Introducing ServerVerify: built with the LowEndTalk community in mind

ascicode · February 2

@ravenof7 said:

@jsg said:

@ravenof7 said:

@jsg said:

@forest said:

@ravenof7 said: LLM powered search: "I want a 8 vcpu node sub 200 per year from a provider that supports BGP"

Oh god no. Why do you need such a search to be LLM-powered? Why not just use a regular search? Is it really that important to use natural language rather than just searching by selecting your desired core count, price range, etc?

FULL ACK! Keep AI crap out!

Point taken, it's hard to get that right. Agree with @forest this should not be first focus, and probably more aimed at a Joe and Jane type of end-user audience who don't deal with servers

My point was more that the search can be much improved to ensure the user can find what they're looking for - preferably with dedicated filter sections on the side by core count, cpu type, ram, price range filter etc. etc. It's quite hard to make that performant but there are dedicated solutions that can really help and basically build-up an in-memory index of the relevant characteristics (i.e. apache solr/elastic/meilisearch/algolia)

(a) AI improves nothing
(b) I already coded functionality like you describe decades ago.
((c) It doesn't need to be particularly performant and in-memory indices aren't exactly new, complicated, or bleeding edge))

The site does not implement the 'decades ago' functionality yet. My point was it would be great to have that.

The filtering would only index whats used in yabs, whatever deal it is/was. Maybe an exclusive one, not whats offered on the site.

Thats a part LET shouldn't digging, as its the company itself, advertising or not.

slowservers · February 3

Not sure if this is the best place for this or not, but I tried to benchmark Slow Servers and had mixed luck. Never used yabs before.

It's IPv6 only, so Geekbench failed entirely. yabs says to ftp Geekbench to it since Geekbench's CDN doesn't support IPv6. Will yabs detect the Geekbench tarball in the current working directory?

Also, iperf worked for receive modes only, and send all said "busy." Has anyone run into that before?

This was on the Debian 13 "nocloud" image.

Thank you!

thepasta · February 3

@slowservers said:
Not sure if this is the best place for this or not, but I tried to benchmark Slow Servers and had mixed luck. Never used yabs before.

It's IPv6 only, so Geekbench failed entirely. yabs says to ftp Geekbench to it since Geekbench's CDN doesn't support IPv6. Will yabs detect the Geekbench tarball in the current working directory?

Also, iperf worked for receive modes only, and send all said "busy." Has anyone run into that before?

This was on the Debian 13 "nocloud" image.

Thank you!

yabs won't extract the tarball if manually transferred, you'll need to make the binary available on $PATH looking at the source script

slowservers · February 3

@thepasta said:

yabs won't extract the tarball if manually transferred, you'll need to make the binary available on $PATH looking at the source script

Ah, thank you!

I haven't had much luck with it...

root@localhost:~# PATH="$PATH:/root/Geekbench-6.5.0-Linux" bash yabs.sh -f -i
# ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## #
#              Yet-Another-Bench-Script              #
#                     v2025-04-20                    #
# https://github.com/masonr/yet-another-bench-script #
# ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## #

Tue Feb  3 21:23:08 UTC 2026

Basic System Information:
---------------------------------
Uptime     : 0 days, 0 hours, 1 minutes
Processor  : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2650 v2 @ 2.60GHz
CPU cores  : 1 @ 2600.009 MHz
AES-NI     : ✔ Enabled
VM-x/AMD-V : ❌ Disabled
RAM        : 1.9 GiB
Swap       : 0.0 KiB
Disk       : 23.5 GiB
Distro     : Debian GNU/Linux 13 (trixie)
Kernel     : 6.12.63+deb13-amd64
VM Type    : VM-OTHER
IPv4/IPv6  : ❌ Offline / ✔ Online

Geekbench releases can only be downloaded over IPv4. FTP the Geekbench files and run manually.

YABS completed in 47 min 27 sec

Seems like it should give me a report, right? It does this as well if OOM killer gets it. I've tried 1GB, 1.5GB, and finally 2GB to finally get it to run to completion without being killed.

It says that Geekbench is running when I start it, but it deletes that line and puts the FTP line there when it's done.

I figure I'll run vanilla Geekbench next.

slowservers · February 4

The issue looks to be that Geekbench can't connect to browser.geekbench.com and bails out. There's no AAAA record for it. Geekbench really needs to get with the 21st century!

I do have a V4 SOCKS proxy. I'm not sure how easily I can coax Geekbench into using it. Maybe with socksify...

root@localhost:~/Geekbench-6.5.0-Linux# ./geekbench6
Geekbench 6.5.0 : https://www.geekbench.com/

Geekbench 6 requires an active internet connection and automatically uploads 
benchmark results to the Geekbench Browser.

