All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
A real human benchmark & review - Hosteroid Al, Tirana
As you probably saw @Hosteroid has a new location, Tirana in Albania and they use Xeon Gold there!
So, of course I had to benchmark that VPS, and Hosteroid was kind enough to provide me access. Thank you, Hosteroid!
Here's a real human review based on benchmarks.
Based on a bit over 30 runs during a full 24h period.
Version 2.5.0a, (c) 2018+ jsg (->lowendtalk.com)
Machine: amd64, Arch.: amd64, Model: Intel(R) Xeon(R) Gold 6248 CPU @ 2.50GHz
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, 27M 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
InNested Virt.? Yes
HW RNG? Yes
ProcMem SC [MB/s]: avg 239.6 - min 95.7 (39.9 %), max 384.1 (160.3 %)
ProcMem MA [MB/s]: avg 649.2 - min 495.5 (76.3 %), max 730.1 (112.5 %)
ProcMem MB [MB/s]: avg 678.8 - min 512.3 (75.5 %), max 739.8 (109.0 %)
ProcMem AES [MB/s]: avg 1139.7 - min 1133.8 (99.5 %), max 1142.9 (100.3 %)
ProcMem RSA [kp/s]: avg 99.2 - min 95.7 (96.4 %), max 103.0 (103.8 %)
To be frank, it is, well, a Xeon Gold with the typical results, good ones and the usual flags (incl. AVX2!). Decent results, nice, but not remarkable beyond what's to be expected from that processor.
Is the disk also "good but a bit boring"?
--- Disk 4 KB - Buffered ---
Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 11.33 - min 10.34 (91.2%), max 12.10 (106.8%)
Write rnd. [MB/s]: avg 10.39 - min 9.30 (89.5%), max 10.82 (104.1%)
Read seq. [MB/s]: avg 21.98 - min 16.05 (73.0%), max 23.71 (107.9%)
Read rnd. [MB/s]: avg 19.46 - min 17.25 (88.6%), max 20.91 (107.4%)
--- Disk 4 KB - Sync/Direct ---
Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 10.89 - min 8.94 (82.1%), max 11.80 (108.3%)
Write rnd. [MB/s]: avg 10.06 - min 8.13 (80.8%), max 10.85 (107.9%)
Read seq. [MB/s]: avg 21.71 - min 18.60 (85.7%), max 23.91 (110.1%)
Read rnd. [MB/s]: avg 19.08 - min 16.33 (85.6%), max 21.51 (112.7%)
--- Disk 64 KB - Buffered ---
Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 114.30 - min 96.07 (84.1%), max 119.11 (104.2%)
Write rnd. [MB/s]: avg 98.77 - min 84.46 (85.5%), max 103.02 (104.3%)
Read seq. [MB/s]: avg 2692.90 - min 1884.63 (70.0%), max 3206.99 (119.1%)
Read rnd. [MB/s]: avg 250.83 - min 229.52 (91.5%), max 263.02 (104.9%)
--- Disk 64 KB - Sync/Direct ---
Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 12.11 - min 11.16 (92.1%), max 13.04 (107.7%)
Write rnd. [MB/s]: avg 5.97 - min 5.31 (89.0%), max 6.57 (110.1%)
Read seq. [MB/s]: avg 2283.40 - min 1575.85 (69.0%), max 3056.43 (133.9%)
Read rnd. [MB/s]: avg 242.77 - min 214.72 (88.4%), max 272.69 (112.3%)
--- Disk 1 MB - Buffered ---
Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 173.47 - min 161.53 (93.1%), max 178.52 (102.9%)
Write rnd. [MB/s]: avg 317.50 - min 284.88 (89.7%), max 335.91 (105.8%)
Read seq. [MB/s]: avg 3686.05 - min 3015.30 (81.8%), max 4057.16 (110.1%)
Read rnd. [MB/s]: avg 1146.06 - min 965.32 (84.2%), max 1202.41 (104.9%)
--- Disk 1 MB - Sync/Direct ---
Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 35.76 - min 32.93 (92.1%), max 39.26 (109.8%)
Write rnd. [MB/s]: avg 23.09 - min 21.06 (91.2%), max 25.50 (110.4%)
Read seq. [MB/s]: avg 3605.06 - min 3264.97 (90.6%), max 3949.69 (109.6%)
Read rnd. [MB/s]: avg 1170.89 - min 1045.34 (89.3%), max 1253.86 (107.1%)
--- Disk IOps (Sync/Direct) ---
Write seq. [MB/s]: avg 50.77 - min 47.58 (93.7%), max 53.36 (105.1%)
IOps : avg 12997.44 - min 12181.04 (93.7%), max 13660.25 (105.1%)
Nope. Not at all boring! In fact way above what we see on most VPSs. About 50 MB/s and about 13k IOps! And keep in mind we're talking about a quite cheap (during the promo anyway) VPS here!
