Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!


Shells Virtual Desktop
BMail.ag - Secure Email Service
Server.net
CPLicense.net
VPS Server
Buy VPN
Vultr
VMs for AI
HostDare
ReliableSite White-Label Dedicated Hosting for Resellers
InterServer VPS
BMail.ag - Secure Email Service
Best VPN
High-Performance Bare Metal Server Solutions
Karvl.com
Server Mania Cloud Hosting
DataWagon Hosting
AlphaVPS Hosting
Evoxt.com
Clouvider
VPS Hosting with NVMe
Residential IPs in the US & 4G Mobile Proxies in EU & US with Unlimited Bandwidth
ReliableSite White-Label Dedicated Hosting for Resellers
Rabisu - Hosting Solutions
Shells Virtual Desktop
New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.

All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.

Velox media under new management

1165166168170171184

Comments

  • @rpqu said:

    @barbarza said:

    @Calypso said:

    @TeneT said:

    @angstrom said: I still haven't received an email about my VPS, but perhaps the email is still to come

    In any case, I don't see myself renewing this VPS. Although the VPS is technically okay -- so far, at least -- it's difficult to have much confidence in this company after all that has happened. Fortunately, I paid for only one year, and it wasn't a large sum, so I'll simply treat this as a learning experience

    Now it's time to terminate those large RAM VPS without "LET" in production name.

    Nope

    Next maybe turn to those triennially plans since they will be there running for the next 2.5 years without extra payment.

    Maybe.

    I received the mail and (as mentioned here before) my plan didn't have LET in its name, has/had 5 cores, 2G RAM, 30G disk but was for 3 years. So this batch is not because of "high RAM". Maybe the 5 cores did it or the large traffic limit - but if the latter was the case I'd imagine you'd first take a look at what amount of traffic has been used.

    No, I get the feeling it's more or less random, and also the new monthly payment doesn't really reflect system specs, because others with quite larger specs also got the same proposition. And before, LET marked plans, were also better specs and lower montly...

    It's all a scam, there is no logic to it

    The termination is sporadic. A good business would plan the service termination, even before the notice was released.
    It took more than a month between the first notice and the latest one. It's definitely not caused by mail server rate limits or manpower to handle each case (else, he could have "borrowed" staffs).

    I don't think you're allowed to use the terms VeloxMedia and business in the same sentence.

    Thanked by 1lburkh
  • TeneTTeneT Member

    @Calypso The exact rule for termination doesn't really matter now. Now it's like all the rest are in the Great Purge of the Soviet Union. Nobody knows who will be arrested and purged by Stalin tomorrow. Yesterday it said that the purge is over and the rest would be fine but today there is still someone disappearing. 😱😱😱

  • ralfralf Member

    @rpqu said:

    @barbarza said:

    @Calypso said:

    @TeneT said:

    @angstrom said: I still haven't received an email about my VPS, but perhaps the email is still to come

    In any case, I don't see myself renewing this VPS. Although the VPS is technically okay -- so far, at least -- it's difficult to have much confidence in this company after all that has happened. Fortunately, I paid for only one year, and it wasn't a large sum, so I'll simply treat this as a learning experience

    Now it's time to terminate those large RAM VPS without "LET" in production name.

    Nope

    Next maybe turn to those triennially plans since they will be there running for the next 2.5 years without extra payment.

    Maybe.

    I received the mail and (as mentioned here before) my plan didn't have LET in its name, has/had 5 cores, 2G RAM, 30G disk but was for 3 years. So this batch is not because of "high RAM". Maybe the 5 cores did it or the large traffic limit - but if the latter was the case I'd imagine you'd first take a look at what amount of traffic has been used.

    No, I get the feeling it's more or less random, and also the new monthly payment doesn't really reflect system specs, because others with quite larger specs also got the same proposition. And before, LET marked plans, were also better specs and lower montly...

    It's all a scam, there is no logic to it

    The termination is sporadic. A good business would plan the service termination, even before the notice was released.
    It took more than a month between the first notice and the latest one. It's definitely not caused by mail server rate limits or manpower to handle each case (else, he could have "borrowed" staffs).

    He was busy the week before spending all his $7 bills at hooters/

    Thanked by 2barbarza rpqu
  • the money i threw for these unsustainable deals is enough to buy a whole rack and self hosting. I'm broke now :(

  • rpqurpqu Member

    @mhpteam said:
    the money i threw for these unsustainable deals is enough to buy a whole rack and self hosting. I'm broke now :(

    Can't do chargeback?

  • @rpqu said:

    @mhpteam said:
    the money i threw for these unsustainable deals is enough to buy a whole rack and self hosting. I'm broke now :(

    Can't do chargeback?

    im still working with my bank provider to send Mastercard a complaint

  • rpqurpqu Member

    @mhpteam said:

    @rpqu said:

    @mhpteam said:
    the money i threw for these unsustainable deals is enough to buy a whole rack and self hosting. I'm broke now :(

    Can't do chargeback?

    im still working with my bank provider to send Mastercard a complaint

    I see

    @ralf said:

    @rpqu said:

    @barbarza said:

    @Calypso said:

    @TeneT said:

    @angstrom said: I still haven't received an email about my VPS, but perhaps the email is still to come

    In any case, I don't see myself renewing this VPS. Although the VPS is technically okay -- so far, at least -- it's difficult to have much confidence in this company after all that has happened. Fortunately, I paid for only one year, and it wasn't a large sum, so I'll simply treat this as a learning experience

    Now it's time to terminate those large RAM VPS without "LET" in production name.

    Nope

    Next maybe turn to those triennially plans since they will be there running for the next 2.5 years without extra payment.

    Maybe.

    I received the mail and (as mentioned here before) my plan didn't have LET in its name, has/had 5 cores, 2G RAM, 30G disk but was for 3 years. So this batch is not because of "high RAM". Maybe the 5 cores did it or the large traffic limit - but if the latter was the case I'd imagine you'd first take a look at what amount of traffic has been used.

    No, I get the feeling it's more or less random, and also the new monthly payment doesn't really reflect system specs, because others with quite larger specs also got the same proposition. And before, LET marked plans, were also better specs and lower montly...

    It's all a scam, there is no logic to it

    The termination is sporadic. A good business would plan the service termination, even before the notice was released.
    It took more than a month between the first notice and the latest one. It's definitely not caused by mail server rate limits or manpower to handle each case (else, he could have "borrowed" staffs).

    He was busy the week before spending all his $7 bills at hooters/

    Might as well go to strip club 😉

    Thanked by 1barbarza
  • SaragoldfarbSaragoldfarb Member, Megathread Squad

    @forest said:
    I wonder if people are going to follow him around Reddit and tell others about what happened here. After all this drama, he would be best to change the name of the company.

    If only I had the time...

  • SaragoldfarbSaragoldfarb Member, Megathread Squad

    @jsg said:

    @TeneT said:

    @angstrom said: I still haven't received an email about my VPS, but perhaps the email is still to come

    In any case, I don't see myself renewing this VPS. Although the VPS is technically okay -- so far, at least -- it's difficult to have much confidence in this company after all that has happened. Fortunately, I paid for only one year, and it wasn't a large sum, so I'll simply treat this as a learning experience

    First, everything will be fine and keep running.
    Then terminated everything with "LET" in production name.
    Now it's time to terminate those large RAM VPS without "LET" in production name.

    Next maybe turn to those triennially plans since they will be there running for the next 2.5 years without extra payment.
    Then biennially plans since they will be there running for the next 1.5 years without extra payment.
    After all these are done will come to your yearly plan.

    I'm of course sorry for @angstrom in case he loses his VPS. But that said, while not really big my VPS there is 2 vCores, 4 GB RAM, a decently sized drive, plus an insane traffic volume, so not really tiny.
    It doesn't seem unreasonable that angstrom's VPS will continue to run the full contract period (with mine I'm less confident because mine was a 3 year deal).

    Need bolox? We got great deals at boloxmedia.co.uk

    Thanked by 1tansel
  • SaragoldfarbSaragoldfarb Member, Megathread Squad

    @default said:

    @angstrom said:
    [...] it wasn't a large sum, so I'll simply treat this as a learning experience

    On that note, is it safe to say scammers are also teachers?

    We in philosophy class now? :D

  • Oh man ... wrote a support ticket and made it clear that I'm not willing to renew my servers for higher prices, ... took exactly 2 minutes for an answer from Eric, followed by two mails that my servers are terminated now ... oh Eric, what a poor soul ...

    Migrated all my services from the servers yesterday, so that's not a big deal. What I still need to clarify is whether the chargeback window is valid from the date of purchase or from the announcement. Research online and with Perplexity suggests that the email with the statement is crucial (breach of contract) and there’s a good chance of getting the money back. Will see.

  • @lburkh said:
    Oh man ... wrote a support ticket and made it clear that I'm not willing to renew my servers for higher prices, ... took exactly 2 minutes for an answer from Eric, followed by two mails that my servers are terminated now ... oh Eric, what a poor soul ...

    Migrated all my services from the servers yesterday, so that's not a big deal. What I still need to clarify is whether the chargeback window is valid from the date of purchase or from the announcement. Research online and with Perplexity suggests that the email with the statement is crucial (breach of contract) and there’s a good chance of getting the money back. Will see.