Upgrade to Geekbench 6 Pro to enable offline use and unlock other features:

  https://store.primatelabs.com/v6

Enter your Geekbench 6 Pro license using the following command line:

  ./geekbench6 --unlock <email> <key>

System Information
  Operating System              Debian GNU/Linux 13 (trixie)
  Kernel                        Linux 6.12.63+deb13-amd64 x86_64
  Model                         OpenBSD VMM
  Motherboard                   N/A
  BIOS                          SeaBIOS 1.16.3p0-OpenBSD-vmm

CPU Information
  Name                          Intel Xeon E5-2650 v2
  Topology                      1 Processor, 1 Core
  Identifier                    GenuineIntel Family 6 Model 62 Stepping 4
  Base Frequency                2.60 GHz
  L1 Instruction Cache          32.0 KB
  L1 Data Cache                 32.0 KB
  L2 Cache                      256 KB
  L3 Cache                      20.0 MB
  Instruction Sets              sse2 sse3 pclmul sse41 aesni avx

Memory Information
  Size                          1.93 GB


Single-Core
  Running File Compression
  Running Navigation
  Running HTML5 Browser
  Running PDF Renderer
  Running Photo Library
  Running Clang
  Running Text Processing
  Running Asset Compression
  Running Object Detection
  Running Background Blur
  Running Horizon Detection
  Running Object Remover
  Running HDR
  Running Photo Filter
  Running Ray Tracer
  Running Structure from Motion

Multi-Core
  Running File Compression
  Running Navigation
  Running HTML5 Browser
  Running PDF Renderer
  Running Photo Library
  Running Clang
  Running Text Processing
  Running Asset Compression
  Running Object Detection
  Running Background Blur
  Running Horizon Detection
  Running Object Remover
  Running HDR
  Running Photo Filter
  Running Ray Tracer
  Running Structure from Motion


Uploading results to the Geekbench Browser. This could take a minute or two 
depending on the speed of your internet connection.

 unable to connect to host browser.geekbench.com

AlteredParadox · February 7

Maybe some sort of dual stack transparent proxy that proxies geekbench.com and serves it over ipv6? I broke down and bought a geekbench pro license a couple weeks back so i could run with --no-upload and skip the ipv4 mess, but that's definitely the more expensive option.

default · February 13

I love it how we have over 170 pages of drama thread about VeloxMedia being a proven scammer with provider tag removed and banned here, but it is still advertised on ServerVerify with 3 ⭐ assigned.

Neoon · February 15

@default said:
I love it how we have over 170 pages of drama thread about VeloxMedia being a proven scammer with provider tag removed and banned here, but it is still advertised on ServerVerify with 3 ⭐ assigned.

Bruh, @jbiloh doesn't give a fuck.
I already regret posting a YABS yesterday, his bot already uploaded it to serverPissVerify.

Without consent obviously.

jbiloh · February 15

@default said:
I love it how we have over 170 pages of drama thread about VeloxMedia being a proven scammer with provider tag removed and banned here, but it is still advertised on ServerVerify with 3 ⭐ assigned.

If you were a customer of that provider you should leave a review to share your experience.

AlteredParadox · February 15

@jbiloh said:

@default said:
I love it how we have over 170 pages of drama thread about VeloxMedia being a proven scammer with provider tag removed and banned here, but it is still advertised on ServerVerify with 3 ⭐ assigned.

If you were a customer of that provider you should leave a review to share your experience.

Would be kinda handy for there to at least be some sort of link between the two to reflect that a provider has been banned, give people a heads up there might be a reason to dig deeper.

default · February 15

@jbiloh said:

@default said:
I love it how we have over 170 pages of drama thread about VeloxMedia being a proven scammer with provider tag removed and banned here, but it is still advertised on ServerVerify with 3 ⭐ assigned.

If you were a customer of that provider you should leave a review to share your experience.

So 170+ pages is not enough. My review is needed for a couple of months of service. Noted, thank you.

Maybe we could also vote for them at the provider poll.

jbiloh · February 15

@default said:

@jbiloh said:

@default said:
I love it how we have over 170 pages of drama thread about VeloxMedia being a proven scammer with provider tag removed and banned here, but it is still advertised on ServerVerify with 3 ⭐ assigned.

If you were a customer of that provider you should leave a review to share your experience.

So 170+ pages is not enough. My review is needed for a couple of months of service. Noted, thank you.

Maybe we could also vote for them at the provider poll.

Just to be clear, you want a bad provider removed from a review and benchmarking site?

If that is the case I don't understand how that makes sense or how that could help consumers.

The best way to help consumers and hosting shoppers is to surface as much valid/truthful data from customer experiences as possible.

jbiloh · February 15

@AlteredParadox said: Would be kinda handy for there to at least be some sort of link between the two to reflect that a provider has been banned, give people a heads up there might be a reason to dig deeper.