Now, connectivity ...
--- Europe ---
NO OSL mirror.terrahost.no [F: 0]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 232.2 - min 220.9 (95.1%), max 242.4 (104.4%)
Ping [ms]: avg 50.0 - min 50.0 (100.0%), max 50.1 (100.2%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 62.8 - min 50.0 (79.6%), max 438.5 (698.2%)
UK LON lon.speedtest.clouvider.net [F: 0]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 257.5 - min 251.8 (97.8%), max 266.8 (103.6%)
Ping [ms]: avg 42.0 - min 41.9 (99.8%), max 42.6 (101.4%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 42.9 - min 41.9 (97.6%), max 44.3 (103.2%)
NL AMS mirrors.xtom.nl [F: 0]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 330.9 - min 324.4 (98.0%), max 336.2 (101.6%)
Ping [ms]: avg 33.3 - min 33.2 (99.7%), max 33.4 (100.3%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 33.3 - min 33.3 (99.9%), max 33.6 (100.8%)
DE FRA mirror.plusline.net [F: 0]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 406.2 - min 400.2 (98.5%), max 411.1 (101.2%)
Ping [ms]: avg 27.8 - min 27.7 (99.7%), max 27.9 (100.4%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 27.9 - min 27.7 (99.3%), max 28.0 (100.4%)
FR PAR mirror.in2p3.fr [F: 0]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 327.5 - min 271.1 (82.8%), max 357.1 (109.1%)
Ping [ms]: avg 32.5 - min 32.4 (99.8%), max 32.6 (100.4%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 72.8 - min 32.5 (44.7%), max 223.0 (306.4%)
CH ZUR mirror.init7.net [F: 0]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 477.0 - min 466.3 (97.8%), max 483.9 (101.5%)
Ping [ms]: avg 23.4 - min 23.4 (99.8%), max 23.6 (100.6%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 25.6 - min 23.4 (91.4%), max 28.9 (112.8%)
IT MIL it1.mirror.vhosting-it.com [F: 0]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 591.3 - min 495.2 (83.7%), max 635.3 (107.4%)
Ping [ms]: avg 18.1 - min 18.0 (99.5%), max 18.3 (101.1%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 20.1 - min 18.1 (89.8%), max 48.6 (241.2%)
ES MAD mirror.raiolanetworks.com [F: 0]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 283.7 - min 276.9 (97.6%), max 289.4 (102.0%)
Ping [ms]: avg 38.5 - min 38.4 (99.7%), max 39.4 (102.2%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 40.8 - min 39.3 (96.3%), max 41.9 (102.6%)
RO BUC almalinux.mirrors.orange.ro [F: 0]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 564.8 - min 529.6 (93.8%), max 589.4 (104.4%)
Ping [ms]: avg 19.0 - min 18.9 (99.5%), max 19.1 (100.5%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 28.4 - min 18.9 (66.6%), max 143.5 (505.5%)
RU MOS speedtest.hostkey.ru [F: 0]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 168.4 - min 162.6 (96.5%), max 173.9 (103.2%)
Ping [ms]: avg 64.7 - min 64.6 (99.9%), max 64.8 (100.2%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 71.6 - min 64.8 (90.4%), max 83.3 (116.3%)
--- Asia / Oceania ---
RU SIB mirror.truenetwork.ru [F: 0]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 96.0 - min 75.7 (78.8%), max 101.0 (105.2%)
Ping [ms]: avg 115.6 - min 110.7 (95.8%), max 220.6 (190.9%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 121.2 - min 112.0 (92.4%), max 220.6 (182.0%)
IR SHI ir.almalinux.sindad.cloud [F: 2]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 105.2 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 135.6 (128.9%)
Ping [ms]: avg 82.2 - min 81.8 (99.5%), max 82.7 (100.6%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 87.2 - min 82.0 (94.1%), max 94.0 (107.9%)
IN MUM mirrors.piconets.webwerks.in [F: 0]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 88.2 - min 63.8 (72.3%), max 93.1 (105.6%)
Ping [ms]: avg 129.9 - min 120.8 (93.0%), max 196.3 (151.2%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 136.6 - min 120.9 (88.5%), max 198.9 (145.6%)
SG SGP mirror.jingk.ai [F: 0]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 69.7 - min 68.3 (97.9%), max 71.1 (101.9%)
Ping [ms]: avg 158.7 - min 158.5 (99.9%), max 159.2 (100.3%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 225.4 - min 167.8 (74.4%), max 414.7 (184.0%)