    People who can still chargeback, would better chargeback fast.

  • at such pace after terminating triennially/biennially/yearly and monthly plans, finally, i think veloxmedia will launch daily plans $4/day :D

    Thanked by 1rpqu
  • @default said:

    @lburkh said:
    Oh man ... wrote a support ticket and made it clear that I'm not willing to renew my servers for higher prices, ... took exactly 2 minutes for an answer from Eric, followed by two mails that my servers are terminated now ... oh Eric, what a poor soul ...

    Migrated all my services from the servers yesterday, so that's not a big deal. What I still need to clarify is whether the chargeback window is valid from the date of purchase or from the announcement. Research online and with Perplexity suggests that the email with the statement is crucial (breach of contract) and there’s a good chance of getting the money back. Will see.

    People who can still chargeback, would better chargeback fast.

    of course I will make a visit to my bank tomorrow ;)
    I only wrote that so others don't give up hope of getting their money back and definitely give it a try.

  • SaragoldfarbSaragoldfarb Member, Megathread Squad

    He terminated my server 1 day prior to payment due date... Such a clown.

    Thanked by 1AlteredParadox
  • I heard on reddit we're all spreading lies because we don't like him and that we're all the same person.

  • zedzed Member

    I am definitely all the same person.

  • SaragoldfarbSaragoldfarb Member, Megathread Squad

    @AlteredParadox said:
    I heard on reddit we're all spreading lies because we don't like him and that we're all the same person.

    I guess he right. I mean. I don't like him.

  • @AlteredParadox said:
    I heard on reddit we're all spreading lies because we don't like him and that we're all the same person.

    Jokes on you, I have more personalities than people write in this thread lately. Not true Eric, makes no sense.

    Thanked by 1Saragoldfarb
  • jsgjsg Member, Resident Benchmarker
    edited February 9

    For a change ...

    I know, many (most?) here won't like it but I compiled 30 runs of benchmarking @VeloxMedia's connectivity. Not to spite anyone but mainly to get an impression whether their current $4/mo price tag for a VPS actually is basically robbery or whether their prices are within a reasonable region.

    Here's the fresh results (from 24hrs since yesterday):

    --- Europe ---
    
    NO TRH mirror.archlinux.no [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 328.2 - min 156.5 (47.7%), max 342.8 (104.4%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 33.6 - min 31.3 (93.1%), max 72.4 (215.4%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 34.1 - min 31.3 (91.7%), max 73.5 (215.3%)
    
    UK LON lon.speedtest.clouvider.net [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 2559.0 - min 839.2 (32.8%), max 4622.4 (180.6%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 1.6 - min 1.4 (86.4%), max 4.3 (265.3%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 2.1 - min 1.5 (71.7%), max 15.1 (722.2%)
    
    NL AMS mirrors.xtom.nl [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 1032.5 - min 238.9 (23.1%), max 1250.5 (121.1%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 8.9 - min 8.8 (98.7%), max 9.1 (102.1%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 9.0 - min 8.9 (98.4%), max 9.3 (102.8%)
    
    DE FRA mirror.plusline.net [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 852.4 - min 825.0 (96.8%), max 878.6 (103.1%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 12.5 - min 12.4 (98.9%), max 12.7 (101.3%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 12.9 - min 12.7 (98.6%), max 13.1 (101.8%)
    
    FR PAR ftp1.fr.freebsd.org [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 485.7 - min 137.3 (28.3%), max 747.0 (153.8%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 13.4 - min 9.8 (73.0%), max 59.6 (444.1%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 22.2 - min 9.8 (44.2%), max 113.9 (514.2%)
    
    CH GEN pkg.adfinis-on-exoscale.ch [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 577.1 - min 542.1 (93.9%), max 618.8 (107.2%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 18.0 - min 17.6 (97.8%), max 28.7 (159.4%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 24.1 - min 19.8 (82.0%), max 51.7 (214.1%)
    
    IT ROM archlinux.mirror.garr.it [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 275.6 - min 250.6 (90.9%), max 328.4 (119.1%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 39.1 - min 32.1 (82.2%), max 43.7 (111.9%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 50.9 - min 36.4 (71.5%), max 909.0 (1785.3%)
    
    ES MAD mirror.raiolanetworks.com [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 429.8 - min 422.9 (98.4%), max 437.2 (101.7%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 25.6 - min 25.4 (99.4%), max 26.5 (103.7%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 27.1 - min 25.7 (94.8%), max 29.4 (108.5%)
    
    RO GIU mirrors.pidginhost.com [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 243.3 - min 219.2 (90.1%), max 257.4 (105.8%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 45.0 - min 44.8 (99.6%), max 45.2 (100.5%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 64.4 - min 44.8 (69.6%), max 118.7 (184.3%)
    
    GR ATH ftp.otenet.gr [F: 7]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 224.0 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 251.5 (112.3%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 38.3 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 43.1 (112.5%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 43.8 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 77.1 (176.2%)
    
    RU MOS speedtest.hostkey.ru [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 227.0 - min 130.1 (57.3%), max 245.0 (107.9%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 50.2 - min 46.0 (91.6%), max 138.5 (275.8%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 58.6 - min 46.0 (78.4%), max 164.7 (280.9%)
    
    --- Asia / Oceania ---
    
    RU SIB mirror.truenetwork.ru [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 118.5 - min 82.3 (69.5%), max 130.6 (110.2%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 97.3 - min 1.1 (1.1%), max 119.5 (122.8%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 102.7 - min 89.1 (86.7%), max 169.2 (164.7%)
    
    SA RIY mirror.maeen.sa [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 128.4 - min 122.9 (95.7%), max 133.9 (104.3%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 83.0 - min 82.8 (99.7%), max 83.3 (100.3%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 88.8 - min 83.1 (93.6%), max 126.3 (142.3%)
    
    IR TEH mirror.mobinhost.com [F: 23]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 93.0 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 135.5 (145.7%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 93.1 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 162.9 (175.0%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 95.7 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 195.3 (204.1%)
    
    IN DEL mirror.del2.albony.in [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 53.3 - min 22.6 (42.5%), max 60.5 (113.4%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 186.9 - min 181.4 (97.1%), max 192.8 (103.2%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 191.3 - min 183.7 (96.0%), max 196.6 (102.8%)
    
    SG SGP mirror.jingk.ai [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 66.8 - min 63.6 (95.3%), max 68.2 (102.1%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 166.0 - min 165.2 (99.5%), max 175.1 (105.5%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 272.2 - min 165.2 (60.7%), max 543.4 (199.6%)
    
    CN HKG mirrors.xtom.hk [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 59.8 - min 56.5 (94.5%), max 62.7 (104.9%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 183.0 - min 182.8 (99.9%), max 183.3 (100.1%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 190.2 - min 182.8 (96.1%), max 290.4 (152.6%)
    
    CN BFSU_BEJ mirrors.bfsu.edu.cn [F: 10]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 47.2 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 77.8 (164.8%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 158.1 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 200.9 (127.1%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 189.3 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 907.5 (479.4%)
    
    CN TUNA_Bejing mirrors.tuna.tsinghua.edu.cn [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 45.6 - min 40.2 (88.1%), max 48.7 (106.8%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 232.9 - min 230.3 (98.9%), max 249.9 (107.3%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 234.3 - min 230.3 (98.3%), max 256.3 (109.4%)
    
    CN ISCAS_Bejing fast-mirror.isrc.ac.cn [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 49.6 - min 45.4 (91.6%), max 52.6 (106.0%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 211.1 - min 210.7 (99.8%), max 214.8 (101.8%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 225.1 - min 213.8 (95.0%), max 247.1 (109.8%)
    
    MY Putrajaya mirrors.gbnetwork.com [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 64.9 - min 60.8 (93.5%), max 67.9 (104.6%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 166.9 - min 165.9 (99.4%), max 169.5 (101.5%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 170.5 - min 165.9 (97.3%), max 178.1 (104.5%)
    
    KH PNP mirror.sabay.com.kh [F: 3]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 47.0 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 64.8 (137.7%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 157.9 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 177.2 (112.2%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 196.8 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 762.4 (387.3%)
    
    JP TOK ftp.udx.icscoe.jp [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 43.2 - min 40.2 (93.1%), max 45.9 (106.4%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 250.1 - min 249.1 (99.6%), max 250.5 (100.1%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 254.9 - min 249.1 (97.7%), max 267.6 (105.0%)
    
    AU SYD mirror.internet.asn.au [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 43.0 - min 41.1 (95.6%), max 47.1 (109.5%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 264.9 - min 243.4 (91.9%), max 285.6 (107.8%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 267.5 - min 244.9 (91.6%), max 285.6 (106.8%)
    
    NZ UNK mirror.fsmg.org.nz [F: 3]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 36.0 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 41.9 (116.3%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 271.2 - min 270.7 (99.8%), max 276.9 (102.1%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 367.9 - min 270.7 (73.6%), max 1476.3 (401.3%)
    
    --- Africa ---
    
    KE NAI mirror.liquidtelecom.com [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 83.0 - min 82.2 (99.1%), max 84.4 (101.7%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 132.5 - min 132.2 (99.8%), max 132.9 (100.3%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 135.5 - min 132.3 (97.7%), max 190.9 (140.9%)
    
