”

Yes host pass through or not, it still provides hardware-based isolation using VT-x/AMD-V. The thought is, passing all CPU features through can increase the attack surface if there are unpatched CPU vulnerabilities (Spectre, Meltdown, etc.). With a properly updated system this would be pretty rare but anything is possible!

avsisp · July 2025

@JohnnySac said:

@AlteredParadox said:
Am I reading the docs wrong? To me it’s just saying pass through passes the exact model and features through, not that it doesn’t virtualize a cpu. - in fact it quite literally states it may strip out features that can’t be virtualized.

“Host passthrough

This passes the host CPU model features, model, stepping, exactly to the guest. Note that KVM may filter out some host CPU model features if they cannot be supported with virtualization. Live migration is unsafe when this mode is used as libvirt / QEMU cannot guarantee a stable CPU is exposed to the guest across hosts. This is the recommended CPU to use, provided live migration is not required.”

Yes host pass through or not, it still provides hardware-based isolation using VT-x/AMD-V. The thought is, passing all CPU features through can increase the attack surface if there are unpatched CPU vulnerabilities (Spectre, Meltdown, etc.). With a properly updated system this would be pretty rare but anything is possible!

Makes sense. Similar to what chatgpt said in the thread I posted asking it. Especially I guess on our Albania server would be bad as the entire system is out of support today - so it doesn't get security updates (host specs published on LEB threads, but yeah) so for us and I'm sure a lot of hosts that don't have this year's latest servers (how can you blame us at the prices we charge here lol) because we'd rather own than rent our servers most of the time, it would be a massive security risk to put Host processor on there.

cmeerw · July 2025

@avsisp said:

@plumberg said:

@avsisp said:

@JohnnySac said:

@avsisp said:
1) How to enable VM-x without setting CPU to Host? Do other virtualized processors allow this? Reason I ask is there have been past CVEs including some that happened on VirtualBox that relied on the CPU set to host allowing escape to host OS and management of host processes/memory tables. So I'd high advise hosts and I definitely myself won't set it to host unless it's my own VM that's trusted.

FYI Most users on LET prefer CPU host passthrough and most providers do enable it.

If a host does that's their business and when they get these people that escape the VM and takeover the whole host or steal user data, that's on them. I won't be one to do so - as it is a very big security risk and makes no sense. Might as well just give them an LXC container at that point - about the same security level then.

Genuinely curious how a guest would take control with pass-through enabled?

There have been previous CVEs where because 2 processes share same core and it isn't virtualized they can control eachother processes and if a process happens to be a host one they can grab it and execute malicious code arbitrarily.

Link to specific CVEs needed - it's not a simple as just "grabbing" the CPU from a host process.

@avsisp said:

@plumberg said:

@avsisp said:

@plumberg said:

@avsisp said:

@JohnnySac said:

@avsisp said:
1) How to enable VM-x without setting CPU to Host? Do other virtualized processors allow this? Reason I ask is there have been past CVEs including some that happened on VirtualBox that relied on the CPU set to host allowing escape to host OS and management of host processes/memory tables. So I'd high advise hosts and I definitely myself won't set it to host unless it's my own VM that's trusted.

FYI Most users on LET prefer CPU host passthrough and most providers do enable it.

If a host does that's their business and when they get these people that escape the VM and takeover the whole host or steal user data, that's on them. I won't be one to do so - as it is a very big security risk and makes no sense. Might as well just give them an LXC container at that point - about the same security level then.

Genuinely curious how a guest would take control with pass-through enabled?

There have been previous CVEs where because 2 processes share same core and it isn't virtualized they can control eachother processes and if a process happens to be a host one they can grab it and execute malicious code arbitrarily.

Thanks
How does not enabling pass through prevent this?

Simply setting the CPU to anything except for Host normally will create a virtualized processor and driver that cannot talk directly to host CPU and process feeds without going through the hypervisor's virtualization stack.

That's also not how it works. The CPU setting in qemu affects what the cpuid instruction returns, but other than that, the VPS runs the same way on the CPU.

VlP · July 2025

@avsisp said:

@lukast__ said:

@avsisp said: Why does the GB6 score take forever and show so low when GB4 and others score extremely high and run fast

GB6 needs around 2 GB RAM, and if there's less RAM than that and there's swap, it will use the swap and therefore be lower and take longer. If there's less RAM and no swap it will simply fail. Also GB6 multi-core scores don't really scale past 4/6 cores.

GB4/5/6 scores are in any case not directly comparable, usually the GB4 score is significantly higher than the GB6 score which usually is a little bit higher than the GB5 score.

@avsisp said: just benchmarks posted here people keep using 6 instead of 4.

Newer GB versions usually support/use newer CPU flags/features and therefore can be more meaningful depending on if the intended workload can/does use those features.

99.9% of newer CPU flags are only used in 1 of 2 cases:
1) Windows OS like 11 or Server 2025
2) AI workloads

So for 99.99% of those normal users, seems GB6 is meaningless entirely and GB4 is the actual score of expected use when they're 99.99% of the time running proxies, seedbox, website, mysql, mail, or VPN from it and not using any of that at all. Meaning GB6 pretty much should be only for Desktop windows machines to test.

Also - thank you for that excellent explanation. Seems to make sense why it would be like that. Last year's CPU is this year's shamed by GB6 but in real life loads outperforms these crap E-Core processors every day lol 😂

Anyone can chime in on other part of question about the VT-x if anyone knows? Thanks everyone 🙏 you're all awesome. I appreciate all the support and help here with things like this.

GB4 and GB5 result added:

> Geekbench 4
Geekbench  Benchmark Test:
Test            | Value                         
                |                               
Single Core     | 2331                          
Multi Core      | 4312                          
Full Test       | https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/18880646

> Geekbench 5
Geekbench  Benchmark Test:
Test            | Value                         
                |                               
Single Core     | 502                           
Multi Core      | 953                           
Full Test       | https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/23671840

avsisp · July 2025

@VlP said:

@avsisp said:

@lukast__ said:

@avsisp said: Why does the GB6 score take forever and show so low when GB4 and others score extremely high and run fast

GB6 needs around 2 GB RAM, and if there's less RAM than that and there's swap, it will use the swap and therefore be lower and take longer. If there's less RAM and no swap it will simply fail. Also GB6 multi-core scores don't really scale past 4/6 cores.

