All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
VeloxMedia promo VPS benchmark and review
When I saw @VeloxMedia's promo here on the one hand I was interested but on the other remembering the @MassiveGrid clusterfuck I was mistrusting. So I contacted VeloxMedia and asked them whether they would be willing to provide me with access to the VPS I was interested in for five days and they were kind enough to say Yes.
So, a big THANK YOU to, VeloxMedia!
The box I benchmarked is the 2 Xeon Gold vCores, 4 GB memory one with 10 Gb/s and unlimited traffic volume.
The results you see are based on 40+ runs. Let's get at it ...
Version 2.5.0a, (c) 2018+ jsg (->lowendtalk.com)
Machine: amd64, Arch.: amd64, Model: Intel(R) Xeon(R) Gold 6148 CPU @ 2.40GHz
OS, version: FreeBSD 14.3, Mem.: 3.989 GB
CPU - Cores: 2, Family/Model/Stepping: 6/85/4
Cache: 32K/32K L1d/L1i, 2M L2, 16M 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 hle avx2 smep bmi2 erms invpcid rtm mpx pat
pse36 rdseed adx smap clflushopt clwb sha umip pku ospke syscall nx
pdpe1gb rdtscp lm lahf_lm lzcnt
AES? Yes
InNested Virt.? Yes
HW RNG? Yes
ProcMem SC [MB/s]: avg 258.1 - min 102.2 (39.6 %), max 414.7 (160.7 %)
ProcMem MA [MB/s]: avg 759.9 - min 598.1 (78.7 %), max 809.8 (106.6 %)
ProcMem MB [MB/s]: avg 697.2 - min 537.5 (77.1 %), max 808.0 (115.9 %)
ProcMem AES [MB/s]: avg 1241.4 - min 1209.2 (97.4 %), max 1257.9 (101.3 %)
ProcMem RSA [kp/s]: avg 107.2 - min 102.2 (95.4 %), max 111.9 (104.4 %)
Yay, a really nice start! Basically typical Xeon Gold numbers which means really decent. Over 1 GB/s AES and about 100 RSA kp/s means that this box is actually and really performing well enough for 95% of the usual typical workloads.
A small reminder: I know, I know, modern Ryzens are faster but once more, what I'm looking for is a well balanced system; and Xeon Gold are damn good enough for almost anything I use a VPS for. Also, at the end of the day a processor and the memory must just be "good enough" (which in my eyes even the better E5v4 Xeons are, the v2 ones not anymore though), the same goes for the disk, the one factor I consider to be the decisive one is connectivity, but about that a bit later ...
So, is the disk in that VPS good enough Let's see.
--- Disk 4 KB - Buffered ---
Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 3.30 - min 3.13 (94.7%), max 3.54 (107.1%)
Write rnd. [MB/s]: avg 3.20 - min 3.05 (95.3%), max 3.41 (106.6%)
Read seq. [MB/s]: avg 7.24 - min 7.11 (98.2%), max 7.57 (104.5%)
Read rnd. [MB/s]: avg 6.37 - min 6.24 (98.0%), max 6.76 (106.2%)
--- Disk 4 KB - Sync/Direct ---
Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 3.14 - min 3.05 (97.2%), max 3.31 (105.5%)
Write rnd. [MB/s]: avg 3.12 - min 2.99 (95.8%), max 3.31 (106.1%)
Read seq. [MB/s]: avg 7.24 - min 7.11 (98.2%), max 7.49 (103.4%)
Read rnd. [MB/s]: avg 6.37 - min 5.63 (88.4%), max 6.70 (105.3%)
--- Disk 64 KB - Buffered ---
Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 32.80 - min 30.98 (94.4%), max 35.19 (107.3%)
Write rnd. [MB/s]: avg 34.14 - min 32.61 (95.5%), max 37.91 (111.1%)
Read seq. [MB/s]: avg 1023.33 - min 931.32 (91.0%), max 1106.60 (108.1%)
Read rnd. [MB/s]: avg 93.10 - min 88.79 (95.4%), max 99.51 (106.9%)
--- Disk 64 KB - Sync/Direct ---
Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 8.92 - min 8.25 (92.5%), max 9.32 (104.5%)
Write rnd. [MB/s]: avg 5.35 - min 4.92 (91.9%), max 5.81 (108.5%)
Read seq. [MB/s]: avg 999.65 - min 889.76 (89.0%), max 1082.17 (108.3%)
Read rnd. [MB/s]: avg 92.65 - min 89.09 (96.2%), max 97.95 (105.7%)
--- Disk 1 MB - Buffered ---
Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 53.16 - min 43.46 (81.8%), max 71.75 (135.0%)
Write rnd. [MB/s]: avg 85.08 - min 78.45 (92.2%), max 99.66 (117.1%)
Read seq. [MB/s]: avg 1856.66 - min 1798.82 (96.9%), max 1936.49 (104.3%)
Read rnd. [MB/s]: avg 554.85 - min 455.61 (82.1%), max 604.37 (108.9%)