    ZA, WEC archlinux.za.mirror.allworldit.com [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 73.1 - min 48.5 (66.3%), max 80.0 (109.3%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 141.0 - min 140.3 (99.5%), max 144.3 (102.3%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 178.3 - min 142.2 (79.8%), max 354.1 (198.6%)
    
    MU POL archlinux-mirror.cloud.mu [F: 1]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 39.1 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 56.1 (143.6%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 199.7 - min 199.5 (99.9%), max 200.1 (100.2%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 208.5 - min 199.6 (95.8%), max 278.1 (133.4%)
    
    --- Americas ---
    
    CA MTL speedtest.mtl2.ca.leaseweb.net [F: 17]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 42.8 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 145.5 (339.7%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 71.7 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 80.5 (112.3%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 71.8 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 80.5 (112.2%)
    
    CA ONT mirror.csclub.uwaterloo.ca [F: 5]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 100.5 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 129.2 (128.6%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 70.9 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 88.8 (125.2%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 155.7 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 583.9 (375.0%)
    
    US NYC nyc.mirrors.clouvider.net [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 137.2 - min 128.4 (93.5%), max 149.9 (109.3%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 76.7 - min 72.1 (94.0%), max 101.7 (132.6%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 78.4 - min 72.6 (92.6%), max 101.7 (129.7%)
    
    US ASH ash.speedtest.clouvider.net [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 133.8 - min 89.6 (66.9%), max 143.7 (107.4%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 79.9 - min 75.7 (94.8%), max 102.2 (128.0%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 80.9 - min 76.6 (94.7%), max 102.2 (126.4%)
    
    US PIB mirror.pit.teraswitch.com [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 133.3 - min 24.1 (18.1%), max 148.6 (111.5%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 80.8 - min 80.7 (99.9%), max 81.1 (100.4%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 82.3 - min 80.7 (98.1%), max 89.0 (108.2%)
    
    US MIA speedtest.mia11.us.leaseweb.net [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 111.1 - min 102.2 (91.9%), max 113.2 (101.9%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 99.5 - min 98.9 (99.4%), max 109.1 (109.6%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 100.0 - min 98.9 (98.9%), max 109.3 (109.4%)
    
    US CHI ord.mirror.rackspace.com [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 127.1 - min 124.9 (98.2%), max 129.4 (101.8%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 89.1 - min 89.0 (99.9%), max 89.2 (100.1%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 97.7 - min 90.0 (92.1%), max 126.2 (129.2%)
    
    US ATL atl.speedtest.clouvider.net [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 107.8 - min 44.5 (41.2%), max 120.9 (112.1%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 96.9 - min 92.2 (95.1%), max 122.5 (126.4%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 97.6 - min 92.2 (94.4%), max 122.5 (125.5%)
    
    US PHO phx.speedtest.clouvider.net [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 83.7 - min 77.7 (92.8%), max 86.9 (103.8%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 130.4 - min 127.9 (98.1%), max 135.4 (103.8%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 132.5 - min 129.4 (97.7%), max 158.2 (119.4%)
    
    US PTL mirrors.cat.pdx.edu [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 86.9 - min 70.5 (81.2%), max 90.4 (104.1%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 130.5 - min 125.7 (96.3%), max 156.4 (119.8%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 134.6 - min 126.1 (93.7%), max 180.5 (134.1%)
    
    US LAX la.speedtest.clouvider.net [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 81.7 - min 75.5 (92.3%), max 85.9 (105.1%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 132.0 - min 128.6 (97.4%), max 157.9 (119.6%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 135.3 - min 128.9 (95.2%), max 157.9 (116.7%)
    
    US SJO mirrors.xtom.us [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 81.7 - min 80.0 (97.9%), max 83.7 (102.5%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 135.5 - min 135.4 (99.9%), max 135.6 (100.1%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 136.3 - min 135.4 (99.4%), max 147.1 (108.0%)
    
    US SEA speedtest.sea11.us.leaseweb.net [F: 1]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 80.0 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 84.7 (106.0%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 132.8 - min 132.7 (99.9%), max 133.1 (100.2%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 133.0 - min 132.7 (99.7%), max 133.4 (100.3%)
    
    BR SPA mirrors.ic.unicamp.br [F: 1]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 48.8 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 52.7 (107.9%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 215.7 - min 211.6 (98.1%), max 244.2 (113.2%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 216.8 - min 212.7 (98.1%), max 251.4 (116.0%)
    
    CL SAN elmirror.cl [F: 11]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 33.7 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 55.6 (165.0%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 205.0 - min 204.8 (99.9%), max 207.3 (101.1%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 243.4 - min 204.9 (84.2%), max 354.3 (145.6%)
    

    Front-up: You might notice that this tested an extended range of targets.

    Europe - over a Gb/s within the UK isn't remarkable (although ca. 2.5 Gb/s actually is), but a Gb/s to NL is really good and so is ca. 850 Mb/s to DE, FRA. Also a few more targets show results in the 400 Mb/s and 500 Mb/s (and even above) range. Note also that even otenet GR not only works (which I rarely see) but even achieves a decent 200+ Mb/s! Also, most secondary targets worked and achieved decent results.

    Asia / Oceania - Siberia and Saudi Arabia well over 100 Mb/s, nice! Even better, 2 out of 3 IR targets work and one even gets close to 100 Mb/s! Most IN targets work but even the best one is just over 50 Mb/s, meeh. And while SGP and HKG aren't much better at ca. 55 and 65 Mb/s, in between 45 and 50 Mb/s to multiple CN targets isn't bad at all (for normal, i.e. not CN optimized connectivity). The Malaysia and Cambodia results are OK-ish and so is the JP result and the Straya results as well (at the moment down under connectivity seems to be impaired); Kiwiland results are expectedly even slower.

    Africa - Actually quite nice, not record breaking but really nice.

    Americas - well above 100 Mb/s to pretty much the whole East-Coast and also to CHI is quite decent and so are results in the lower 80 Mb/s to the West-Coast. Sadly the quite good result to Miami doesn't translate to good results to South-America. 40+ Mb/s to Brazil is no disaster but certainly not great, and the Chile result is kind of poor as well; sadly the AR and EC targets failed completely.

    TL;DR The connectivity I measured is between good and great within Europa, but the connectivity to both coasts in North America is quite decent as well. The western part of Asia is acceptable to decent but starting with India and east of it connectivity reaches 'acceptable' territory with a few brighter Spots in between.
    Considering that my VPS has 2 vCores (Gold IIRC) 4 GB memory and a decent disk IMO $4/mo is not super-cheap but an adequate price.

    My aim with this post is not to convince VeloxMedia haters to change their mind but rather to show that the "new" VeloxMedia offers a really decent product with good connectivity in particular within Europe and across the Atlantic for a not at all outrageous price.

  • @jsg said:
    For a change ...

    I know, many (most?) here won't like it but I compiled 30 runs of benchmarking @VeloxMedia's connectivity. Not to spite anyone but mainly to get an impression whether their current $4/mo price tag for a VPS actually is basically robbery or whether their prices are within a reasonable region.

    Here's the fresh results (from 24hrs since yesterday):

    --- Europe ---
    
    NO TRH mirror.archlinux.no [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 328.2 - min 156.5 (47.7%), max 342.8 (104.4%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 33.6 - min 31.3 (93.1%), max 72.4 (215.4%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 34.1 - min 31.3 (91.7%), max 73.5 (215.3%)
    
    UK LON lon.speedtest.clouvider.net [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 2559.0 - min 839.2 (32.8%), max 4622.4 (180.6%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 1.6 - min 1.4 (86.4%), max 4.3 (265.3%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 2.1 - min 1.5 (71.7%), max 15.1 (722.2%)
    
    NL AMS mirrors.xtom.nl [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 1032.5 - min 238.9 (23.1%), max 1250.5 (121.1%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 8.9 - min 8.8 (98.7%), max 9.1 (102.1%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 9.0 - min 8.9 (98.4%), max 9.3 (102.8%)
    
    DE FRA mirror.plusline.net [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 852.4 - min 825.0 (96.8%), max 878.6 (103.1%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 12.5 - min 12.4 (98.9%), max 12.7 (101.3%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 12.9 - min 12.7 (98.6%), max 13.1 (101.8%)
    
    FR PAR ftp1.fr.freebsd.org [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 485.7 - min 137.3 (28.3%), max 747.0 (153.8%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 13.4 - min 9.8 (73.0%), max 59.6 (444.1%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 22.2 - min 9.8 (44.2%), max 113.9 (514.2%)
    
    CH GEN pkg.adfinis-on-exoscale.ch [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 577.1 - min 542.1 (93.9%), max 618.8 (107.2%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 18.0 - min 17.6 (97.8%), max 28.7 (159.4%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 24.1 - min 19.8 (82.0%), max 51.7 (214.1%)
    
    IT ROM archlinux.mirror.garr.it [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 275.6 - min 250.6 (90.9%), max 328.4 (119.1%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 39.1 - min 32.1 (82.2%), max 43.7 (111.9%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 50.9 - min 36.4 (71.5%), max 909.0 (1785.3%)
    
    ES MAD mirror.raiolanetworks.com [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 429.8 - min 422.9 (98.4%), max 437.2 (101.7%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 25.6 - min 25.4 (99.4%), max 26.5 (103.7%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 27.1 - min 25.7 (94.8%), max 29.4 (108.5%)
    