CN HKG mirrors.xtom.hk [F: 3]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 51.9 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 59.8 (115.2%)
Ping [ms]: avg 191.6 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 251.2 (131.1%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 206.6 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 256.2 (124.0%)
CN BEJ mirrors.bfsu.edu.cn [F: 0]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 55.5 - min 35.7 (64.4%), max 64.0 (115.3%)
Ping [ms]: avg 173.1 - min 171.4 (99.0%), max 211.5 (122.2%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 236.0 - min 171.8 (72.8%), max 1028.6 (435.9%)
JP OSA mirrors.xtom.jp [F: 0]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 40.2 - min 38.6 (95.9%), max 41.6 (103.5%)
Ping [ms]: avg 274.0 - min 272.1 (99.3%), max 295.3 (107.8%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 274.1 - min 272.1 (99.3%), max 295.3 (107.7%)
AU SYD mirror.internet.asn.au [F: 0]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 45.4 - min 41.6 (91.7%), max 46.1 (101.6%)
Ping [ms]: avg 249.1 - min 248.0 (99.5%), max 277.2 (111.3%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 250.5 - min 248.0 (99.0%), max 277.2 (110.7%)
--- Africa ---
KE NAI mirror.liquidtelecom.com [F: 0]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 69.3 - min 65.6 (94.6%), max 70.6 (101.8%)
Ping [ms]: avg 161.3 - min 160.7 (99.6%), max 177.7 (110.2%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 161.3 - min 160.7 (99.6%), max 177.7 (110.2%)
ZA WEC archlinux.za.mirror.allworldit.com [F: 0]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 57.9 - min 37.1 (64.0%), max 63.8 (110.2%)
Ping [ms]: avg 177.2 - min 177.0 (99.9%), max 177.6 (100.2%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 189.7 - min 178.5 (94.1%), max 217.6 (114.7%)
MU POL archlinux-mirror.cloud.mu [F: 0]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 49.1 - min 47.8 (97.4%), max 49.4 (100.5%)
Ping [ms]: avg 229.9 - min 229.6 (99.9%), max 232.0 (100.9%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 235.5 - min 229.6 (97.5%), max 349.3 (148.3%)
--- America ---
CA MTL speedtest.mtl2.ca.leaseweb.net [F: 0]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 96.7 - min 95.1 (98.3%), max 98.5 (101.8%)
Ping [ms]: avg 117.3 - min 117.1 (99.8%), max 117.5 (100.1%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 117.3 - min 117.1 (99.8%), max 117.5 (100.1%)
US NYC mirrors-nyj.hawkhost.com [F: 0]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 106.9 - min 105.2 (98.4%), max 108.7 (101.7%)
Ping [ms]: avg 104.7 - min 104.6 (99.9%), max 105.2 (100.5%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 105.7 - min 104.7 (99.1%), max 109.6 (103.7%)
US ASH ash.speedtest.clouvider.net [F: 0]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 88.3 - min 84.5 (95.6%), max 91.7 (103.9%)
Ping [ms]: avg 129.5 - min 129.3 (99.8%), max 130.8 (101.0%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 129.7 - min 129.3 (99.7%), max 130.8 (100.9%)
US WDC speedtest.wdc2.us.leaseweb.net [F: 0]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 79.3 - min 37.1 (46.8%), max 97.1 (122.4%)
Ping [ms]: avg 125.0 - min 124.0 (99.2%), max 150.1 (120.1%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 125.0 - min 124.0 (99.2%), max 150.1 (120.1%)
US PIB mirror.pit.teraswitch.com [F: 0]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 95.2 - min 92.2 (96.8%), max 98.3 (103.2%)
Ping [ms]: avg 117.6 - min 117.5 (99.9%), max 117.6 (100.0%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 118.2 - min 117.5 (99.4%), max 121.6 (102.9%)
US MIA speedtest.mia11.us.leaseweb.net [F: 0]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 70.4 - min 67.7 (96.1%), max 73.1 (103.8%)
Ping [ms]: avg 163.0 - min 162.8 (99.9%), max 163.1 (100.1%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 163.5 - min 162.8 (99.6%), max 165.0 (100.9%)
US CHI ord.mirror.rackspace.com [F: 0]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 94.0 - min 92.6 (98.5%), max 95.2 (101.3%)
