# ChicagoVPS - Christmas 2Gb Special



## betatester (Jun 25, 2014)

*Provider*: ChicagoVPS - bought as a noob!(still a noob).
*Plan*: OpenVZ VPS - Enterprise VPS - Limited Time Special
*Price*: $60 for 3 years ($1.67/mo)
*Location*: Chiacago, USA

*Purchased*: 12/2013 w/ instant activation

*VPS terms: *2TB/mo 2GBs & 50GB storage IPv4/6: 2/ 0 

*Support tickets:* 0 tickets

*System information:*

*CPU:* cat /proc/cpuinfo (pared down) 

processor       : 3

model name      : Intel® Xeon® CPU E3-1270 V2 @ 3.50GHz 

cpu MHz         :3492.146

cache size      : 8192 KB

physical id     : 0

siblings        : 8  

address sizes   : 36 bits physical, 48 bits virtual            

power management:     

*Memory:*  cat /proc/meminfo (pared down)

MemTotal: 2097152 kB              MemFree: 965088 kB         SwapTotal:  0 kB                   SwapFree:  0 KB        

*Disk: *dd if=/dev/zero of=test bs=64k count=16k conv=fdatasync && rm -rf test

records in  16384+0 records out 1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB) copied, 5.34586 s, 201 MB/s

*Throughput:* wget cachefly.cachefly.net/100mb.test -O /dev/null                                      

-2014-06-25 11:02:27--  Resolving cachefly.cachefly.net (cachefly.cachefly.net)... 205.234.175.175

100%[============================================>] 104,857,600  425K/s   in 4m 1s

2014-06-25 11:06:29 (424 KB/s) - `/dev/null' saved [104857600/104857600]

*Petabyet – *8.87 of 10 & 13.764MB/s

              

*New Relic Monitoring *(past 7 days): Response time: 610ms; Apdex: 0.83 [0.5]; Error Rate: 0.93%; Throughput: 0 rpm

               

*History/Uptime: *last -x | grep reboot

reboot   system boot  2.6.32-042stab09 Tue Jun 24 15:14 - 11:32  (20:18)      *- OpenVZ kernel update*

reboot   system boot  2.6.32-042stab07 Tue Jun  3 03:34 - 11:32 (22+07:58)    *– under investigation (probably me)*

*Usage:* Webmin management, Varnish front end to Apache & Nginx web server w/ squid proxy for Costa Rican family members netflix addiction & remote proxy ssh for firewall bypass - basically fun and so far happy.

Thanks @wlanboy for the template


----------



## zafouhar (Jun 25, 2014)

What is the uplink speed supposedly on this one? That wget to cachefly looks worse than my home connection.


----------



## betatester (Jun 25, 2014)

retest same command:

--2014-06-25 12:41:14-- htp://cachefly.cachefly.net/100mb.test

Resolving cachefly.cachefly.net (cachefly.cachefly.net)... 205.234.175.175

Connecting to cachefly.cachefly.net (cachefly.cachefly.net)|205.234.175.175|:80...connected.

100%[=================================================>] 104,857,600  423K/s   in 3m 59s 

2014-06-25 12:45:13 (429 KB/s) - `/dev/null' saved [104857600/104857600] 

Agreed. Just posting the results. I think the petabyet is more representative at 13.784MB/s over multiple sites. Should be 100Mbps

Offer at LET: blog/chicagovps-603-years-2gb-openvz-vps-in-buffalo-and-chicago/

EDITED to remove hyperlink


----------



## HalfEatenPie (Jun 25, 2014)

Any review about the support response time?  Any other detail about uptime?  

Could you please clarify what do you mean by an error rate of 0.93% (0.93% of a week where the server is unreachable?)?

Do you have the link to the Petabyet benchmark?  

That network is pretty unfortunate.  I mean for others it might be fine but Cachefly in itself is a CDN, if I recall correctly it's optimized to service the files from the closest (network-wise) location to you.  At those speeds... yikes...


----------



## drmike (Jun 25, 2014)

HalfEatenPie said:


> That network is pretty unfortunate.  I mean for others it might be fine but Cachefly in itself is a CDN, if I recall correctly it's optimized to service the files from the closest (network-wise) location to you.  At those speeds... yikes...


Cachefly should be ahh removed from tests.  I've never isolated how they do it, but seen quite a few Cachefly test speeds that exceed the line speed.  Their test file is also, at last check entire compressible. 100MB file zips down to < 1MB.