    RO GIU mirrors.pidginhost.com [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 243.3 - min 219.2 (90.1%), max 257.4 (105.8%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 45.0 - min 44.8 (99.6%), max 45.2 (100.5%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 64.4 - min 44.8 (69.6%), max 118.7 (184.3%)
    
    GR ATH ftp.otenet.gr [F: 7]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 224.0 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 251.5 (112.3%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 38.3 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 43.1 (112.5%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 43.8 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 77.1 (176.2%)
    
    RU MOS speedtest.hostkey.ru [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 227.0 - min 130.1 (57.3%), max 245.0 (107.9%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 50.2 - min 46.0 (91.6%), max 138.5 (275.8%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 58.6 - min 46.0 (78.4%), max 164.7 (280.9%)
    
    --- Asia / Oceania ---
    
    RU SIB mirror.truenetwork.ru [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 118.5 - min 82.3 (69.5%), max 130.6 (110.2%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 97.3 - min 1.1 (1.1%), max 119.5 (122.8%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 102.7 - min 89.1 (86.7%), max 169.2 (164.7%)
    
    SA RIY mirror.maeen.sa [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 128.4 - min 122.9 (95.7%), max 133.9 (104.3%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 83.0 - min 82.8 (99.7%), max 83.3 (100.3%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 88.8 - min 83.1 (93.6%), max 126.3 (142.3%)
    
    IR TEH mirror.mobinhost.com [F: 23]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 93.0 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 135.5 (145.7%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 93.1 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 162.9 (175.0%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 95.7 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 195.3 (204.1%)
    
    IN DEL mirror.del2.albony.in [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 53.3 - min 22.6 (42.5%), max 60.5 (113.4%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 186.9 - min 181.4 (97.1%), max 192.8 (103.2%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 191.3 - min 183.7 (96.0%), max 196.6 (102.8%)
    
    SG SGP mirror.jingk.ai [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 66.8 - min 63.6 (95.3%), max 68.2 (102.1%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 166.0 - min 165.2 (99.5%), max 175.1 (105.5%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 272.2 - min 165.2 (60.7%), max 543.4 (199.6%)
    
    CN HKG mirrors.xtom.hk [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 59.8 - min 56.5 (94.5%), max 62.7 (104.9%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 183.0 - min 182.8 (99.9%), max 183.3 (100.1%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 190.2 - min 182.8 (96.1%), max 290.4 (152.6%)
    
    CN BFSU_BEJ mirrors.bfsu.edu.cn [F: 10]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 47.2 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 77.8 (164.8%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 158.1 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 200.9 (127.1%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 189.3 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 907.5 (479.4%)
    
    CN TUNA_Bejing mirrors.tuna.tsinghua.edu.cn [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 45.6 - min 40.2 (88.1%), max 48.7 (106.8%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 232.9 - min 230.3 (98.9%), max 249.9 (107.3%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 234.3 - min 230.3 (98.3%), max 256.3 (109.4%)
    
    CN ISCAS_Bejing fast-mirror.isrc.ac.cn [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 49.6 - min 45.4 (91.6%), max 52.6 (106.0%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 211.1 - min 210.7 (99.8%), max 214.8 (101.8%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 225.1 - min 213.8 (95.0%), max 247.1 (109.8%)
    
    MY Putrajaya mirrors.gbnetwork.com [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 64.9 - min 60.8 (93.5%), max 67.9 (104.6%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 166.9 - min 165.9 (99.4%), max 169.5 (101.5%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 170.5 - min 165.9 (97.3%), max 178.1 (104.5%)
    
    KH PNP mirror.sabay.com.kh [F: 3]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 47.0 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 64.8 (137.7%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 157.9 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 177.2 (112.2%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 196.8 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 762.4 (387.3%)
    
    JP TOK ftp.udx.icscoe.jp [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 43.2 - min 40.2 (93.1%), max 45.9 (106.4%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 250.1 - min 249.1 (99.6%), max 250.5 (100.1%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 254.9 - min 249.1 (97.7%), max 267.6 (105.0%)
    
    AU SYD mirror.internet.asn.au [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 43.0 - min 41.1 (95.6%), max 47.1 (109.5%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 264.9 - min 243.4 (91.9%), max 285.6 (107.8%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 267.5 - min 244.9 (91.6%), max 285.6 (106.8%)
    
    NZ UNK mirror.fsmg.org.nz [F: 3]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 36.0 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 41.9 (116.3%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 271.2 - min 270.7 (99.8%), max 276.9 (102.1%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 367.9 - min 270.7 (73.6%), max 1476.3 (401.3%)
    
    --- Africa ---
    
    KE NAI mirror.liquidtelecom.com [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 83.0 - min 82.2 (99.1%), max 84.4 (101.7%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 132.5 - min 132.2 (99.8%), max 132.9 (100.3%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 135.5 - min 132.3 (97.7%), max 190.9 (140.9%)
    
    ZA, WEC archlinux.za.mirror.allworldit.com [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 73.1 - min 48.5 (66.3%), max 80.0 (109.3%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 141.0 - min 140.3 (99.5%), max 144.3 (102.3%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 178.3 - min 142.2 (79.8%), max 354.1 (198.6%)
    
    MU POL archlinux-mirror.cloud.mu [F: 1]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 39.1 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 56.1 (143.6%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 199.7 - min 199.5 (99.9%), max 200.1 (100.2%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 208.5 - min 199.6 (95.8%), max 278.1 (133.4%)
    
    --- Americas ---
    
    CA MTL speedtest.mtl2.ca.leaseweb.net [F: 17]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 42.8 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 145.5 (339.7%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 71.7 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 80.5 (112.3%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 71.8 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 80.5 (112.2%)
    
    CA ONT mirror.csclub.uwaterloo.ca [F: 5]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 100.5 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 129.2 (128.6%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 70.9 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 88.8 (125.2%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 155.7 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 583.9 (375.0%)
    
    US NYC nyc.mirrors.clouvider.net [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 137.2 - min 128.4 (93.5%), max 149.9 (109.3%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 76.7 - min 72.1 (94.0%), max 101.7 (132.6%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 78.4 - min 72.6 (92.6%), max 101.7 (129.7%)
    
    US ASH ash.speedtest.clouvider.net [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 133.8 - min 89.6 (66.9%), max 143.7 (107.4%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 79.9 - min 75.7 (94.8%), max 102.2 (128.0%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 80.9 - min 76.6 (94.7%), max 102.2 (126.4%)
    
    US PIB mirror.pit.teraswitch.com [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 133.3 - min 24.1 (18.1%), max 148.6 (111.5%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 80.8 - min 80.7 (99.9%), max 81.1 (100.4%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 82.3 - min 80.7 (98.1%), max 89.0 (108.2%)
    
    US MIA speedtest.mia11.us.leaseweb.net [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 111.1 - min 102.2 (91.9%), max 113.2 (101.9%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 99.5 - min 98.9 (99.4%), max 109.1 (109.6%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 100.0 - min 98.9 (98.9%), max 109.3 (109.4%)
    
    US CHI ord.mirror.rackspace.com [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 127.1 - min 124.9 (98.2%), max 129.4 (101.8%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 89.1 - min 89.0 (99.9%), max 89.2 (100.1%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 97.7 - min 90.0 (92.1%), max 126.2 (129.2%)
    
    US ATL atl.speedtest.clouvider.net [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 107.8 - min 44.5 (41.2%), max 120.9 (112.1%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 96.9 - min 92.2 (95.1%), max 122.5 (126.4%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 97.6 - min 92.2 (94.4%), max 122.5 (125.5%)
    
    US PHO phx.speedtest.clouvider.net [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 83.7 - min 77.7 (92.8%), max 86.9 (103.8%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 130.4 - min 127.9 (98.1%), max 135.4 (103.8%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 132.5 - min 129.4 (97.7%), max 158.2 (119.4%)
    
    US PTL mirrors.cat.pdx.edu [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 86.9 - min 70.5 (81.2%), max 90.4 (104.1%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 130.5 - min 125.7 (96.3%), max 156.4 (119.8%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 134.6 - min 126.1 (93.7%), max 180.5 (134.1%)
    
    US LAX la.speedtest.clouvider.net [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 81.7 - min 75.5 (92.3%), max 85.9 (105.1%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 132.0 - min 128.6 (97.4%), max 157.9 (119.6%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 135.3 - min 128.9 (95.2%), max 157.9 (116.7%)
    
    US SJO mirrors.xtom.us [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 81.7 - min 80.0 (97.9%), max 83.7 (102.5%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 135.5 - min 135.4 (99.9%), max 135.6 (100.1%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 136.3 - min 135.4 (99.4%), max 147.1 (108.0%)
    
    US SEA speedtest.sea11.us.leaseweb.net [F: 1]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 80.0 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 84.7 (106.0%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 132.8 - min 132.7 (99.9%), max 133.1 (100.2%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 133.0 - min 132.7 (99.7%), max 133.4 (100.3%)
    
    BR SPA mirrors.ic.unicamp.br [F: 1]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 48.8 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 52.7 (107.9%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 215.7 - min 211.6 (98.1%), max 244.2 (113.2%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 216.8 - min 212.7 (98.1%), max 251.4 (116.0%)
    
    CL SAN elmirror.cl [F: 11]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 33.7 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 55.6 (165.0%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 205.0 - min 204.8 (99.9%), max 207.3 (101.1%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 243.4 - min 204.9 (84.2%), max 354.3 (145.6%)
    

    Front-up: You might notice that this tested an extended range of targets.