Ping [ms]: avg 121.6 - min 121.5 (99.9%), max 122.3 (100.6%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 138.7 - min 121.5 (87.6%), max 195.2 (140.7%)
US ATL atl.speedtest.clouvider.net [F: 0]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 97.9 - min 96.1 (98.1%), max 99.5 (101.6%)
Ping [ms]: avg 113.1 - min 112.9 (99.8%), max 114.0 (100.8%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 113.7 - min 112.9 (99.3%), max 126.5 (111.2%)
US PHO phx.speedtest.clouvider.net [F: 9]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 50.2 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 76.5 (152.5%)
Ping [ms]: avg 134.2 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 252.2 (187.9%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 134.8 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 252.2 (187.1%)
US PTL mirrors.cat.pdx.edu [F: 1]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 65.3 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 69.5 (106.5%)
Ping [ms]: avg 168.0 - min 162.5 (96.7%), max 213.5 (127.1%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 171.4 - min 163.7 (95.5%), max 213.5 (124.5%)
US LAX la.speedtest.clouvider.net [F: 0]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 59.8 - min 52.6 (88.0%), max 62.8 (105.0%)
Ping [ms]: avg 183.9 - min 183.3 (99.7%), max 184.3 (100.2%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 190.9 - min 183.8 (96.3%), max 203.7 (106.7%)
US SJO mirrors.xtom.us [F: 1]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 64.5 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 69.5 (107.7%)
Ping [ms]: avg 162.0 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 225.5 (139.2%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 165.0 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 225.5 (136.7%)
US SEA speedtest.sea11.us.leaseweb.net [F: 0]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 66.0 - min 65.1 (98.5%), max 67.0 (101.4%)
Ping [ms]: avg 173.8 - min 169.7 (97.6%), max 227.6 (130.9%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 174.0 - min 169.7 (97.5%), max 227.6 (130.8%)
BR SPA mirror.ufscar.br [F: 0]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 52.2 - min 50.7 (97.1%), max 53.2 (101.8%)
Ping [ms]: avg 216.4 - min 216.2 (99.9%), max 216.5 (100.1%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 217.6 - min 217.2 (99.8%), max 218.1 (100.2%)
CL SAN elmirror.cl [F: 0]
DL [Mb/s]: avg 44.2 - min 31.4 (71.1%), max 45.2 (102.2%)
Ping [ms]: avg 252.6 - min 252.4 (99.9%), max 253.5 (100.4%)
Web ping [ms]: avg 498.5 - min 253.6 (50.9%), max 1029.3 (206.5%)
Now to the connectivity summary, as usual split into continents/regions.
Europe - Clearly the strong side of the VPS in terms of connectivity. Even the 200+ Mb/s to NO are not at all shabby, but of course the results are likely to be best/highest around Albania. To London we cross the 250 Mb/s mark, to NL we're already above 300 Mb/s, and to DE, FRA we pass the 400 Mb/s. to FR we see a modest valley but to CH we are back on the line with over 450 Mb/s and to IT we get really close to 600 Mb/s, and RO, on the other side of Albania is close to 550 Mb/s.
Europe TL;DR: very nice indeed!
Asia / Oceania - here we see a significant bump. While Siberia stays a bit under 100 Mb/s which is acceptable, Iran is a bit above, which is nice, but India not even 90 Mb/s is less nice. And again, we see a trend line, this time a decreasing one though. SGP (almost) 70 Mb/s, HKG only a bit over 50 Mb/s, and JP in the low 40ies isn't worth writing home about. CN, Bejing seems to be quite OK with ca. 55 Mb/s but (you can't see that but I can, another CN target fully failing and the third (Nanjing) with barely 40 Mb/s that Bejing result seems to be an exception rather than the rule).
And it (understandably) doesn't get better/faster to Ozzyland.
ASOC TL;DR: acceptable to meeh.
Africa - mostly around 50 - 55 MB/s and KE almost 70 Mb/s is quite good.
America - again a decreasing trendline from the east coast with about 100 to 105-ish Mb/s towards the west coast at about 55 to 65 Mb/s. Maybe I'm a bit spoiled but I find that only acceptable to meeh.