GB4/5/6 scores are in any case not directly comparable, usually the GB4 score is significantly higher than the GB6 score which usually is a little bit higher than the GB5 score.

@avsisp said: just benchmarks posted here people keep using 6 instead of 4.

Newer GB versions usually support/use newer CPU flags/features and therefore can be more meaningful depending on if the intended workload can/does use those features.

99.9% of newer CPU flags are only used in 1 of 2 cases:
1) Windows OS like 11 or Server 2025
2) AI workloads

So for 99.99% of those normal users, seems GB6 is meaningless entirely and GB4 is the actual score of expected use when they're 99.99% of the time running proxies, seedbox, website, mysql, mail, or VPN from it and not using any of that at all. Meaning GB6 pretty much should be only for Desktop windows machines to test.

Also - thank you for that excellent explanation. Seems to make sense why it would be like that. Last year's CPU is this year's shamed by GB6 but in real life loads outperforms these crap E-Core processors every day lol 😂

Anyone can chime in on other part of question about the VT-x if anyone knows? Thanks everyone 🙏 you're all awesome. I appreciate all the support and help here with things like this.

GB4 and GB5 result added:
> Geekbench 4
Geekbench  Benchmark Test:
Test            | Value                         
                |                               
Single Core     | 2331                          
Multi Core      | 4312                          
Full Test       | https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/18880646
> Geekbench 5
Geekbench  Benchmark Test:
Test            | Value                         
                |                               
Single Core     | 502                           
Multi Core      | 953                           
Full Test       | https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/23671840

Thanks mate. That even changed the AI "analyse these results" outlook.

Combined Assessment
Resource    Score/Result    Analysis
CPU (GB4)   2331 / 4312 Moderate for VPS workloads
CPU (GB6)   370 / 406   Harsh rating, not fully reflective
I/O Speed   664 MB/s avg    Very strong (NVMe class)
Network 100 Mbps capped Consistent with AVS plans

After sending it both, it added comment on GB6 (harsh rating, not fully reflective). Interesting.

raindog308 · July 2025

@FAT32 said: @raindog308 have you bought anything from this thread yet?

Ha...no, I just lay it out for y'all to play it out.

I'm a bit overstocked on LEBs at the moment. Need to rotate a few.

Can anyone provide a good "I have a lot of things idling" gif?

lukast__ · July 2025

@avsisp said:

@plumberg said:

@avsisp said:

@plumberg said:

@avsisp said:

@JohnnySac said:

@avsisp said:
1) How to enable VM-x without setting CPU to Host? Do other virtualized processors allow this? Reason I ask is there have been past CVEs including some that happened on VirtualBox that relied on the CPU set to host allowing escape to host OS and management of host processes/memory tables. So I'd high advise hosts and I definitely myself won't set it to host unless it's my own VM that's trusted.

FYI Most users on LET prefer CPU host passthrough and most providers do enable it.

If a host does that's their business and when they get these people that escape the VM and takeover the whole host or steal user data, that's on them. I won't be one to do so - as it is a very big security risk and makes no sense. Might as well just give them an LXC container at that point - about the same security level then.

Genuinely curious how a guest would take control with pass-through enabled?

There have been previous CVEs where because 2 processes share same core and it isn't virtualized they can control eachother processes and if a process happens to be a host one they can grab it and execute malicious code arbitrarily.

Thanks
How does not enabling pass through prevent this?

Simply setting the CPU to anything except for Host normally will create a virtualized processor and driver that cannot talk directly to host CPU and process feeds without going through the hypervisor's virtualization stack.

I think you're wrong here. Host passthrough only sets the CPU model name and some properties (like features/flags and frequency), there's no difference in the virtualization itself (see https://raw.githubusercontent.com/qemu/qemu/refs/heads/master/target/i386/host-cpu.c vs https://github.com/qemu/qemu/blob/master/target/i386/cpu.c, it only sets some values). KVM/qemu (independent of if it's kernel/hardware or userspace virtualization) will always create a virtual CPU/processor, there's no bypassing of the virtualization just by enabling host passthrough.
Even the qemu docs (https://www.qemu.org/docs/master/system/i386/cpu.html) recommend using host passthrough. The only disadvantage is that live migrating VMs becomes unsafe or, if migrating between different CPUs, impossible.
Yes, there were and probably still are a lot of vulnerabilities allowing to escape from VMs, but this isn't directly related to host passthrough (yes, disabling features will make the attack surface smaller, but this is independant from using host passthrough: one can enable/disable features with any CPU model.).
Regarding VT-x/nested virtualization: there have been problems with Ryzen CPUs IIRC (not security related, they were just crashing IIRC), and while generally (like with every feature) the attack surface gets larger if you enable more features, it AFAIK isn't generally unsafe or risky (I don't know about your CPU though, as that is quite old (14 years), there might be (or most likely are) some security vulnerabilities).

hezi · July 2025

@avsisp said:

the entire system is out of support today - so it doesn't get security updates

Hopefully I misunderstood this. If your hypervisor doesn't get updated then you have bigger issues than what model you use in QEMU

avsisp · July 2025

@lukast__ said:

@avsisp said:

@plumberg said:

@avsisp said:

@plumberg said:

@avsisp said:

@JohnnySac said:

@avsisp said:
1) How to enable VM-x without setting CPU to Host? Do other virtualized processors allow this? Reason I ask is there have been past CVEs including some that happened on VirtualBox that relied on the CPU set to host allowing escape to host OS and management of host processes/memory tables. So I'd high advise hosts and I definitely myself won't set it to host unless it's my own VM that's trusted.

FYI Most users on LET prefer CPU host passthrough and most providers do enable it.

If a host does that's their business and when they get these people that escape the VM and takeover the whole host or steal user data, that's on them. I won't be one to do so - as it is a very big security risk and makes no sense. Might as well just give them an LXC container at that point - about the same security level then.

Genuinely curious how a guest would take control with pass-through enabled?

There have been previous CVEs where because 2 processes share same core and it isn't virtualized they can control eachother processes and if a process happens to be a host one they can grab it and execute malicious code arbitrarily.