--- Disk 1 MB - Sync/Direct ---
Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 23.13 - min 20.73 (89.6%), max 25.13 (108.6%)
Write rnd. [MB/s]: avg 19.34 - min 17.18 (88.8%), max 21.71 (112.3%)
Read seq. [MB/s]: avg 1853.52 - min 1796.33 (96.9%), max 2013.94 (108.7%)
Read rnd. [MB/s]: avg 563.98 - min 458.30 (81.3%), max 602.05 (106.7%)
--- Disk IOps (Sync/Direct) ---
Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 25.14 - min 23.48 (93.4%), max 26.97 (107.3%)
IOps : avg 6434.43 - min 6010.20 (93.4%), max 6904.00 (107.3%)
Yep, it is. Not a high end NVMe (but neither has this VPS the matching price tag) but easily "good enough". Well over 20 MB/s and solidly over 5000 IOps certainly does the job, except maybe heavy DB workloads, but again, definitely good enough for 90+% of websites.
Now, with the "damn good enough" stuff behind us let's look at what triggered my interest, connectivity.
--- Europe ---
NO OSL mirror.terrahost.no [F: 0]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 358.7 - min 338.4 (94.3%), max 385.3 (107.4%)
Ping [ms]: avg 28.3 - min 28.1 (99.4%), max 28.4 (100.5%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 30.8 - min 28.1 (91.4%), max 72.5 (235.8%)
UK LON lon.speedtest.clouvider.net [F: 0]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 3309.6 - min 937.6 (28.3%), max 4535.1 (137.0%)
Ping [ms]: avg 1.9 - min 1.7 (89.0%), max 2.7 (141.4%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 2.4 - min 1.8 (73.5%), max 12.8 (523.0%)
NL AMS mirrors.xtom.nl [F: 0]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 1360.3 - min 1207.2 (88.7%), max 1473.9 (108.4%)
Ping [ms]: avg 7.5 - min 7.2 (95.5%), max 7.7 (102.1%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 8.0 - min 7.4 (92.9%), max 8.8 (110.5%)
DE FRA fra.lg.core-backbone.com [F: 0]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 691.6 - min 653.0 (94.4%), max 707.2 (102.3%)
Ping [ms]: avg 14.9 - min 14.7 (98.5%), max 15.1 (101.2%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 14.9 - min 14.7 (98.5%), max 15.1 (101.1%)
FR PAR ftp1.fr.freebsd.org [F: 0]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 639.1 - min 222.7 (34.9%), max 756.6 (118.4%)
Ping [ms]: avg 9.9 - min 9.3 (93.8%), max 26.8 (270.2%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 28.7 - min 9.6 (33.5%), max 259.4 (903.9%)
CH ZUR mirror.init7.net [F: 0]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 507.2 - min 494.7 (97.5%), max 531.6 (104.8%)
Ping [ms]: avg 20.3 - min 20.1 (99.2%), max 20.4 (100.6%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 22.5 - min 20.1 (89.3%), max 27.6 (122.6%)
IT MIL it1.mirror.vhosting-it.com [F: 0]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 456.6 - min 374.2 (82.0%), max 495.7 (108.6%)
Ping [ms]: avg 21.4 - min 21.0 (98.3%), max 22.0 (103.0%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 30.1 - min 21.4 (71.0%), max 202.0 (670.6%)
ES MAD mirror.raiolanetworks.com [F: 0]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 434.3 - min 428.7 (98.7%), max 439.4 (101.2%)
Ping [ms]: avg 25.6 - min 25.3 (98.9%), max 26.8 (104.8%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 27.4 - min 25.8 (94.2%), max 31.3 (114.3%)
RO BUC almalinux.mirrors.orange.ro [F: 0]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 230.6 - min 209.8 (91.0%), max 249.8 (108.3%)
Ping [ms]: avg 43.3 - min 43.1 (99.5%), max 43.4 (100.2%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 59.5 - min 43.1 (72.4%), max 168.4 (282.9%)
RU MOS speedtest.hostkey.ru [F: 0]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 231.5 - min 205.8 (88.9%), max 249.1 (107.6%)
Ping [ms]: avg 48.9 - min 47.2 (96.6%), max 55.3 (113.1%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 58.5 - min 47.3 (80.9%), max 74.3 (127.0%)
--- Asia / Oceanina ---