    Europe - over a Gb/s within the UK isn't remarkable (although ca. 2.5 Gb/s actually is), but a Gb/s to NL is really good and so is ca. 850 Mb/s to DE, FRA. Also a few more targets show results in the 400 Mb/s and 500 Mb/s (and even above) range. Note also that even otenet GR not only works (which I rarely see) but even achieves a decent 200+ Mb/s! Also, most secondary targets worked and achieved decent results.

    Asia / Oceania - Siberia and Saudi Arabia well over 100 Mb/s, nice! Even better, 2 out of 3 IR targets work and one even gets close to 100 Mb/s! Most IN targets work but even the best one is just over 50 Mb/s, meeh. And while SGP and HKG aren't much better at ca. 55 and 65 Mb/s, in between 45 and 50 Mb/s to multiple CN targets isn't bad at all (for normal, i.e. not CN optimized connectivity). The Malaysia and Cambodia results are OK-ish and so is the JP result and the Straya results as well (at the moment down under connectivity seems to be impaired); Kiwiland results are expectedly even slower.

    Africa - Actually quite nice, not record breaking but really nice.

    Americas - well above 100 Mb/s to pretty much the whole East-Coast and also to CHI is quite decent and so are results in the lower 80 Mb/s to the West-Coast. Sadly the quite good result to Miami doesn't translate to good results to South-America. 40+ Mb/s to Brazil is no disaster but certainly not great, and the Chile result is kind of poor as well; sadly the AR and EC targets failed completely.

    TL;DR The connectivity I measured is between good and great within Europa, but the connectivity to both coasts in North America is quite decent as well. The western part of Asia is acceptable to decent but starting with India and east of it connectivity reaches 'acceptable' territory with a few brighter Spots in between.
    Considering that my VPS has to vCores (Gold IIRC) 4 GB memory and a decent disk IMO $4/mo is not super-cheap but an adequate price.

    My aim with this post is not to convince VeloxMedia haters to change their mind but rather to show that the "new" VeloxMedia offers a really decent product with good connectivity in particular within Europa and across the Atlantic for a not outrageous price.

    You should also factor in the amount you paid upfront...

  • My Poland VPS is a ripper. I've never disputed that. It's been down a couple times, but never for long, so I'm satisfied with the uptime as well. The problem is that I can't install absolutely anything on it for fear that it will just be gone tomorrow. Nothing Eric has done since the beginning inspires confidence. Especially the fact that he continues to send waves of requests for monthly payment.

    Thanked by 1forest
  • @barbarza said: You should also factor in the amount you paid upfront...

    And that the price next month could be $8/month, who knows.

  • jsgjsg Member, Resident Benchmarker

    @barbarza said:
    You should also factor in the amount you paid upfront...

    maybe, maybe not, depends. In my case I tend towards 'No' because it seems (knock on wood) that they'll honour at least 1 year and possibly even the full term.

    But anyway, my perspective was: what if they asked me tomorrow to pay $4/mo from now on, should I or should I not accept?

    I'll be honest. Tomorrow I'd likely say 'no, thanks', but if they asked me after a year I'd likely say 'OK'. Because what I get for the money is good value.

    To find out whether $4/mo actually and based on facts basically is robbery or a good deal or somewhere in between and where exactly, was why I did that benchmark run.

  • @jsg said:

    @barbarza said:
    You should also factor in the amount you paid upfront...

    maybe, maybe not, depends. In my case I tend towards 'No' because it seems (knock on wood) that they'll honour at least 1 year and possibly even the full term.

    But anyway, my perspective was: what if they asked me tomorrow to pay $4/mo from now on, should I or should I not accept?

    I'll be honest. Tomorrow I'd likely say 'no, thanks', but if they asked me after a year I'd likely say 'OK'. Because what I get for the money is good value.

    To find out whether $4/mo actually and based on facts basically is robbery or a good deal or somewhere in between and where exactly, was why I did that benchmark run.

    This is a false fallacy. You're not paying $4/month. You're paying $4 + whatever you paid up front/term.

    Thanked by 1robachicken
  • jsgjsg Member, Resident Benchmarker
    edited February 9

    @barbarza said:

    @jsg said:

    @barbarza said:
    You should also factor in the amount you paid upfront...

    maybe, maybe not, depends. In my case I tend towards 'No' because it seems (knock on wood) that they'll honour at least 1 year and possibly even the full term.

    But anyway, my perspective was: what if they asked me tomorrow to pay $4/mo from now on, should I or should I not accept?

    I'll be honest. Tomorrow I'd likely say 'no, thanks', but if they asked me after a year I'd likely say 'OK'. Because what I get for the money is good value.

    To find out whether $4/mo actually and based on facts basically is robbery or a good deal or somewhere in between and where exactly, was why I did that benchmark run.

    This is a false fallacy. You're not paying $4/month. You're paying $4 + whatever you paid up front/term.

    False? Your assumption is false because currently and presumably for at least one year I pay nothing beyond what I've paid originally. That's why I wrote the above. You might want to read it.

    Hence 'thanks no' tomorrow because then you'd actually be right. But after a year that changes.

  • @jsg said:

    @barbarza said:

    @jsg said:

    @barbarza said:
    You should also factor in the amount you paid upfront...

    maybe, maybe not, depends. In my case I tend towards 'No' because it seems (knock on wood) that they'll honour at least 1 year and possibly even the full term.

    But anyway, my perspective was: what if they asked me tomorrow to pay $4/mo from now on, should I or should I not accept?

    I'll be honest. Tomorrow I'd likely say 'no, thanks', but if they asked me after a year I'd likely say 'OK'. Because what I get for the money is good value.

    To find out whether $4/mo actually and based on facts basically is robbery or a good deal or somewhere in between and where exactly, was why I did that benchmark run.

    This is a false fallacy. You're not paying $4/month. You're paying $4 + whatever you paid up front/term.

    False? Your assumption is false because currently and presumably for at least one year I pay nothing beyond what I've paid originally. That's why I wrote the above. You might want to read it.

    Hence 'thanks no' tomorrow because then you'd actually be right. But after a year that changes.

    The sky is blue.

    Thanked by 1barbarza
  • SaragoldfarbSaragoldfarb Member, Megathread Squad

    @jsg said:

    @barbarza said:
    You should also factor in the amount you paid upfront...

    maybe, maybe not, depends. In my case I tend towards 'No' because it seems (knock on wood) that they'll honour at least 1 year and possibly even the full term.

    But anyway, my perspective was: what if they asked me tomorrow to pay $4/mo from now on, should I or should I not accept?

    I'll be honest. Tomorrow I'd likely say 'no, thanks', but if they asked me after a year I'd likely say 'OK'. Because what I get for the money is good value.

    To find out whether $4/mo actually and based on facts basically is robbery or a good deal or somewhere in between and where exactly, was why I did that benchmark run.

    Why spend 4/m with bolox when you can get the same for 4/m with a reputable host?

    4/m is a decent budget for a vps... Its beyond me why anyone would spend that at a summerhost unless it's a totally sustainable deal and your taking a gamble.

    Thanked by 1ralf
  • forestforest Member
    edited February 10

    @jsg said:
    For a change ...

    I know, many (most?) here won't like it but I compiled 30 runs of benchmarking @VeloxMedia's connectivity. Not to spite anyone but mainly to get an impression whether their current $4/mo price tag for a VPS actually is basically robbery or whether their prices are within a reasonable region.

    Here's the fresh results (from 24hrs since yesterday):

    --- Europe ---
    
    NO TRH mirror.archlinux.no [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 328.2 - min 156.5 (47.7%), max 342.8 (104.4%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 33.6 - min 31.3 (93.1%), max 72.4 (215.4%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 34.1 - min 31.3 (91.7%), max 73.5 (215.3%)
    
    UK LON lon.speedtest.clouvider.net [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 2559.0 - min 839.2 (32.8%), max 4622.4 (180.6%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 1.6 - min 1.4 (86.4%), max 4.3 (265.3%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 2.1 - min 1.5 (71.7%), max 15.1 (722.2%)
    
    NL AMS mirrors.xtom.nl [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 1032.5 - min 238.9 (23.1%), max 1250.5 (121.1%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 8.9 - min 8.8 (98.7%), max 9.1 (102.1%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 9.0 - min 8.9 (98.4%), max 9.3 (102.8%)
    
    DE FRA mirror.plusline.net [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 852.4 - min 825.0 (96.8%), max 878.6 (103.1%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 12.5 - min 12.4 (98.9%), max 12.7 (101.3%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 12.9 - min 12.7 (98.6%), max 13.1 (101.8%)
    
    FR PAR ftp1.fr.freebsd.org [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 485.7 - min 137.3 (28.3%), max 747.0 (153.8%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 13.4 - min 9.8 (73.0%), max 59.6 (444.1%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 22.2 - min 9.8 (44.2%), max 113.9 (514.2%)
    