Thanks
How does not enabling pass through prevent this?

Simply setting the CPU to anything except for Host normally will create a virtualized processor and driver that cannot talk directly to host CPU and process feeds without going through the hypervisor's virtualization stack.

I think you're wrong here. Host passthrough only sets the CPU model name and some properties (like features/flags and frequency), there's no difference in the virtualization itself (see https://raw.githubusercontent.com/qemu/qemu/refs/heads/master/target/i386/host-cpu.c vs https://github.com/qemu/qemu/blob/master/target/i386/cpu.c, it only sets some values). KVM/qemu (independent of if it's kernel/hardware or userspace virtualization) will always create a virtual CPU/processor, there's no bypassing of the virtualization just by enabling host passthrough.
Even the qemu docs (https://www.qemu.org/docs/master/system/i386/cpu.html) recommend using host passthrough. The only disadvantage is that live migrating VMs becomes unsafe or, if migrating between different CPUs, impossible.
Yes, there were and probably still are a lot of vulnerabilities allowing to escape from VMs, but this isn't directly related to host passthrough (yes, disabling features will make the attack surface smaller, but this is independant from using host passthrough: one can enable/disable features with any CPU model.).
Regarding VT-x/nested virtualization: there have been problems with Ryzen CPUs IIRC (not security related, they were just crashing IIRC), and while generally (like with every feature) the attack surface gets larger if you enable more features, it AFAIK isn't generally unsafe or risky (I don't know about your CPU though, as that is quite old (14 years), there might be (or most likely are) some security vulnerabilities).

Thanks for that. I can accept when I am wrong. Apologies. You have provided code that does seem to point it to still virtualizing but passing a lot of features through that most security forums seem to consider unsafe for a guest untrusted environment to have access to.

And yes - my thought process is exactly that - disable as many features as possible while allowing all the common uses. Things that guests shouldn't have access to. Because it definitely decreased the attack surface. Especially on older systems like ours.

avsisp · July 2025

@hezi said:

@avsisp said:

the entire system is out of support today - so it doesn't get security updates

Hopefully I misunderstood this. If your hypervisor doesn't get updated then you have bigger issues than what model you use in QEMU

You definitely misunderstood. Software is updated. Was referring to CPU support. It isn't maintained by intel anymore so they aren't testing for or patching cpu vulnerability. I would say that is true of 99% of CPUs in use on servers today. Intel support cycle is VERY short. Servers today run for 20+ years in production. Longer if refurbished like ours is (all major failure points like PSU, FANS, CPUs, RAM, Caps on board, etc replaced with modern / newer ones that are compatible). Only the most expensive of servers are running the latest and greatest processors. And those are at a disadvantage when they have the new i9 E-Cores. For example a friend of mine asked yesterday on discord why is their CPU crap compared to the server one when is way newer. Their CPU was using e-cores in virtualization...

JohnnySac · July 2025

@avsisp said:

@hezi said:

@avsisp said:

the entire system is out of support today - so it doesn't get security updates

Hopefully I misunderstood this. If your hypervisor doesn't get updated then you have bigger issues than what model you use in QEMU

You definitely misunderstood. Software is updated. Was referring to CPU support. It isn't maintained by intel anymore so they aren't testing for or patching cpu vulnerability. I would say that is true of 99% of CPUs in use on servers today. Intel support cycle is VERY short. Servers today run for 20+ years in production. Longer if refurbished like ours is (all major failure points like PSU, FANS, CPUs, RAM, Caps on board, etc replaced with modern / newer ones that are compatible). Only the most expensive of servers are running the latest and greatest processors. And those are at a disadvantage when they have the new i9 E-Cores. For example a friend of mine asked yesterday on discord why is their CPU crap compared to the server one when is way newer. Their CPU was using e-cores in virtualization...

E-cores suck! Luckily, Intel has recently released some P-core only high core count server CPU's like the Intel Xeon 6900P which may finally be able to compete with AMD EPYC.

avsisp · July 2025

@JohnnySac said:

@avsisp said:

@hezi said:

@avsisp said:

the entire system is out of support today - so it doesn't get security updates

Hopefully I misunderstood this. If your hypervisor doesn't get updated then you have bigger issues than what model you use in QEMU

You definitely misunderstood. Software is updated. Was referring to CPU support. It isn't maintained by intel anymore so they aren't testing for or patching cpu vulnerability. I would say that is true of 99% of CPUs in use on servers today. Intel support cycle is VERY short. Servers today run for 20+ years in production. Longer if refurbished like ours is (all major failure points like PSU, FANS, CPUs, RAM, Caps on board, etc replaced with modern / newer ones that are compatible). Only the most expensive of servers are running the latest and greatest processors. And those are at a disadvantage when they have the new i9 E-Cores. For example a friend of mine asked yesterday on discord why is their CPU crap compared to the server one when is way newer. Their CPU was using e-cores in virtualization...

E-cores suck! Luckily, Intel has recently released some P-core only high core count server CPU's like the Intel Xeon 6900P which may finally be able to compete with AMD EPYC.

Let's hope so. Until the whole e-cores thing dies, people will continue using older boards and chips because they perform better in server environments or where virtualization, gaming, etc is being done.

Tbh it was the stupidest thing they've ever done. And I've heard AMD and others are also doing things like this.

I know it's to cut down on costs and let them add AI chips and so on. But damn - let the people have their cores lol 😂

nohavps · July 2025

@hyperblast said:

@nohavps said:

@nohavps said:

I publish an update of the advertised offers !!!

VPS 15 TH LET TINY

RYZEN 9950X

1 vCPU Cores
2 GB DDR5 RAM
30 GB NVMe Storage
2 4 TB Monthly Transfer
1 IPv4/v6 Included
Multiple Locations
Anti-DDoS Protection

Price: 25.00$ year

https://dash.nohavps.com/store/vps/vps-let-15-th

VPS 15 TH LET SMALL

RYZEN 9950X

2 vCPU Cores
4 GB DDR5 RAM
60 GB NVMe Storage
4 8 TB Monthly Transfer
1 IPv4/v6 Included
Multiple Locations
Anti-DDoS Protection

Price: 50.00$ year

https://dash.nohavps.com/store/vps/vps-15-th-let-small

The offers are still available, but we can't post for another two weeks because we already have a post that we've closed

@Mumbly @ehab @emgh @COLBYLICIOUS @gbzret4d is nohavps reliable?