RU SIB mirror.truenetwork.ru [F: 0]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 119.8 - min 106.4 (88.8%), max 131.7 (109.9%)
Ping [ms]: avg 103.9 - min 93.9 (90.4%), max 373.8 (359.8%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 104.8 - min 95.2 (90.8%), max 373.8 (356.5%)
IR SHI ir.almalinux.sindad.cloud [F: 0]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 118.0 - min 65.5 (55.5%), max 135.3 (114.7%)
Ping [ms]: avg 88.2 - min 87.1 (98.7%), max 91.8 (104.1%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 89.3 - min 87.1 (97.6%), max 94.2 (105.5%)
IN MUM mirrors.piconets.webwerks.in [F: 0]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 51.5 - min 37.1 (72.0%), max 86.0 (166.8%)
Ping [ms]: avg 239.2 - min 133.7 (55.9%), max 295.2 (123.4%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 246.4 - min 133.7 (54.3%), max 314.8 (127.8%)
SG SGP mirror.sg.gs [F: 0]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 70.6 - min 69.0 (97.8%), max 72.3 (102.4%)
Ping [ms]: avg 156.5 - min 156.3 (99.8%), max 156.9 (100.2%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 159.3 - min 157.2 (98.7%), max 166.5 (104.5%)
CN HKG mirrors.xtom.hk [F: 0]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 58.4 - min 57.4 (98.2%), max 59.0 (101.0%)
Ping [ms]: avg 188.4 - min 188.0 (99.8%), max 190.5 (101.1%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 207.9 - min 188.2 (90.5%), max 302.1 (145.3%)
CN BEJ mirrors.bfsu.edu.cn [F: 1]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 61.5 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 69.9 (113.6%)
Ping [ms]: avg 149.2 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 184.0 (123.3%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 158.5 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 205.7 (129.8%)
JP OSA mirrors.xtom.jp [F: 0]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 44.6 - min 42.2 (94.7%), max 46.2 (103.6%)
Ping [ms]: avg 240.4 - min 239.8 (99.8%), max 240.7 (100.1%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 244.8 - min 239.9 (98.0%), max 256.1 (104.6%)
AU SYD mirror.internet.asn.au [F: 0]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 46.6 - min 46.3 (99.2%), max 47.0 (100.7%)
Ping [ms]: avg 244.2 - min 243.6 (99.8%), max 248.5 (101.8%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 245.9 - min 243.6 (99.0%), max 261.6 (106.4%)
--- Africa ---
KE NAI mirror.liquidtelecom.com [F: 0]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 50.2 - min 47.6 (94.8%), max 52.1 (103.8%)
Ping [ms]: avg 217.1 - min 216.0 (99.5%), max 227.3 (104.7%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 224.2 - min 216.1 (96.4%), max 408.6 (182.3%)
ZA, WEC archlinux.za.mirror.allworldit.com [F: 0]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 74.4 - min 60.5 (81.3%), max 79.7 (107.1%)
Ping [ms]: avg 145.5 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 150.7 (103.6%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 158.3 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 208.7 (131.8%)
MU POL archlinux-mirror.cloud.mu [F: 0]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 56.7 - min 53.1 (93.7%), max 57.2 (101.0%)
Ping [ms]: avg 198.5 - min 198.4 (99.9%), max 198.7 (100.1%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 199.6 - min 198.5 (99.4%), max 232.9 (116.7%)
--- America ---
CA MTL speedtest.mtl2.ca.leaseweb.net [F: 0]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 137.8 - min 136.5 (99.1%), max 140.0 (101.6%)
Ping [ms]: avg 79.0 - min 78.9 (99.8%), max 79.1 (100.1%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 79.1 - min 78.9 (99.8%), max 80.4 (101.7%)
US NYC mirrors-nyj.hawkhost.com [F: 0]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 143.7 - min 140.8 (98.0%), max 149.2 (103.8%)
Ping [ms]: avg 70.1 - min 70.0 (99.9%), max 70.5 (100.6%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 71.0 - min 70.1 (98.7%), max 74.7 (105.2%)