    CH GEN pkg.adfinis-on-exoscale.ch [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 577.1 - min 542.1 (93.9%), max 618.8 (107.2%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 18.0 - min 17.6 (97.8%), max 28.7 (159.4%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 24.1 - min 19.8 (82.0%), max 51.7 (214.1%)
    
    IT ROM archlinux.mirror.garr.it [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 275.6 - min 250.6 (90.9%), max 328.4 (119.1%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 39.1 - min 32.1 (82.2%), max 43.7 (111.9%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 50.9 - min 36.4 (71.5%), max 909.0 (1785.3%)
    
    ES MAD mirror.raiolanetworks.com [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 429.8 - min 422.9 (98.4%), max 437.2 (101.7%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 25.6 - min 25.4 (99.4%), max 26.5 (103.7%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 27.1 - min 25.7 (94.8%), max 29.4 (108.5%)
    
    RO GIU mirrors.pidginhost.com [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 243.3 - min 219.2 (90.1%), max 257.4 (105.8%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 45.0 - min 44.8 (99.6%), max 45.2 (100.5%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 64.4 - min 44.8 (69.6%), max 118.7 (184.3%)
    
    GR ATH ftp.otenet.gr [F: 7]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 224.0 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 251.5 (112.3%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 38.3 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 43.1 (112.5%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 43.8 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 77.1 (176.2%)
    
    RU MOS speedtest.hostkey.ru [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 227.0 - min 130.1 (57.3%), max 245.0 (107.9%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 50.2 - min 46.0 (91.6%), max 138.5 (275.8%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 58.6 - min 46.0 (78.4%), max 164.7 (280.9%)
    
    --- Asia / Oceania ---
    
    RU SIB mirror.truenetwork.ru [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 118.5 - min 82.3 (69.5%), max 130.6 (110.2%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 97.3 - min 1.1 (1.1%), max 119.5 (122.8%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 102.7 - min 89.1 (86.7%), max 169.2 (164.7%)
    
    SA RIY mirror.maeen.sa [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 128.4 - min 122.9 (95.7%), max 133.9 (104.3%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 83.0 - min 82.8 (99.7%), max 83.3 (100.3%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 88.8 - min 83.1 (93.6%), max 126.3 (142.3%)
    
    IR TEH mirror.mobinhost.com [F: 23]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 93.0 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 135.5 (145.7%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 93.1 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 162.9 (175.0%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 95.7 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 195.3 (204.1%)
    
    IN DEL mirror.del2.albony.in [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 53.3 - min 22.6 (42.5%), max 60.5 (113.4%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 186.9 - min 181.4 (97.1%), max 192.8 (103.2%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 191.3 - min 183.7 (96.0%), max 196.6 (102.8%)
    
    SG SGP mirror.jingk.ai [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 66.8 - min 63.6 (95.3%), max 68.2 (102.1%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 166.0 - min 165.2 (99.5%), max 175.1 (105.5%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 272.2 - min 165.2 (60.7%), max 543.4 (199.6%)
    
    CN HKG mirrors.xtom.hk [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 59.8 - min 56.5 (94.5%), max 62.7 (104.9%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 183.0 - min 182.8 (99.9%), max 183.3 (100.1%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 190.2 - min 182.8 (96.1%), max 290.4 (152.6%)
    
    CN BFSU_BEJ mirrors.bfsu.edu.cn [F: 10]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 47.2 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 77.8 (164.8%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 158.1 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 200.9 (127.1%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 189.3 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 907.5 (479.4%)
    
    CN TUNA_Bejing mirrors.tuna.tsinghua.edu.cn [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 45.6 - min 40.2 (88.1%), max 48.7 (106.8%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 232.9 - min 230.3 (98.9%), max 249.9 (107.3%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 234.3 - min 230.3 (98.3%), max 256.3 (109.4%)
    
    CN ISCAS_Bejing fast-mirror.isrc.ac.cn [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 49.6 - min 45.4 (91.6%), max 52.6 (106.0%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 211.1 - min 210.7 (99.8%), max 214.8 (101.8%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 225.1 - min 213.8 (95.0%), max 247.1 (109.8%)
    
    MY Putrajaya mirrors.gbnetwork.com [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 64.9 - min 60.8 (93.5%), max 67.9 (104.6%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 166.9 - min 165.9 (99.4%), max 169.5 (101.5%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 170.5 - min 165.9 (97.3%), max 178.1 (104.5%)
    
    KH PNP mirror.sabay.com.kh [F: 3]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 47.0 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 64.8 (137.7%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 157.9 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 177.2 (112.2%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 196.8 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 762.4 (387.3%)
    
    JP TOK ftp.udx.icscoe.jp [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 43.2 - min 40.2 (93.1%), max 45.9 (106.4%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 250.1 - min 249.1 (99.6%), max 250.5 (100.1%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 254.9 - min 249.1 (97.7%), max 267.6 (105.0%)
    
    AU SYD mirror.internet.asn.au [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 43.0 - min 41.1 (95.6%), max 47.1 (109.5%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 264.9 - min 243.4 (91.9%), max 285.6 (107.8%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 267.5 - min 244.9 (91.6%), max 285.6 (106.8%)
    
    NZ UNK mirror.fsmg.org.nz [F: 3]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 36.0 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 41.9 (116.3%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 271.2 - min 270.7 (99.8%), max 276.9 (102.1%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 367.9 - min 270.7 (73.6%), max 1476.3 (401.3%)
    
    --- Africa ---
    
    KE NAI mirror.liquidtelecom.com [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 83.0 - min 82.2 (99.1%), max 84.4 (101.7%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 132.5 - min 132.2 (99.8%), max 132.9 (100.3%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 135.5 - min 132.3 (97.7%), max 190.9 (140.9%)
    
    ZA, WEC archlinux.za.mirror.allworldit.com [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 73.1 - min 48.5 (66.3%), max 80.0 (109.3%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 141.0 - min 140.3 (99.5%), max 144.3 (102.3%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 178.3 - min 142.2 (79.8%), max 354.1 (198.6%)
    
    MU POL archlinux-mirror.cloud.mu [F: 1]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 39.1 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 56.1 (143.6%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 199.7 - min 199.5 (99.9%), max 200.1 (100.2%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 208.5 - min 199.6 (95.8%), max 278.1 (133.4%)
    
    --- Americas ---
    
    CA MTL speedtest.mtl2.ca.leaseweb.net [F: 17]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 42.8 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 145.5 (339.7%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 71.7 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 80.5 (112.3%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 71.8 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 80.5 (112.2%)
    
    CA ONT mirror.csclub.uwaterloo.ca [F: 5]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 100.5 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 129.2 (128.6%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 70.9 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 88.8 (125.2%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 155.7 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 583.9 (375.0%)
    
    US NYC nyc.mirrors.clouvider.net [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 137.2 - min 128.4 (93.5%), max 149.9 (109.3%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 76.7 - min 72.1 (94.0%), max 101.7 (132.6%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 78.4 - min 72.6 (92.6%), max 101.7 (129.7%)
    
    US ASH ash.speedtest.clouvider.net [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 133.8 - min 89.6 (66.9%), max 143.7 (107.4%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 79.9 - min 75.7 (94.8%), max 102.2 (128.0%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 80.9 - min 76.6 (94.7%), max 102.2 (126.4%)
    
    US PIB mirror.pit.teraswitch.com [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 133.3 - min 24.1 (18.1%), max 148.6 (111.5%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 80.8 - min 80.7 (99.9%), max 81.1 (100.4%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 82.3 - min 80.7 (98.1%), max 89.0 (108.2%)
    
    US MIA speedtest.mia11.us.leaseweb.net [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 111.1 - min 102.2 (91.9%), max 113.2 (101.9%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 99.5 - min 98.9 (99.4%), max 109.1 (109.6%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 100.0 - min 98.9 (98.9%), max 109.3 (109.4%)
    
    US CHI ord.mirror.rackspace.com [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 127.1 - min 124.9 (98.2%), max 129.4 (101.8%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 89.1 - min 89.0 (99.9%), max 89.2 (100.1%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 97.7 - min 90.0 (92.1%), max 126.2 (129.2%)
    
    US ATL atl.speedtest.clouvider.net [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 107.8 - min 44.5 (41.2%), max 120.9 (112.1%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 96.9 - min 92.2 (95.1%), max 122.5 (126.4%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 97.6 - min 92.2 (94.4%), max 122.5 (125.5%)
    
    US PHO phx.speedtest.clouvider.net [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 83.7 - min 77.7 (92.8%), max 86.9 (103.8%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 130.4 - min 127.9 (98.1%), max 135.4 (103.8%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 132.5 - min 129.4 (97.7%), max 158.2 (119.4%)
    
    US PTL mirrors.cat.pdx.edu [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 86.9 - min 70.5 (81.2%), max 90.4 (104.1%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 130.5 - min 125.7 (96.3%), max 156.4 (119.8%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 134.6 - min 126.1 (93.7%), max 180.5 (134.1%)
    
    US LAX la.speedtest.clouvider.net [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 81.7 - min 75.5 (92.3%), max 85.9 (105.1%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 132.0 - min 128.6 (97.4%), max 157.9 (119.6%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 135.3 - min 128.9 (95.2%), max 157.9 (116.7%)
    
    US SJO mirrors.xtom.us [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 81.7 - min 80.0 (97.9%), max 83.7 (102.5%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 135.5 - min 135.4 (99.9%), max 135.6 (100.1%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 136.3 - min 135.4 (99.4%), max 147.1 (108.0%)
    
    US SEA speedtest.sea11.us.leaseweb.net [F: 1]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 80.0 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 84.7 (106.0%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 132.8 - min 132.7 (99.9%), max 133.1 (100.2%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 133.0 - min 132.7 (99.7%), max 133.4 (100.3%)
    
    BR SPA mirrors.ic.unicamp.br [F: 1]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 48.8 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 52.7 (107.9%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 215.7 - min 211.6 (98.1%), max 244.2 (113.2%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 216.8 - min 212.7 (98.1%), max 251.4 (116.0%)
    
    CL SAN elmirror.cl [F: 11]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 33.7 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 55.6 (165.0%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 205.0 - min 204.8 (99.9%), max 207.3 (101.1%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 243.4 - min 204.9 (84.2%), max 354.3 (145.6%)
    

    Front-up: You might notice that this tested an extended range of targets.