Hello,

If you have any questions about our services, please contact us. We're here to help.

@hyperblast said:

@nohavps said:

@nohavps said:

I publish an update of the advertised offers !!!

VPS 15 TH LET TINY

RYZEN 9950X

1 vCPU Cores
2 GB DDR5 RAM
30 GB NVMe Storage
2 4 TB Monthly Transfer
1 IPv4/v6 Included
Multiple Locations
Anti-DDoS Protection

Price: 25.00$ year

https://dash.nohavps.com/store/vps/vps-let-15-th

VPS 15 TH LET SMALL

RYZEN 9950X

2 vCPU Cores
4 GB DDR5 RAM
60 GB NVMe Storage
4 8 TB Monthly Transfer
1 IPv4/v6 Included
Multiple Locations
Anti-DDoS Protection

Price: 50.00$ year

https://dash.nohavps.com/store/vps/vps-15-th-let-small

The offers are still available, but we can't post for another two weeks because we already have a post that we've closed

@Mumbly @ehab @emgh @COLBYLICIOUS @gbzret4d is nohavps reliable?

@tsusu said:

@hyperblast said:

@nohavps said:

@nohavps said:

I publish an update of the advertised offers !!!

VPS 15 TH LET TINY

RYZEN 9950X

1 vCPU Cores
2 GB DDR5 RAM
30 GB NVMe Storage
2 4 TB Monthly Transfer
1 IPv4/v6 Included
Multiple Locations
Anti-DDoS Protection

Price: 25.00$ year

https://dash.nohavps.com/store/vps/vps-let-15-th

VPS 15 TH LET SMALL

RYZEN 9950X

2 vCPU Cores
4 GB DDR5 RAM
60 GB NVMe Storage
4 8 TB Monthly Transfer
1 IPv4/v6 Included
Multiple Locations
Anti-DDoS Protection

Price: 50.00$ year

https://dash.nohavps.com/store/vps/vps-15-th-let-small

The offers are still available, but we can't post for another two weeks because we already have a post that we've closed

@Mumbly @ehab @emgh @COLBYLICIOUS @gbzret4d is nohavps reliable?

Yes. I've had a dedicated with them for about 7 months now. No real issues and support is pretty good. Their SLC location is at the Fiberstate DC IIRC.

Thank you very much for your kind words

We work every day to continue offering good service to our customers

hyperblast · July 2025

@nohavps said:

@hyperblast said:

@nohavps said:

@nohavps said:

I publish an update of the advertised offers !!!

VPS 15 TH LET TINY

RYZEN 9950X

1 vCPU Cores
2 GB DDR5 RAM
30 GB NVMe Storage
2 4 TB Monthly Transfer
1 IPv4/v6 Included
Multiple Locations
Anti-DDoS Protection

Price: 25.00$ year

https://dash.nohavps.com/store/vps/vps-let-15-th

VPS 15 TH LET SMALL

RYZEN 9950X

2 vCPU Cores
4 GB DDR5 RAM
60 GB NVMe Storage
4 8 TB Monthly Transfer
1 IPv4/v6 Included
Multiple Locations
Anti-DDoS Protection

Price: 50.00$ year

https://dash.nohavps.com/store/vps/vps-15-th-let-small

The offers are still available, but we can't post for another two weeks because we already have a post that we've closed

@Mumbly @ehab @emgh @COLBYLICIOUS @gbzret4d is nohavps reliable?

Hello,

If you have any questions about our services, please contact us. We're here to help.

@hyperblast said:

@nohavps said:

@nohavps said:

I publish an update of the advertised offers !!!

VPS 15 TH LET TINY

RYZEN 9950X

1 vCPU Cores
2 GB DDR5 RAM
30 GB NVMe Storage
2 4 TB Monthly Transfer
1 IPv4/v6 Included
Multiple Locations
Anti-DDoS Protection

Price: 25.00$ year

https://dash.nohavps.com/store/vps/vps-let-15-th

VPS 15 TH LET SMALL

RYZEN 9950X

2 vCPU Cores
4 GB DDR5 RAM
60 GB NVMe Storage
4 8 TB Monthly Transfer
1 IPv4/v6 Included
Multiple Locations
Anti-DDoS Protection

Price: 50.00$ year

https://dash.nohavps.com/store/vps/vps-15-th-let-small

The offers are still available, but we can't post for another two weeks because we already have a post that we've closed

@Mumbly @ehab @emgh @COLBYLICIOUS @gbzret4d is nohavps reliable?

@tsusu said:

@hyperblast said:

@nohavps said:

@nohavps said:

I publish an update of the advertised offers !!!

VPS 15 TH LET TINY

RYZEN 9950X

1 vCPU Cores
2 GB DDR5 RAM
30 GB NVMe Storage
2 4 TB Monthly Transfer
1 IPv4/v6 Included
Multiple Locations
Anti-DDoS Protection

Price: 25.00$ year

https://dash.nohavps.com/store/vps/vps-let-15-th

VPS 15 TH LET SMALL

RYZEN 9950X

2 vCPU Cores
4 GB DDR5 RAM
60 GB NVMe Storage
4 8 TB Monthly Transfer
1 IPv4/v6 Included
Multiple Locations
Anti-DDoS Protection

Price: 50.00$ year

https://dash.nohavps.com/store/vps/vps-15-th-let-small

The offers are still available, but we can't post for another two weeks because we already have a post that we've closed

@Mumbly @ehab @emgh @COLBYLICIOUS @gbzret4d is nohavps reliable?

Yes. I've had a dedicated with them for about 7 months now. No real issues and support is pretty good. Their SLC location is at the Fiberstate DC IIRC.

Thank you very much for your kind words

We work every day to continue offering good service to our customers

VPS 15 TH LET TINY yabs possible?

nohavps · July 2025

@hyperblast said:

@nohavps said:

@hyperblast said:

@nohavps said:

@nohavps said:

I publish an update of the advertised offers !!!