How to explain? IMO inconsistent routing. The first segment is HE, the final one whatever happens to be targets uplink or IX - but in between a weird mixture of carriers. one target in NYC, e.g. goes all the way HE only up to the targets IX switch port, the other one in NYC however does the (faster) cross-Atlantic hop (Zurich - NYC using Zayo. Similar with other targets, pretty much everyone with an ASN seems to be in the mix; and quite a few of those are quite decent carriers, e.g. twelve99. And even the european "jumping points" are a bit all over Europe but mostly IT (which makes sense) or CH (which seems weird).
TL;DR all in all: a really nice VPS especially for the price, very decent processor, a very good disk, but connectivity, while really good within Europe, is lackluster globally.
So my recommendation is to get a Hosteroid Tirana VPS if your main focus is really good connectivity within Europe and/or if Tirana - a somewhat exotic location - is very interesting to you. Otherwise the really nice and well performing hardware might be a factor.
Comments
I would expect "human benchmark" to be doing real world tasks, not just running synthetic tests and confusingly calling them "human benchmark".
@jbiloh's AI just scraped the benchmarks and reviews, it didn't generate them.
Thank you very much @jsg great benchmark like always!
For anyone interested in offer you can check it out here:
https://lowendtalk.com/discussion/209844/hosteroid-tirana-offer-moarr-giveaway-50gb-nvme-4-gb-ram-21-78-year
There is also Giveaway!
All this yapping about connection and IO can be understood from a single yabs.
Why is your benchmark good over a noob friendly yabs?
For a start, I don't see how yabs would be more noob-friendly.
As for your question, (a) I've already explained multiple times, and (b), as a gesture of good will: because my benchmark tell what an actual user/customer on some VPS can actually expect. Also keep in mind that actual usage typically is something like http(s) and not iperf and to/from normal servers rather than to/from some optimized box a provider puts on the net, mainly for marketing wankery. Plus, my reviews are always based on many runs and at the very least over one, and typically over multiple days - as opposed to a single run.
Btw, I've been told by multiple providers that they don't care about yabs results because they do not at all reflect the reality (their words).
Btw. 2: what's the problem? Those who prefer yabs can use it/look at its results, and those who prefer other benchmarks can use those results, but for some weird reason quite a few yabs fans seem to strongly dislike alternatives.
Not a problem. It's a genuine question.
Since you've taken your time to answer my question, here's a genuine feedback for you:
Your reviews are good. I wouldn't call it great. They are thorough but do not follow a similar patten. Sure, you go from top to bottom of a checklist. For example, you mentioned certain things about IOPS being 13k as "great" wheres compared to some of the other providers, 13k is quite mediocre. Again, IMO.
Furthermore, your reviews are wall of text and most of what I saw of your reviews are all positive(I cba to dig through your thread history if you ever posted negatives). The most negative thing you've got to say about the whole review is provider's connectivity being average.
Depending on how you take my feedback, you should also be more blunt unless your reviews are...sponsored?
I mean no malice in writing all this. Just something I observed since I joined almost 2 years ago.
Depends I guess. As I tend to mostly benchmark cheap VPSs, > 10k IOps are great and I don't pull the scale out of my ass but it's based on what I saw in many, many benchmarks. Also keep in mind that my perspective largely boils down to bang per buck.
Right to some degree (reason: friendliness and I like to be polite), but not really. It's actually not rare to read e.g. "meeh" in my reviews, incl. btw. in this one. And there were also some, granted quite rare, examples of me pretty much ripping a test VPS/offer apart; also (just yesterday I think) I occasionally comment something like "offer not tasty" (brutal translation: not worthy a benchmark).
Please also note that (at least in my opinion) nowadays even super-cheap VPS offers, unlike some years ago, tend to be at least half-way decent and surprisingly often good to even excellent, so there simply isn't a reason to hand out negative verdicts.
In fact, this VPS (tested here) is an example. Xeon Gold, not brutally oversold, very good disk performance (in relation to the price), very decent Europe connectivity and acceptable to meeh - but not crappy - global connectivity, so why on earth should I not call that a good deal.
Btw, I always deliver the benchmark results along with my "wall of text", so everyone can judge for themselves.
No, I'm not sponsored nor would I accept a bribe. It does happen though, although rarely, that I get a "thank you" from a provider e.g. in the form of a rebate. Note though, that I'd refuse to even listen to any such offers before being done with benchmarking, I only, no exceptions, even consider such an offer after publishing a review.
I can agree, Hosteroid has been solid so far, including the ones I pay and the sponsored instances.
We are trying our best! Thanks!