US ASH ash.speedtest.clouvider.net [F: 0]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 131.9 - min 118.5 (89.8%), max 142.7 (108.2%)
Ping [ms]: avg 75.6 - min 75.4 (99.7%), max 76.9 (101.7%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 77.5 - min 75.5 (97.4%), max 87.3 (112.6%)
US WDC speedtest.wdc2.us.leaseweb.net [F: 0]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 95.3 - min 45.6 (47.9%), max 143.2 (150.2%)
Ping [ms]: avg 77.3 - min 77.0 (99.6%), max 77.4 (100.2%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 77.4 - min 77.2 (99.7%), max 78.2 (101.0%)
US PIB mirror.pit.teraswitch.com [F: 0]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 140.3 - min 136.7 (97.4%), max 144.8 (103.2%)
Ping [ms]: avg 78.7 - min 78.6 (99.8%), max 78.8 (100.1%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 80.2 - min 78.6 (97.9%), max 84.0 (104.7%)
US MIA speedtest.mia11.us.leaseweb.net [F: 0]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 105.3 - min 52.8 (50.1%), max 109.6 (104.1%)
Ping [ms]: avg 101.3 - min 101.0 (99.7%), max 101.6 (100.3%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 102.5 - min 101.1 (98.7%), max 105.4 (102.9%)
US CHI ord.mirror.rackspace.com [F: 0]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 129.5 - min 128.5 (99.3%), max 131.3 (101.4%)
Ping [ms]: avg 87.1 - min 87.0 (99.9%), max 87.2 (100.1%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 98.2 - min 88.1 (89.7%), max 133.4 (135.8%)
US ATL atl.speedtest.clouvider.net [F: 0]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 117.4 - min 108.2 (92.2%), max 127.5 (108.6%)
Ping [ms]: avg 86.7 - min 86.4 (99.7%), max 88.2 (101.8%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 90.3 - min 86.4 (95.7%), max 103.7 (114.9%)
US PHO speedtest.phx1.us.leaseweb.net [F: 0]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 85.6 - min 81.1 (94.8%), max 87.1 (101.8%)
Ping [ms]: avg 130.5 - min 130.4 (99.9%), max 130.6 (100.1%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 131.2 - min 130.4 (99.4%), max 139.7 (106.5%)
US PTL mirrors.cat.pdx.edu [F: 0]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 88.1 - min 86.2 (97.8%), max 90.1 (102.3%)
Ping [ms]: avg 127.7 - min 127.5 (99.8%), max 128.3 (100.5%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 129.5 - min 127.6 (98.5%), max 134.6 (103.9%)
US LAX mirror.alma.lax1.serverforge.org [F: 0]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 82.7 - min 79.2 (95.8%), max 86.0 (103.9%)
Ping [ms]: avg 140.1 - min 139.2 (99.4%), max 142.6 (101.8%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 140.7 - min 139.2 (98.9%), max 149.6 (106.3%)
US SJO mirrors.xtom.us [F: 0]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 81.3 - min 76.6 (94.2%), max 83.0 (102.1%)
Ping [ms]: avg 135.5 - min 135.3 (99.9%), max 135.6 (100.1%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 136.6 - min 135.4 (99.1%), max 146.9 (107.5%)
US SEA speedtest.sea11.us.leaseweb.net [F: 0]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 84.4 - min 83.1 (98.4%), max 86.7 (102.7%)
Ping [ms]: avg 132.8 - min 132.6 (99.8%), max 133.0 (100.1%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 133.1 - min 132.6 (99.6%), max 133.7 (100.5%)
BR SPA mirrors.ic.unicamp.br [F: 0]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 51.7 - min 49.4 (95.5%), max 52.7 (101.8%)
Ping [ms]: avg 214.2 - min 212.2 (99.1%), max 215.6 (100.6%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 214.4 - min 212.3 (99.0%), max 217.7 (101.5%)
CL SAN elmirror.cl [F: 0]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 55.8 - min 48.6 (87.3%), max 59.9 (107.3%)
Ping [ms]: avg 192.6 - min 192.5 (99.9%), max 193.0 (100.2%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 309.8 - min 192.6 (62.2%), max 1267.6 (409.2%)
As usual, split into continents/regions.