VPS 15 TH LET TINY

RYZEN 9950X

1 vCPU Cores
2 GB DDR5 RAM
30 GB NVMe Storage
2 4 TB Monthly Transfer
1 IPv4/v6 Included
Multiple Locations
Anti-DDoS Protection

Price: 25.00$ year

https://dash.nohavps.com/store/vps/vps-let-15-th

VPS 15 TH LET SMALL

RYZEN 9950X

2 vCPU Cores
4 GB DDR5 RAM
60 GB NVMe Storage
4 8 TB Monthly Transfer
1 IPv4/v6 Included
Multiple Locations
Anti-DDoS Protection

Price: 50.00$ year

https://dash.nohavps.com/store/vps/vps-15-th-let-small

The offers are still available, but we can't post for another two weeks because we already have a post that we've closed

@Mumbly @ehab @emgh @COLBYLICIOUS @gbzret4d is nohavps reliable?

Hello,

If you have any questions about our services, please contact us. We're here to help.

@hyperblast said:

@nohavps said:

@nohavps said:

I publish an update of the advertised offers !!!

VPS 15 TH LET TINY

RYZEN 9950X

1 vCPU Cores
2 GB DDR5 RAM
30 GB NVMe Storage
2 4 TB Monthly Transfer
1 IPv4/v6 Included
Multiple Locations
Anti-DDoS Protection

Price: 25.00$ year

https://dash.nohavps.com/store/vps/vps-let-15-th

VPS 15 TH LET SMALL

RYZEN 9950X

2 vCPU Cores
4 GB DDR5 RAM
60 GB NVMe Storage
4 8 TB Monthly Transfer
1 IPv4/v6 Included
Multiple Locations
Anti-DDoS Protection

Price: 50.00$ year

https://dash.nohavps.com/store/vps/vps-15-th-let-small

The offers are still available, but we can't post for another two weeks because we already have a post that we've closed

@Mumbly @ehab @emgh @COLBYLICIOUS @gbzret4d is nohavps reliable?

@tsusu said:

@hyperblast said:

@nohavps said:

@nohavps said:

I publish an update of the advertised offers !!!

VPS 15 TH LET TINY

RYZEN 9950X

1 vCPU Cores
2 GB DDR5 RAM
30 GB NVMe Storage
2 4 TB Monthly Transfer
1 IPv4/v6 Included
Multiple Locations
Anti-DDoS Protection

Price: 25.00$ year

https://dash.nohavps.com/store/vps/vps-let-15-th

VPS 15 TH LET SMALL

RYZEN 9950X

2 vCPU Cores
4 GB DDR5 RAM
60 GB NVMe Storage
4 8 TB Monthly Transfer
1 IPv4/v6 Included
Multiple Locations
Anti-DDoS Protection

Price: 50.00$ year

https://dash.nohavps.com/store/vps/vps-15-th-let-small

The offers are still available, but we can't post for another two weeks because we already have a post that we've closed

@Mumbly @ehab @emgh @COLBYLICIOUS @gbzret4d is nohavps reliable?

Yes. I've had a dedicated with them for about 7 months now. No real issues and support is pretty good. Their SLC location is at the Fiberstate DC IIRC.

Thank you very much for your kind words

We work every day to continue offering good service to our customers

VPS 15 TH LET TINY yabs possible?

Sure, I sent him a message.

laey · July 2025

@HostDZire said:

Below Deals are still available, order it before it goes out of stock

Indian Cloud VPS

Our Indian VPS is hosted in Mumbai, India, at the Iron Mountain Data Center.
Unlike other locations, our India VPS service is fully owned and operated by us — including all hardware, which is our own infrastructure.

Looking Glass India

🔥 Indian Cloud VPS Offers Below 🔥

IN Cloud VPS #3
AMD EPYC Inside
CPU: 8 vCPU
RAM: 16 GB DDR4
Storage: 120GB NVMe
Traffic: 4TB ( IN + Out Both Counted )
Port: 10Gbit ( Shared )
1 IPV4
Port 25 is Blocked
Our Price: $48/ Annually
Order Now

IN Cloud VPS #5
AMD EPYC Inside
CPU: 16 vCPU
RAM: 32 GB DDR4
Storage: 240GB NVMe
Traffic: 8TB ( IN + Out Both Counted )
Port: 10Gbit ( Shared )
1 IPV4
Port 25 is Blocked
Our Price: $96/ Annually
Order Now

> In above plans there is no refunds available.
> Please only order if you are 100% sure.

Port 25 is blocked in all plans
More Information & Rules

Before I put my order, this is not overselling right?

HostDZire · July 2025

@laey said:

@HostDZire said:

Below Deals are still available, order it before it goes out of stock

Indian Cloud VPS

Our Indian VPS is hosted in Mumbai, India, at the Iron Mountain Data Center.
Unlike other locations, our India VPS service is fully owned and operated by us — including all hardware, which is our own infrastructure.

Looking Glass India

🔥 Indian Cloud VPS Offers Below 🔥

IN Cloud VPS #3
AMD EPYC Inside
CPU: 8 vCPU
RAM: 16 GB DDR4
Storage: 120GB NVMe
Traffic: 4TB ( IN + Out Both Counted )
Port: 10Gbit ( Shared )
1 IPV4
Port 25 is Blocked
Our Price: $48/ Annually
Order Now

IN Cloud VPS #5
AMD EPYC Inside
CPU: 16 vCPU
RAM: 32 GB DDR4
Storage: 240GB NVMe
Traffic: 8TB ( IN + Out Both Counted )
Port: 10Gbit ( Shared )
1 IPV4
Port 25 is Blocked
Our Price: $96/ Annually
Order Now

> In above plans there is no refunds available.
> Please only order if you are 100% sure.

Port 25 is blocked in all plans
More Information & Rules

Before I put my order, this is not overselling right?

For India vps its guaranteed service
We own the hardware so no overloading issue for sure.

barbaros · July 2025

@nohavps said:

@hyperblast said:

@nohavps said:

@hyperblast said:

@nohavps said:

@nohavps said:

I publish an update of the advertised offers !!!