    Europe - over a Gb/s within the UK isn't remarkable (although ca. 2.5 Gb/s actually is), but a Gb/s to NL is really good and so is ca. 850 Mb/s to DE, FRA. Also a few more targets show results in the 400 Mb/s and 500 Mb/s (and even above) range. Note also that even otenet GR not only works (which I rarely see) but even achieves a decent 200+ Mb/s! Also, most secondary targets worked and achieved decent results.

    Asia / Oceania - Siberia and Saudi Arabia well over 100 Mb/s, nice! Even better, 2 out of 3 IR targets work and one even gets close to 100 Mb/s! Most IN targets work but even the best one is just over 50 Mb/s, meeh. And while SGP and HKG aren't much better at ca. 55 and 65 Mb/s, in between 45 and 50 Mb/s to multiple CN targets isn't bad at all (for normal, i.e. not CN optimized connectivity). The Malaysia and Cambodia results are OK-ish and so is the JP result and the Straya results as well (at the moment down under connectivity seems to be impaired); Kiwiland results are expectedly even slower.

    Africa - Actually quite nice, not record breaking but really nice.

    Americas - well above 100 Mb/s to pretty much the whole East-Coast and also to CHI is quite decent and so are results in the lower 80 Mb/s to the West-Coast. Sadly the quite good result to Miami doesn't translate to good results to South-America. 40+ Mb/s to Brazil is no disaster but certainly not great, and the Chile result is kind of poor as well; sadly the AR and EC targets failed completely.

    TL;DR The connectivity I measured is between good and great within Europa, but the connectivity to both coasts in North America is quite decent as well. The western part of Asia is acceptable to decent but starting with India and east of it connectivity reaches 'acceptable' territory with a few brighter Spots in between.
    Considering that my VPS has 2 vCores (Gold IIRC) 4 GB memory and a decent disk IMO $4/mo is not super-cheap but an adequate price.

    My aim with this post is not to convince VeloxMedia haters to change their mind but rather to show that the "new" VeloxMedia offers a really decent product with good connectivity in particular within Europe and across the Atlantic for a not at all outrageous price.

    I don't think anyone, or at least not many, are complaining about his technical skills. He certainly can manage it well. The problem is that no one knows what he might do tomorrow if he gets mad. He's already shut down servers after receiving false abuse reports and showed that he won't verify if a client is legitimate before shutting down the service at their request.

    I'm perfectly happy with the service I am receiving, but I am not happy with the anxiety that comes with uncertainty.

    Thanked by 1Saragoldfarb
  • SaragoldfarbSaragoldfarb Member, Megathread Squad

    @forest said:

    @jsg said:
    For a change ...

    I know, many (most?) here won't like it but I compiled 30 runs of benchmarking @VeloxMedia's connectivity. Not to spite anyone but mainly to get an impression whether their current $4/mo price tag for a VPS actually is basically robbery or whether their prices are within a reasonable region.

    Here's the fresh results (from 24hrs since yesterday):

    --- Europe ---
    
    NO TRH mirror.archlinux.no [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 328.2 - min 156.5 (47.7%), max 342.8 (104.4%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 33.6 - min 31.3 (93.1%), max 72.4 (215.4%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 34.1 - min 31.3 (91.7%), max 73.5 (215.3%)
    
    UK LON lon.speedtest.clouvider.net [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 2559.0 - min 839.2 (32.8%), max 4622.4 (180.6%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 1.6 - min 1.4 (86.4%), max 4.3 (265.3%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 2.1 - min 1.5 (71.7%), max 15.1 (722.2%)
    
    NL AMS mirrors.xtom.nl [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 1032.5 - min 238.9 (23.1%), max 1250.5 (121.1%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 8.9 - min 8.8 (98.7%), max 9.1 (102.1%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 9.0 - min 8.9 (98.4%), max 9.3 (102.8%)
    
    DE FRA mirror.plusline.net [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 852.4 - min 825.0 (96.8%), max 878.6 (103.1%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 12.5 - min 12.4 (98.9%), max 12.7 (101.3%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 12.9 - min 12.7 (98.6%), max 13.1 (101.8%)
    
    FR PAR ftp1.fr.freebsd.org [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 485.7 - min 137.3 (28.3%), max 747.0 (153.8%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 13.4 - min 9.8 (73.0%), max 59.6 (444.1%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 22.2 - min 9.8 (44.2%), max 113.9 (514.2%)
    
    CH GEN pkg.adfinis-on-exoscale.ch [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 577.1 - min 542.1 (93.9%), max 618.8 (107.2%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 18.0 - min 17.6 (97.8%), max 28.7 (159.4%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 24.1 - min 19.8 (82.0%), max 51.7 (214.1%)
    
    IT ROM archlinux.mirror.garr.it [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 275.6 - min 250.6 (90.9%), max 328.4 (119.1%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 39.1 - min 32.1 (82.2%), max 43.7 (111.9%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 50.9 - min 36.4 (71.5%), max 909.0 (1785.3%)
    
    ES MAD mirror.raiolanetworks.com [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 429.8 - min 422.9 (98.4%), max 437.2 (101.7%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 25.6 - min 25.4 (99.4%), max 26.5 (103.7%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 27.1 - min 25.7 (94.8%), max 29.4 (108.5%)
    
    RO GIU mirrors.pidginhost.com [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 243.3 - min 219.2 (90.1%), max 257.4 (105.8%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 45.0 - min 44.8 (99.6%), max 45.2 (100.5%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 64.4 - min 44.8 (69.6%), max 118.7 (184.3%)
    
    GR ATH ftp.otenet.gr [F: 7]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 224.0 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 251.5 (112.3%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 38.3 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 43.1 (112.5%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 43.8 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 77.1 (176.2%)
    
    RU MOS speedtest.hostkey.ru [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 227.0 - min 130.1 (57.3%), max 245.0 (107.9%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 50.2 - min 46.0 (91.6%), max 138.5 (275.8%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 58.6 - min 46.0 (78.4%), max 164.7 (280.9%)
    
    --- Asia / Oceania ---
    
    RU SIB mirror.truenetwork.ru [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 118.5 - min 82.3 (69.5%), max 130.6 (110.2%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 97.3 - min 1.1 (1.1%), max 119.5 (122.8%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 102.7 - min 89.1 (86.7%), max 169.2 (164.7%)
    
    SA RIY mirror.maeen.sa [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 128.4 - min 122.9 (95.7%), max 133.9 (104.3%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 83.0 - min 82.8 (99.7%), max 83.3 (100.3%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 88.8 - min 83.1 (93.6%), max 126.3 (142.3%)
    
    IR TEH mirror.mobinhost.com [F: 23]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 93.0 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 135.5 (145.7%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 93.1 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 162.9 (175.0%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 95.7 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 195.3 (204.1%)
    
    IN DEL mirror.del2.albony.in [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 53.3 - min 22.6 (42.5%), max 60.5 (113.4%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 186.9 - min 181.4 (97.1%), max 192.8 (103.2%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 191.3 - min 183.7 (96.0%), max 196.6 (102.8%)
    
    SG SGP mirror.jingk.ai [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 66.8 - min 63.6 (95.3%), max 68.2 (102.1%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 166.0 - min 165.2 (99.5%), max 175.1 (105.5%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 272.2 - min 165.2 (60.7%), max 543.4 (199.6%)
    
    CN HKG mirrors.xtom.hk [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 59.8 - min 56.5 (94.5%), max 62.7 (104.9%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 183.0 - min 182.8 (99.9%), max 183.3 (100.1%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 190.2 - min 182.8 (96.1%), max 290.4 (152.6%)
    
    CN BFSU_BEJ mirrors.bfsu.edu.cn [F: 10]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 47.2 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 77.8 (164.8%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 158.1 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 200.9 (127.1%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 189.3 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 907.5 (479.4%)
    
    CN TUNA_Bejing mirrors.tuna.tsinghua.edu.cn [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 45.6 - min 40.2 (88.1%), max 48.7 (106.8%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 232.9 - min 230.3 (98.9%), max 249.9 (107.3%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 234.3 - min 230.3 (98.3%), max 256.3 (109.4%)
    