Yes that is a good idea. Going to work on that.

fluffernutter · February 16

@jbiloh said:

@default said:

@jbiloh said:

@default said:
I love it how we have over 170 pages of drama thread about VeloxMedia being a proven scammer with provider tag removed and banned here, but it is still advertised on ServerVerify with 3 ⭐ assigned.

If you were a customer of that provider you should leave a review to share your experience.

So 170+ pages is not enough. My review is needed for a couple of months of service. Noted, thank you.

Maybe we could also vote for them at the provider poll.

Just to be clear, you want a bad provider removed from a review and benchmarking site?

If that is the case I don't understand how that makes sense or how that could help consumers.

The best way to help consumers and hosting shoppers is to surface as much valid/truthful data from customer experiences as possible.

this feels a little silly. if LET bans a provider, shouldn't the benchmarking/whatever site that scrapes and takes LET data reflect that at all? i greatly dislike serververify but this feels like the worlds easiest layup to miss.

Fubukibox · February 16

i haven't used Serververify in months and i got an email about something about being published. ????? wha. I didn't authorized this

jbiloh · February 16

@Fubukibox said:
i haven't used Serververify in months and i got an email about something about being published. ????? wha. I didn't authorized this

Send me a PM and I can check that out for you.

jbiloh · February 16

@jbiloh said:

@AlteredParadox said: Would be kinda handy for there to at least be some sort of link between the two to reflect that a provider has been banned, give people a heads up there might be a reason to dig deeper.

Yes that is a good idea. Going to work on that.

Working on the feature now. Have this in place temporarily:

Mahedi · February 22

Add VPS location filter option

jbiloh · February 24

@Mahedi said:
Add VPS location filter option

Where?

forest · February 27

@jbiloh said: We rolled out an update last night to enable email notifications for when:

A review or benchmark is successfully published

I got an unsolicited email that I had submitted some benchmarks and had them approved. I did not do that. Could you please remove my automatically created account from ServerVerify and remove the benchmarks? I am not and have never been a member on that site, and I do not wish to be one.

As the email was completely unsolicited for a service I never signed up for, I of course flagged it as spam, but I'd rather not have any of my YABS submitted to that site. I don't want to continue posting YABS until this is resolved.

AlteredParadox · February 27

@forest said:

@jbiloh said: We rolled out an update last night to enable email notifications for when:

A review or benchmark is successfully published

I got an unsolicited email that I had submitted some benchmarks and had them approved. I did not do that. Could you please remove my automatically created account from ServerVerify and remove the benchmarks? I am not and have never been a member on that site, and I do not wish to be one.

As the email was completely unsolicited for a service I never signed up for, I of course flagged it as spam, but I'd rather not have any of my YABS submitted to that site. I don't want to continue posting YABS until this is resolved.

You're not the first I've seen make this complaint, but honestly it seems like its pretty well laid out in the TOS/Privacy Policy that once you post something they're free to re-use it.

jbiloh · February 27

@forest said:

@jbiloh said: We rolled out an update last night to enable email notifications for when:

A review or benchmark is successfully published

I got an unsolicited email that I had submitted some benchmarks and had them approved. I did not do that. Could you please remove my automatically created account from ServerVerify and remove the benchmarks? I am not and have never been a member on that site, and I do not wish to be one.

As the email was completely unsolicited for a service I never signed up for, I of course flagged it as spam, but I'd rather not have any of my YABS submitted to that site. I don't want to continue posting YABS until this is resolved.

Sorry that this caused you any distress.

I'm just trying to help people make better hosting purchase decisions by surfacing data that was previously not centralized or easily searchable.

I am hopeful that ServerVerify can be a useful tool for many people and help promote hosting providers to elevate their service quality.

forest · February 27

@AlteredParadox said: You're not the first I've seen make this complaint, but honestly it seems like its pretty well laid out in the TOS/Privacy Policy that once you post something they're free to re-use it.

Indeed. That's why I'm requesting it being removed rather than making any legal demands.

I actually pointed out that very section to someone else in this thread earlier.

forest · February 27

@jbiloh said:

@forest said:

@jbiloh said: We rolled out an update last night to enable email notifications for when:

A review or benchmark is successfully published

I got an unsolicited email that I had submitted some benchmarks and had them approved. I did not do that. Could you please remove my automatically created account from ServerVerify and remove the benchmarks? I am not and have never been a member on that site, and I do not wish to be one.

As the email was completely unsolicited for a service I never signed up for, I of course flagged it as spam, but I'd rather not have any of my YABS submitted to that site. I don't want to continue posting YABS until this is resolved.