VPS 15 TH LET TINY

RYZEN 9950X

1 vCPU Cores
2 GB DDR5 RAM
30 GB NVMe Storage
2 4 TB Monthly Transfer
1 IPv4/v6 Included
Multiple Locations
Anti-DDoS Protection

Price: 25.00$ year

https://dash.nohavps.com/store/vps/vps-let-15-th

VPS 15 TH LET SMALL

RYZEN 9950X

2 vCPU Cores
4 GB DDR5 RAM
60 GB NVMe Storage
4 8 TB Monthly Transfer
1 IPv4/v6 Included
Multiple Locations
Anti-DDoS Protection

Price: 50.00$ year

https://dash.nohavps.com/store/vps/vps-15-th-let-small

The offers are still available, but we can't post for another two weeks because we already have a post that we've closed

@Mumbly @ehab @emgh @COLBYLICIOUS @gbzret4d is nohavps reliable?

Hello,

If you have any questions about our services, please contact us. We're here to help.

@hyperblast said:

@nohavps said:

@nohavps said:

I publish an update of the advertised offers !!!

VPS 15 TH LET TINY

RYZEN 9950X

1 vCPU Cores
2 GB DDR5 RAM
30 GB NVMe Storage
2 4 TB Monthly Transfer
1 IPv4/v6 Included
Multiple Locations
Anti-DDoS Protection

Price: 25.00$ year

https://dash.nohavps.com/store/vps/vps-let-15-th

VPS 15 TH LET SMALL

RYZEN 9950X

2 vCPU Cores
4 GB DDR5 RAM
60 GB NVMe Storage
4 8 TB Monthly Transfer
1 IPv4/v6 Included
Multiple Locations
Anti-DDoS Protection

Price: 50.00$ year

https://dash.nohavps.com/store/vps/vps-15-th-let-small

The offers are still available, but we can't post for another two weeks because we already have a post that we've closed

@Mumbly @ehab @emgh @COLBYLICIOUS @gbzret4d is nohavps reliable?

@tsusu said:

@hyperblast said:

@nohavps said:

@nohavps said:

I publish an update of the advertised offers !!!

VPS 15 TH LET TINY

RYZEN 9950X

1 vCPU Cores
2 GB DDR5 RAM
30 GB NVMe Storage
2 4 TB Monthly Transfer
1 IPv4/v6 Included
Multiple Locations
Anti-DDoS Protection

Price: 25.00$ year

https://dash.nohavps.com/store/vps/vps-let-15-th

VPS 15 TH LET SMALL

RYZEN 9950X

2 vCPU Cores
4 GB DDR5 RAM
60 GB NVMe Storage
4 8 TB Monthly Transfer
1 IPv4/v6 Included
Multiple Locations
Anti-DDoS Protection

Price: 50.00$ year

https://dash.nohavps.com/store/vps/vps-15-th-let-small

The offers are still available, but we can't post for another two weeks because we already have a post that we've closed

@Mumbly @ehab @emgh @COLBYLICIOUS @gbzret4d is nohavps reliable?

Yes. I've had a dedicated with them for about 7 months now. No real issues and support is pretty good. Their SLC location is at the Fiberstate DC IIRC.

Thank you very much for your kind words

We work every day to continue offering good service to our customers

VPS 15 TH LET TINY yabs possible?

Sure, I sent him a message.

Can you send me 50% off discount code as a message also, please? Thanks

hezi · July 2025

@laey said:

Before I put my order, this is not overselling right?

Here is 16 vCPU @HostDZire YABS. For my needs it's very good

# ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## #
#              Yet-Another-Bench-Script              #
#                     v2025-04-20                    #
# https://github.com/masonr/yet-another-bench-script #
# ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## #

Wed 16 Jul 2025 03:58:51 PM UTC

Basic System Information:
---------------------------------
Uptime     : 8 days, 21 hours, 4 minutes
Processor  : AMD EPYC 7K62 48-Core Processor
CPU cores  : 16 @ 2595.124 MHz
AES-NI     : ✔ Enabled
VM-x/AMD-V : ✔ Enabled
RAM        : 31.4 GiB
Swap       : 759.1 MiB
Disk       : 236.2 GiB
Distro     : Ubuntu 20.04.1 LTS
Kernel     : 5.4.0-42-generic
VM Type    : VMWARE
IPv4/IPv6  : ✔ Online / ❌ Offline

IPv4 Network Information:
---------------------------------
ISP        : MS KOSI AGRICO
ASN        : AS150623 HOSTDZIRE WEB SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED
Location   : Mumbai, Maharashtra (MH)
Country    : India

fio Disk Speed Tests (Mixed R/W 50/50) (Partition /dev/sda1):
---------------------------------
Block Size | 4k            (IOPS) | 64k           (IOPS)
  ------   | ---            ----  | ----           ----
Read       | 189.19 MB/s  (47.2k) | 2.63 GB/s    (41.1k)
Write      | 189.69 MB/s  (47.4k) | 2.64 GB/s    (41.3k)
Total      | 378.88 MB/s  (94.7k) | 5.27 GB/s    (82.4k)
           |                      |
Block Size | 512k          (IOPS) | 1m            (IOPS)
  ------   | ---            ----  | ----           ----
Read       | 5.12 GB/s    (10.0k) | 5.83 GB/s     (5.6k)
Write      | 5.39 GB/s    (10.5k) | 6.22 GB/s     (6.0k)
Total      | 10.51 GB/s   (20.5k) | 12.05 GB/s   (11.7k)

iperf3 Network Speed Tests (IPv4):
---------------------------------
Provider        | Location (Link)           | Send Speed      | Recv Speed      | Ping
-----           | -----                     | ----            | ----            | ----
Clouvider       | London, UK (10G)          | 337 Mbits/sec   | 664 Mbits/sec   | 241 ms
Eranium         | Amsterdam, NL (100G)      | busy            | 503 Kbits/sec   | 368 ms
Uztelecom       | Tashkent, UZ (10G)        | busy            | 739 Mbits/sec   | 194 ms
Leaseweb        | Singapore, SG (10G)       | 249 Mbits/sec   | 1.37 Gbits/sec  | --
Clouvider       | Los Angeles, CA, US (10G) | 337 Mbits/sec   | 665 Mbits/sec   | 231 ms
Leaseweb        | NYC, NY, US (10G)         | busy            | busy            | --
Edgoo           | Sao Paulo, BR (1G)        | busy            | busy            | 441 ms

Geekbench 5 Benchmark Test:
---------------------------------
Test            | Value
                |
Single Core     | 969
Multi Core      | 12116
Full Test       | https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/23671807

Geekbench 6 Benchmark Test:
---------------------------------
Test            | Value
                |
Single Core     | 1239
Multi Core      | 9950
Full Test       | https://browser.geekbench.com/v6/cpu/12887734

YABS completed in 15 min 8 sec

nohavps · July 2025

@barbaros said:

@nohavps said:

@hyperblast said:

@nohavps said:

@hyperblast said:

@nohavps said:

@nohavps said:

I publish an update of the advertised offers !!!