    CN ISCAS_Bejing fast-mirror.isrc.ac.cn [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 49.6 - min 45.4 (91.6%), max 52.6 (106.0%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 211.1 - min 210.7 (99.8%), max 214.8 (101.8%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 225.1 - min 213.8 (95.0%), max 247.1 (109.8%)
    
    MY Putrajaya mirrors.gbnetwork.com [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 64.9 - min 60.8 (93.5%), max 67.9 (104.6%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 166.9 - min 165.9 (99.4%), max 169.5 (101.5%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 170.5 - min 165.9 (97.3%), max 178.1 (104.5%)
    
    KH PNP mirror.sabay.com.kh [F: 3]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 47.0 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 64.8 (137.7%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 157.9 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 177.2 (112.2%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 196.8 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 762.4 (387.3%)
    
    JP TOK ftp.udx.icscoe.jp [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 43.2 - min 40.2 (93.1%), max 45.9 (106.4%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 250.1 - min 249.1 (99.6%), max 250.5 (100.1%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 254.9 - min 249.1 (97.7%), max 267.6 (105.0%)
    
    AU SYD mirror.internet.asn.au [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 43.0 - min 41.1 (95.6%), max 47.1 (109.5%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 264.9 - min 243.4 (91.9%), max 285.6 (107.8%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 267.5 - min 244.9 (91.6%), max 285.6 (106.8%)
    
    NZ UNK mirror.fsmg.org.nz [F: 3]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 36.0 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 41.9 (116.3%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 271.2 - min 270.7 (99.8%), max 276.9 (102.1%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 367.9 - min 270.7 (73.6%), max 1476.3 (401.3%)
    
    --- Africa ---
    
    KE NAI mirror.liquidtelecom.com [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 83.0 - min 82.2 (99.1%), max 84.4 (101.7%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 132.5 - min 132.2 (99.8%), max 132.9 (100.3%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 135.5 - min 132.3 (97.7%), max 190.9 (140.9%)
    
    ZA, WEC archlinux.za.mirror.allworldit.com [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 73.1 - min 48.5 (66.3%), max 80.0 (109.3%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 141.0 - min 140.3 (99.5%), max 144.3 (102.3%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 178.3 - min 142.2 (79.8%), max 354.1 (198.6%)
    
    MU POL archlinux-mirror.cloud.mu [F: 1]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 39.1 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 56.1 (143.6%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 199.7 - min 199.5 (99.9%), max 200.1 (100.2%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 208.5 - min 199.6 (95.8%), max 278.1 (133.4%)
    
    --- Americas ---
    
    CA MTL speedtest.mtl2.ca.leaseweb.net [F: 17]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 42.8 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 145.5 (339.7%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 71.7 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 80.5 (112.3%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 71.8 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 80.5 (112.2%)
    
    CA ONT mirror.csclub.uwaterloo.ca [F: 5]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 100.5 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 129.2 (128.6%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 70.9 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 88.8 (125.2%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 155.7 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 583.9 (375.0%)
    
    US NYC nyc.mirrors.clouvider.net [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 137.2 - min 128.4 (93.5%), max 149.9 (109.3%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 76.7 - min 72.1 (94.0%), max 101.7 (132.6%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 78.4 - min 72.6 (92.6%), max 101.7 (129.7%)
    
    US ASH ash.speedtest.clouvider.net [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 133.8 - min 89.6 (66.9%), max 143.7 (107.4%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 79.9 - min 75.7 (94.8%), max 102.2 (128.0%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 80.9 - min 76.6 (94.7%), max 102.2 (126.4%)
    
    US PIB mirror.pit.teraswitch.com [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 133.3 - min 24.1 (18.1%), max 148.6 (111.5%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 80.8 - min 80.7 (99.9%), max 81.1 (100.4%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 82.3 - min 80.7 (98.1%), max 89.0 (108.2%)
    
    US MIA speedtest.mia11.us.leaseweb.net [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 111.1 - min 102.2 (91.9%), max 113.2 (101.9%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 99.5 - min 98.9 (99.4%), max 109.1 (109.6%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 100.0 - min 98.9 (98.9%), max 109.3 (109.4%)
    
    US CHI ord.mirror.rackspace.com [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 127.1 - min 124.9 (98.2%), max 129.4 (101.8%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 89.1 - min 89.0 (99.9%), max 89.2 (100.1%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 97.7 - min 90.0 (92.1%), max 126.2 (129.2%)
    
    US ATL atl.speedtest.clouvider.net [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 107.8 - min 44.5 (41.2%), max 120.9 (112.1%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 96.9 - min 92.2 (95.1%), max 122.5 (126.4%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 97.6 - min 92.2 (94.4%), max 122.5 (125.5%)
    
    US PHO phx.speedtest.clouvider.net [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 83.7 - min 77.7 (92.8%), max 86.9 (103.8%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 130.4 - min 127.9 (98.1%), max 135.4 (103.8%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 132.5 - min 129.4 (97.7%), max 158.2 (119.4%)
    
    US PTL mirrors.cat.pdx.edu [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 86.9 - min 70.5 (81.2%), max 90.4 (104.1%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 130.5 - min 125.7 (96.3%), max 156.4 (119.8%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 134.6 - min 126.1 (93.7%), max 180.5 (134.1%)
    
    US LAX la.speedtest.clouvider.net [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 81.7 - min 75.5 (92.3%), max 85.9 (105.1%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 132.0 - min 128.6 (97.4%), max 157.9 (119.6%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 135.3 - min 128.9 (95.2%), max 157.9 (116.7%)
    
    US SJO mirrors.xtom.us [F: 0]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 81.7 - min 80.0 (97.9%), max 83.7 (102.5%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 135.5 - min 135.4 (99.9%), max 135.6 (100.1%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 136.3 - min 135.4 (99.4%), max 147.1 (108.0%)
    
    US SEA speedtest.sea11.us.leaseweb.net [F: 1]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 80.0 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 84.7 (106.0%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 132.8 - min 132.7 (99.9%), max 133.1 (100.2%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 133.0 - min 132.7 (99.7%), max 133.4 (100.3%)
    
    BR SPA mirrors.ic.unicamp.br [F: 1]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 48.8 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 52.7 (107.9%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 215.7 - min 211.6 (98.1%), max 244.2 (113.2%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 216.8 - min 212.7 (98.1%), max 251.4 (116.0%)
    
    CL SAN elmirror.cl [F: 11]
      DL [Mb/s]:      avg 33.7 - min 0.0 (0.0%), max 55.6 (165.0%)
      Ping [ms]:      avg 205.0 - min 204.8 (99.9%), max 207.3 (101.1%)
      Web ping [ms]:  avg 243.4 - min 204.9 (84.2%), max 354.3 (145.6%)
    

    Front-up: You might notice that this tested an extended range of targets.

    Europe - over a Gb/s within the UK isn't remarkable (although ca. 2.5 Gb/s actually is), but a Gb/s to NL is really good and so is ca. 850 Mb/s to DE, FRA. Also a few more targets show results in the 400 Mb/s and 500 Mb/s (and even above) range. Note also that even otenet GR not only works (which I rarely see) but even achieves a decent 200+ Mb/s! Also, most secondary targets worked and achieved decent results.

    Asia / Oceania - Siberia and Saudi Arabia well over 100 Mb/s, nice! Even better, 2 out of 3 IR targets work and one even gets close to 100 Mb/s! Most IN targets work but even the best one is just over 50 Mb/s, meeh. And while SGP and HKG aren't much better at ca. 55 and 65 Mb/s, in between 45 and 50 Mb/s to multiple CN targets isn't bad at all (for normal, i.e. not CN optimized connectivity). The Malaysia and Cambodia results are OK-ish and so is the JP result and the Straya results as well (at the moment down under connectivity seems to be impaired); Kiwiland results are expectedly even slower.

    Africa - Actually quite nice, not record breaking but really nice.

    Americas - well above 100 Mb/s to pretty much the whole East-Coast and also to CHI is quite decent and so are results in the lower 80 Mb/s to the West-Coast. Sadly the quite good result to Miami doesn't translate to good results to South-America. 40+ Mb/s to Brazil is no disaster but certainly not great, and the Chile result is kind of poor as well; sadly the AR and EC targets failed completely.

    TL;DR The connectivity I measured is between good and great within Europa, but the connectivity to both coasts in North America is quite decent as well. The western part of Asia is acceptable to decent but starting with India and east of it connectivity reaches 'acceptable' territory with a few brighter Spots in between.
    Considering that my VPS has 2 vCores (Gold IIRC) 4 GB memory and a decent disk IMO $4/mo is not super-cheap but an adequate price.

    My aim with this post is not to convince VeloxMedia haters to change their mind but rather to show that the "new" VeloxMedia offers a really decent product with good connectivity in particular within Europe and across the Atlantic for a not at all outrageous price.

    I don't think anyone, or at least not many, are complaining about his technical skills. He certainly can manage it well. The problem is that no one knows what he might do tomorrow if he gets mad. He's already shut down servers after receiving false abuse reports and showed that he won't verify if a client is legitimate before shutting down the service at their request.

    I'm perfectly happy with the service I am receiving, but I am not happy with the anxiety that comes with uncertainty.

    You on a 3 y plan? It won't last. Get out asap.

Sign In or Register to comment.