Sorry that this caused you any distress.

I'm just trying to help people make better hosting purchase decisions by surfacing data that was previously not centralized or easily searchable.

I am hopeful that ServerVerify can be a useful tool for many people and help promote hosting providers to elevate their service quality.

There are too many problems with it currently for it to be anything other than an early pre-alpha, but it seems to be in production. If it was opt-in and not full of AI stuff, I'd be a lot happier to consider using it.

Maybe it'll work one day, but it's too "automated" and doesn't really score providers accurately. I don't want to be a part of something that dings providers for my own choices (such as choosing 1 vCPU instead of multiple).

With that said, I'm a hypocrite so I'm going to post another YABS, but I'd appreciate it if it stayed in the YABS thread.

jbiloh · February 27

@forest said:

@jbiloh said:

@forest said:

@jbiloh said: We rolled out an update last night to enable email notifications for when:

A review or benchmark is successfully published

I got an unsolicited email that I had submitted some benchmarks and had them approved. I did not do that. Could you please remove my automatically created account from ServerVerify and remove the benchmarks? I am not and have never been a member on that site, and I do not wish to be one.

As the email was completely unsolicited for a service I never signed up for, I of course flagged it as spam, but I'd rather not have any of my YABS submitted to that site. I don't want to continue posting YABS until this is resolved.

Sorry that this caused you any distress.

I'm just trying to help people make better hosting purchase decisions by surfacing data that was previously not centralized or easily searchable.

I am hopeful that ServerVerify can be a useful tool for many people and help promote hosting providers to elevate their service quality.

There are too many problems with it currently for it to be anything other than an early pre-alpha, but it seems to be in production. If it was opt-in and not full of AI stuff, I'd be a lot happier to consider using it.

Maybe it'll work one day, but it's too "automated" and doesn't really score providers accurately. I don't want to be a part of something that dings providers for my own choices (such as choosing 1 vCPU instead of multiple).

With that said, I'm a hypocrite so I'm going to post another YABS, but I'd appreciate it if it stayed in the YABS thread.

The idea behind ServerVerify was to create a mass data layer (YABS) and compliment it was a subjective layer (reviews). And then to surface that data as easily as possible for the benefit of as many users as possible.

I don't think the system is perfect, but it's a lot better than not having any data in a central location.

I am still working on it and it will continue to improve as time passes.

I've reacted and implemented a lot of user suggestions over the past few months and I remain open to hearing folks feedback.

forest · February 28

Is YABS data entered manually or is it automatically parsed? In other words, what would happen if a YABS report were to contain homoglyphs, reverse text using RTL unicode to correct it, and other such techniques that make it render normally despite being a mess for parsers?

jbiloh · February 28

@forest said:
Is YABS data entered manually or is it automatically parsed? In other words, what would happen if a YABS report were to contain homoglyphs, reverse text using RTL unicode to correct it, and other such techniques that make it render normally despite being a mess for parsers?

We have an automation layer to parsing YABS but every single report that gets published is reviewed and approved by the ServerVerify admin team to ensure data integrity.

jsg · February 28

@jbiloh said:

@forest said:
Is YABS data entered manually or is it automatically parsed? In other words, what would happen if a YABS report were to contain homoglyphs, reverse text using RTL unicode to correct it, and other such techniques that make it render normally despite being a mess for parsers?

We have an automation layer to parsing YABS but every single report that gets published is reviewed and approved by the ServerVerify admin team to ensure data integrity.

Which LET users/mods/admins are in the ServerVerify admin team?

AlteredParadox · March 1

@jbiloh said:

@forest said:
Is YABS data entered manually or is it automatically parsed? In other words, what would happen if a YABS report were to contain homoglyphs, reverse text using RTL unicode to correct it, and other such techniques that make it render normally despite being a mess for parsers?

We have an automation layer to parsing YABS but every single report that gets published is reviewed and approved by the ServerVerify admin team to ensure data integrity.

So you're saying you really love it a lot when i go through my entire fleet of VPS' and run yabs one after another!?!?

AlteredParadox · March 2

@jbiloh something weird happening here - the second one is the one i submitted - the top one is the version i posted on LET that got scraped, I guess - has the wrong provider and half the score, but they're the same YABS? The cpu score also changes between providers from an a to a b, even though its identical in the geekbench?

https://serververify.com/benchmarks/4399458d-d343-4a87-990d-adef1abc2387
https://serververify.com/benchmarks/f46a56ce-44e9-4e03-bab7-935b78e8ca74

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories

In this Discussion

Introducing ServerVerify: built with the LowEndTalk community in mind

Comments

Howdy, Stranger!

Quick Links

Categories

In this Discussion

Introducing ServerVerify: built with the LowEndTalk community in mind

Comments