VPS 15 TH LET TINY

RYZEN 9950X

1 vCPU Cores
2 GB DDR5 RAM
30 GB NVMe Storage
2 4 TB Monthly Transfer
1 IPv4/v6 Included
Multiple Locations
Anti-DDoS Protection

Price: 25.00$ year

https://dash.nohavps.com/store/vps/vps-let-15-th

VPS 15 TH LET SMALL

RYZEN 9950X

2 vCPU Cores
4 GB DDR5 RAM
60 GB NVMe Storage
4 8 TB Monthly Transfer
1 IPv4/v6 Included
Multiple Locations
Anti-DDoS Protection

Price: 50.00$ year

https://dash.nohavps.com/store/vps/vps-15-th-let-small

The offers are still available, but we can't post for another two weeks because we already have a post that we've closed

@Mumbly @ehab @emgh @COLBYLICIOUS @gbzret4d is nohavps reliable?

Hello,

If you have any questions about our services, please contact us. We're here to help.

@hyperblast said:

@nohavps said:

@nohavps said:

I publish an update of the advertised offers !!!

VPS 15 TH LET TINY

RYZEN 9950X

1 vCPU Cores
2 GB DDR5 RAM
30 GB NVMe Storage
2 4 TB Monthly Transfer
1 IPv4/v6 Included
Multiple Locations
Anti-DDoS Protection

Price: 25.00$ year

https://dash.nohavps.com/store/vps/vps-let-15-th

VPS 15 TH LET SMALL

RYZEN 9950X

2 vCPU Cores
4 GB DDR5 RAM
60 GB NVMe Storage
4 8 TB Monthly Transfer
1 IPv4/v6 Included
Multiple Locations
Anti-DDoS Protection

Price: 50.00$ year

https://dash.nohavps.com/store/vps/vps-15-th-let-small

The offers are still available, but we can't post for another two weeks because we already have a post that we've closed

@Mumbly @ehab @emgh @COLBYLICIOUS @gbzret4d is nohavps reliable?

@tsusu said:

@hyperblast said:

@nohavps said:

@nohavps said:

I publish an update of the advertised offers !!!

VPS 15 TH LET TINY

RYZEN 9950X

1 vCPU Cores
2 GB DDR5 RAM
30 GB NVMe Storage
2 4 TB Monthly Transfer
1 IPv4/v6 Included
Multiple Locations
Anti-DDoS Protection

Price: 25.00$ year

https://dash.nohavps.com/store/vps/vps-let-15-th

VPS 15 TH LET SMALL

RYZEN 9950X

2 vCPU Cores
4 GB DDR5 RAM
60 GB NVMe Storage
4 8 TB Monthly Transfer
1 IPv4/v6 Included
Multiple Locations
Anti-DDoS Protection

Price: 50.00$ year

https://dash.nohavps.com/store/vps/vps-15-th-let-small

The offers are still available, but we can't post for another two weeks because we already have a post that we've closed

@Mumbly @ehab @emgh @COLBYLICIOUS @gbzret4d is nohavps reliable?

Yes. I've had a dedicated with them for about 7 months now. No real issues and support is pretty good. Their SLC location is at the Fiberstate DC IIRC.

Thank you very much for your kind words

We work every day to continue offering good service to our customers

VPS 15 TH LET TINY yabs possible?

Sure, I sent him a message.

Can you send me 50% off discount code as a message also, please? Thanks

Hello,

We only have these promotions available

VPS 15 TH LET TINY

RYZEN 9950X

1 vCPU Cores
2 GB DDR5 RAM
30 GB NVMe Storage
2 4 TB Monthly Transfer
1 IPv4/v6 Included
Multiple Locations
Anti-DDoS Protection

Price: 25.00$ year

https://dash.nohavps.com/store/vps/vps-let-15-th

VPS 15 TH LET SMALL

RYZEN 9950X

2 vCPU Cores
4 GB DDR5 RAM
60 GB NVMe Storage
4 8 TB Monthly Transfer
1 IPv4/v6 Included
Multiple Locations
Anti-DDoS Protection

Price: 50.00$ year

https://dash.nohavps.com/store/vps/vps-15-th-let-small

barbaros · July 2025

@nohavps said:

@barbaros said:

@nohavps said:

@hyperblast said:

@nohavps said:

@hyperblast said:

@nohavps said:

@nohavps said:

I publish an update of the advertised offers !!!

VPS 15 TH LET TINY

RYZEN 9950X

1 vCPU Cores
2 GB DDR5 RAM
30 GB NVMe Storage
2 4 TB Monthly Transfer
1 IPv4/v6 Included
Multiple Locations
Anti-DDoS Protection

Price: 25.00$ year

https://dash.nohavps.com/store/vps/vps-let-15-th

VPS 15 TH LET SMALL

RYZEN 9950X

2 vCPU Cores
4 GB DDR5 RAM
60 GB NVMe Storage
4 8 TB Monthly Transfer
1 IPv4/v6 Included
Multiple Locations
Anti-DDoS Protection

Price: 50.00$ year

https://dash.nohavps.com/store/vps/vps-15-th-let-small

The offers are still available, but we can't post for another two weeks because we already have a post that we've closed

@Mumbly @ehab @emgh @COLBYLICIOUS @gbzret4d is nohavps reliable?

Hello,

If you have any questions about our services, please contact us. We're here to help.

@hyperblast said:

@nohavps said:

@nohavps said:

I publish an update of the advertised offers !!!