Europe - Multiple Gb/s results (some of which you don't see because as always I show only one target per location). At that point I personally (very Europe centric) would be done - and really satisfied.
Asia / Oceania - it starts well with the Siberia target shown well above 100 Mb/s; I don't think I've seen that yet, so kudos to VeloxMedia for using packetstar as, so it seems, their main backbone.
Being at that unfortunately I also noted some routes that look a bit weird to me, like e.g. once going to China (Mainland) via RETN and once via NTT with the former way better and faster (about 50% and 80 ms!). Anyway, generally packetstar does a nice job and is well cross-connected with diverse (mostly good) global backbone providers.
So, while SGP and HKG don't establish records the results are quite decent. Sadly the same can't be said about the India targets which, although going via Airtel, show quite poor results. meh.
Africa - also not bad at all (but neither record breaking).
America - NYC and Pittsburg about 140 Mb/s, me impressed. Chicago and Ashburn not far behind, also nice. LAX and San Jose over 80 Mb/s, Miami (the "gate to South America) about 100 Mb/s, all numbers between really decent and impressive. And about or even above 50Mb/s to South America aren't bad at all either.
And again, this box is connected via 10 Gb! That, plus unlimited traffic (which I carefull take to mean 300 TB/mo are perfectly OK but at about 500 TB/mo they'll probably have unhappy faces ...).
TL;DR - and the reason I buy one of those (the 3 year package): A really tasty offer, a really nice VPS too plus hundreds of TB per month with very decent connectivity, I don't see anything not to like. If I were pressed to find something to nitpick I'd mention that a 25 GB disk isn't really matching the overall great VPS; but VeloxMedia already took care of that with their 2 years and 3 years packages ... (I guess their "FREE xxGB SSD " in the OP mean additional size on multi-year purchase).
Short version: get one, too!, don't wait, deals like this one are really good and quite rare! For about $20/year. Incredible.
Comments
Great review as usual.
300TB/month perfectly ok for 20$/year
What’s the catch?
Thank you for your in-depth review and benchmarks
I don't have a lot of experience with @VeloxMedia so far so I can't judge with certainty, but my impression is that they are honest players and simply have understood that an occasional super-tasty promo is needed.
Btw, please note that the 300TB/mo, max 500 TB/mo are just my personal take of their official unlimited, and frankly, for the really low price and very decent VPS and connectivity I personally would feel bad if I even used just more than 50 TB. But hey, maybe even a PB/mo would be OK with VeloxMedia - but to explain that is something they must be asked.
Btw, I just noticed that they also are quick and pro-active.
Explanation: In their panel one needed to fill in two fields, name and email, for each and every reply. I suggested to change that because (a) they usually already know both, and (b) even where really needed, e.g. pre-sales tickets, it still would be sufficient to only enter that info once.
And BANG, just two days later they had made the change. When I replied to a ticket just a few minutes ago, both name and email were already filled in, as I had suggested.
Well done, @VeloxMedia, nice to see a provider who actually listens to and thinks about customer's suggestions!
We try our best to accommodate everyone we possibly can