But in this instance, polar opposite speed.  A very paltry speed since Cachefly has gear in CHI and is effectively probably "on net" at that facility.

OP, can you re-run Cachefly and perhaps some similar common speedtest files?


----------



## Nett (Jun 26, 2014)

HalfEatenPie said:


> Do you have the link to the Petabyet benchmark?


https://www.petabyet.com/result/2014-06-25-cc41336fe48bac4c9f3345cc62aa8086/

I might need to re-create the algorithm for the score as nearly 80% of the benchmarks score more than 9 and nearly all of them score more than 8, which made them pretty much "useless".


----------



## HalfEatenPie (Jun 26, 2014)

Well I'm not exactly sure how your system is setup but I think it'd require a different weighting values for each "score" that is dependent on a comparison of networks.  

Maybe normalize all the entries so far and then make the score based off of that? (I really don't know what your "algorithm" is but hopefully its better than that)

My assumption is that this seems to be only focused on network speed.


----------



## betatester (Jun 26, 2014)

HalfEatenPie said:


> Could you please clarify what do you mean by an error rate of 0.93% (0.93% of a week where the server is unreachable?)?


Two file error - one permission error (x13) & on where a file did not exist. The only time the server has been down from their side was to reboot the OpenVZ vunerability this week. As far as I can tell, the server has always been reachable. I'll try and find some OQE, but each time I try to access it, no issues from my side.



drmike said:


> OP, can you re-run Cachefly and perhaps some similar common speedtest files?


The petabyet has quite a few listed with varying results.



HalfEatenPie said:


> Any review about the support response time?  Any other detail about uptime?


No support tickets yet, but open might be open to address the issues with network speed. I'm more concerned about uptime vice download speeds.


----------



## betatester (Jun 26, 2014)

betatester said:


> As far as I can tell, the server has always been reachable. I'll try and find some OQE, but each time I try to access it, no issues from my side.



Here is my objective quality evidence. I've had uptimerobot running a ping and http monitor on this VPS.


----------



## Schultz (Jun 26, 2014)

I don't normally click on threads that have the name "ChicagoVPS" in them, but oh well.

I, personally would not touch ChicagoVPS witht a 10 meter pole: but each to their own.


----------



## betatester (Jun 26, 2014)

I have heard some issues on the various forums, but so far none yet for my experience.


----------



## eddynetweb (Jun 26, 2014)

Boxode said:


> I don't normally click on threads that have the name "ChicagoVPS" in them, but oh well.
> 
> 
> I, personally would not touch ChicagoVPS witht a 10 meter pole: but each to their own.


My question is, would you even be able to afford a 10 meter poll? Have you see how expensive those things are??


I would only use a ChicagoVPS for testing honestly.


----------



## DomainBop (Jun 26, 2014)

eddynetweb said:


> My question is, would you even be able to afford a 10 meter poll? Have you see how expensive those things are??


They're actually not that expensive, especially if you buy in bulk and pick them up directly from the factory.


----------



## eddynetweb (Jun 26, 2014)

DomainBop said:


> They're actually not that expensive, especially if you buy in bulk and pick them up directly from the factory.


Well, what do you know, they do sell em' on Ebay.


----------



## Nett (Jun 26, 2014)

Boxode said:


> I don't normally click on threads that have the name "ChicagoVPS" in them, but oh well.
> 
> I, personally would not touch ChicagoVPS witht a 10 meter pole: but each to their own.



Your house is just 10m away from the daycare?


----------



## Schultz (Jun 28, 2014)

Could always use a plastic (reinforced) pole instead of a metal one, much cheaper.


----------



## DomainBop (Jun 28, 2014)

Have you had any problems yet with your emails sent from your VPS at ChicagoVPS bouncing?  Just asking because as of this morning almost 41% of ColoCrossing's announced IP addresses are blacklisted by Spamhaus after Spamhaus reinstated a SBL for a 2ND /15 this morning.


----------



## betatester (Jun 28, 2014)

DomainBop said:


> Have you had any problems yet with your emails sent from your VPS at ChicagoVPS bouncing? Just asking because as of this morning almost 41% of ColoCrossing's announced IP addresses are blacklisted by Spamhaus after Spamhaus reinstated a SBL for a 2ND /15 this morning.


I'm not on the LA IP block, instead 75.127.*.* in Chicago. I'm also point a sub domain to the assigned IPs and mail is hosted on a shared account. 

I saw your question on the newest LET offer. I'm waiting for their answer.


----------