VPS 15 TH LET TINY

RYZEN 9950X

1 vCPU Cores
2 GB DDR5 RAM
30 GB NVMe Storage
2 4 TB Monthly Transfer
1 IPv4/v6 Included
Multiple Locations
Anti-DDoS Protection

Price: 25.00$ year

https://dash.nohavps.com/store/vps/vps-let-15-th

VPS 15 TH LET SMALL

RYZEN 9950X

2 vCPU Cores
4 GB DDR5 RAM
60 GB NVMe Storage
4 8 TB Monthly Transfer
1 IPv4/v6 Included
Multiple Locations
Anti-DDoS Protection

Price: 50.00$ year

https://dash.nohavps.com/store/vps/vps-15-th-let-small

The offers are still available, but we can't post for another two weeks because we already have a post that we've closed

@Mumbly @ehab @emgh @COLBYLICIOUS @gbzret4d is nohavps reliable?

@tsusu said:

@hyperblast said:

@nohavps said:

@nohavps said:

I publish an update of the advertised offers !!!

VPS 15 TH LET TINY

RYZEN 9950X

1 vCPU Cores
2 GB DDR5 RAM
30 GB NVMe Storage
2 4 TB Monthly Transfer
1 IPv4/v6 Included
Multiple Locations
Anti-DDoS Protection

Price: 25.00$ year

https://dash.nohavps.com/store/vps/vps-let-15-th

VPS 15 TH LET SMALL

RYZEN 9950X

2 vCPU Cores
4 GB DDR5 RAM
60 GB NVMe Storage
4 8 TB Monthly Transfer
1 IPv4/v6 Included
Multiple Locations
Anti-DDoS Protection

Price: 50.00$ year

https://dash.nohavps.com/store/vps/vps-15-th-let-small

The offers are still available, but we can't post for another two weeks because we already have a post that we've closed

@Mumbly @ehab @emgh @COLBYLICIOUS @gbzret4d is nohavps reliable?

Yes. I've had a dedicated with them for about 7 months now. No real issues and support is pretty good. Their SLC location is at the Fiberstate DC IIRC.

Thank you very much for your kind words

We work every day to continue offering good service to our customers

VPS 15 TH LET TINY yabs possible?

Sure, I sent him a message.

Can you send me 50% off discount code as a message also, please? Thanks

Hello,

We only have these promotions available

VPS 15 TH LET TINY

RYZEN 9950X

1 vCPU Cores
2 GB DDR5 RAM
30 GB NVMe Storage
2 4 TB Monthly Transfer
1 IPv4/v6 Included
Multiple Locations
Anti-DDoS Protection

Price: 25.00$ year

https://dash.nohavps.com/store/vps/vps-let-15-th

VPS 15 TH LET SMALL

RYZEN 9950X

2 vCPU Cores
4 GB DDR5 RAM
60 GB NVMe Storage
4 8 TB Monthly Transfer
1 IPv4/v6 Included
Multiple Locations
Anti-DDoS Protection

Price: 50.00$ year

https://dash.nohavps.com/store/vps/vps-15-th-let-small

50% off coupon that works in either of those deals would be OK with me

ehab · July 2025

@barbaros said:

@nohavps said:

50% off coupon that works in either of those deals would be OK with me

we need special treatment.

& a

nice slice of cake

fly056 · July 2025

Coupon for $7/year would work too.

ehab · July 2025

@fly056 said:
Coupon for $7/year would work too.

no Problem

noha does a good Zimb nohavps

plumberg · July 2025

Boing

Howdy, Stranger!

Quick Links

Categories

In this Discussion

LowEndTalk's 15th Birthday Is This Saturday! Who's Doing a Special Offer?

Comments

I publish an update of the advertised offers !!!

VPS 15 TH LET TINY

Price: 25.00$ year

VPS 15 TH LET SMALL

Price: 50.00$ year

I publish an update of the advertised offers !!!

VPS 15 TH LET TINY

Price: 25.00$ year

VPS 15 TH LET SMALL

Price: 50.00$ year

I publish an update of the advertised offers !!!

VPS 15 TH LET TINY

Price: 25.00$ year

VPS 15 TH LET SMALL

Price: 50.00$ year

I publish an update of the advertised offers !!!

VPS 15 TH LET TINY

Price: 25.00$ year

VPS 15 TH LET SMALL

Price: 50.00$ year

I publish an update of the advertised offers !!!

VPS 15 TH LET TINY

Price: 25.00$ year

VPS 15 TH LET SMALL

Price: 50.00$ year

I publish an update of the advertised offers !!!

VPS 15 TH LET TINY

Price: 25.00$ year

VPS 15 TH LET SMALL

Price: 50.00$ year

I publish an update of the advertised offers !!!

VPS 15 TH LET TINY

Price: 25.00$ year

VPS 15 TH LET SMALL

Price: 50.00$ year

I publish an update of the advertised offers !!!

VPS 15 TH LET TINY

Price: 25.00$ year

VPS 15 TH LET SMALL

Price: 50.00$ year

I publish an update of the advertised offers !!!

VPS 15 TH LET TINY

Price: 25.00$ year

VPS 15 TH LET SMALL

Price: 50.00$ year

Below Deals are still available, order it before it goes out of stock

Below Deals are still available, order it before it goes out of stock

I publish an update of the advertised offers !!!

VPS 15 TH LET TINY

Price: 25.00$ year

VPS 15 TH LET SMALL

Price: 50.00$ year

I publish an update of the advertised offers !!!

VPS 15 TH LET TINY

Price: 25.00$ year

VPS 15 TH LET SMALL

Price: 50.00$ year

I publish an update of the advertised offers !!!

VPS 15 TH LET TINY

Price: 25.00$ year

VPS 15 TH LET SMALL

Price: 50.00$ year

I publish an update of the advertised offers !!!

VPS 15 TH LET TINY

Price: 25.00$ year

VPS 15 TH LET SMALL

Price: 50.00$ year

I publish an update of the advertised offers !!!

VPS 15 TH LET TINY

Price: 25.00$ year

VPS 15 TH LET SMALL

Price: 50.00$ year

I publish an update of the advertised offers !!!

VPS 15 TH LET TINY