# [TX]Catalyst Host: $30/Year 256MB(KVM) and $7 2GB(openVZ) Limited Stock



## ryanarp (Jul 24, 2013)

*Catalsyt Host - Stop shopping, start hosting*

*Lets Just Get To The Point *
$30/Yearly | $15/Semi Tall KVM Promo *75% Off For Life* [VPSBkvmPROMO] *Limited Stock*
$7/Month OpenVZ 2GB Trenta Promo (https://portal.catalysthost.com/link.php?id=15) *Limited Stock*

*About Us*
For those of you guys who don’t know us, Catalyst Host was started by a group of friends focused on providing our brand of quality hosting. We just want you all to know that we’re more than just another provider, we are customers too. We know what customers want, and we focus on exactly that! We’re also Catalyst customers ourselves! We want the best out of everything we get, and we’ll work hard to make sure you get the best we can give!

*Our Philosophy*
If you're not going to do something right, don't bother doing it. Catalyst Host has been in business since early 2011. We are not here to give you the most imaginary resources you can't use for the least dollar signs. We are here to give you the best quality, with what I estimate to be some of the least oversold nodes in our market. You have the peace of mind that you services are in good hands, that your service will operate as expected, and that your data will remain safe.

*Our Dedication to Quality Networks and Powerful Hardware*
The network behind our Dallas servers is multi-homed with multiple 10Gbit connections and redundant Juniper routing with HSRP failover. Network and hardware conditions are monitored 24/7/365. Spare hardware is always stocked and available on site. We utilize A+B power for redundancy in case of brownouts, which are rare in Dallas. As a standard we use dual E5 Intel Xeon Processors with a minimum of 64GB of Ram and Raid 10 setup with 4 to 8 Enterprise Grade Drives. Recently we started using SSD Cache on our KVM Node(s). These Node(s) currently have 6 Enterprise Grade Drives in Raid 10 and 2 SSD Drives in Raid 1 for Cache. You can expect this to be a standard on future nodes.
Our VPSs are located in Dallas, TX. We utilize the Incero Network inside CoreXchange. While we do not own our hardware, we are renting some of the finest hardware available. This is a choice that we made to guarantee the quality of our services.

*EACH PLAN COMES WITH*
SolusVM Control Panel
Free DNS Hosting
Weekly Off Site Backup
Instant Setup
1Gbps Fair Share Port
Test IP: http://192.211.54.101/test/

*Tall KVM*
RAM: 256MB
Cores: 1 CPU Core @ 2.0GHz+
15GB RAID10 Storage with SSD Cache
1 TB Bandwidth
1 IPv4 Address
*Price: $30.00/year* or *$15/semi **ORDER NOW *(VPSBkvmPROMO) 75% Off for LIFE
------------------------------------------------------
*Trenta OpenVZ*
RAM: 2048MB
vSwap: 512MB
Cores: 4 CPU Core @ 2.0GHz+
60GB RAID10 Storage
2 TB Bandwidth
1 IPv4 Address
*Price:* *$7.00/month* *ORDER NOW*
--------------------------------------------------------

Questions? Contact [email protected]


----------



## wdq (Jul 24, 2013)

Wow. I'm going to have a hard time resisting that $30/year KVM deal. 

On a side note I found an error in the post. You say the $30/year KVM is $17 semi annually in the beginning, and then $15 at the bottom of the post.


----------



## ryanarp (Jul 24, 2013)

Fixed  Thanks William, I think at some point it was going to be 17, but it was easier to just do 1 Promo Code for 75% Off.


----------



## jarland (Jul 24, 2013)

I heard these guys are good


----------



## jcaleb (Jul 24, 2013)

Edit:

Jarland: are you a customer of Catalyst?


----------



## jarland (Jul 24, 2013)

jcaleb said:


> Edit:
> 
> 
> Jarland: are you a customer of Catalyst?


I hope so


----------



## ConnerCG (Jul 24, 2013)

ARGH!!! They got me! The horror, the horror! LOL


----------



## jcaleb (Jul 24, 2013)

Less ram more bandwidth, possible to request?


----------



## ryanarp (Jul 24, 2013)

Sure, What do you have in mind? I think i can make those changes


----------



## jcaleb (Jul 24, 2013)

thanks ryan! will contact you when ready =)


----------



## jarland (Jul 24, 2013)

Bandwidth is certainly something we have a lot of. I don't think one of our nodes has used 1TB (backups excluded) in a month yet.


----------



## HostUS-Alexander (Jul 25, 2013)

jarland said:


> Bandwidth is certainly something we have a lot of. I don't think one of our nodes has used 1TB (backups excluded) in a month yet.


200GB Of that is me :3 Dam Solus


----------



## ConnerCG (Jul 27, 2013)

Suddenly a wild ServerBear link appeared for a Tall KVM -- http://serverbear.com/benchmark/2013/07/26/3UFEpdp79kCzGnRp


----------



## D. Strout (Jul 27, 2013)

jcaleb said:


> Edit:
> 
> 
> Jarland: are you a customer of Catalyst?


In case this isn't a joke, just to let you know *@**jcaleb*, *@**jarland* is one of the "group of friends" that runs CatalystHost.

My question is, when will you guys feel comfortable offering IPv6? I've seen *@**jarland* mention how he's not rushing in to it since he wants to learn about the technology first (don't remember where I read that, correct me if I'm wrong), but that was a while ago and I feel like it's time that a company like CatalystHost should seriously pursue this.


----------



## jarland (Jul 27, 2013)

D. Strout said:


> In case this isn't a joke, just to let you know *@jcaleb*, *@jarland* is one of the "group of friends" that runs CatalystHost.
> 
> 
> My question is, when will you guys feel comfortable offering IPv6? I've seen *@jarland* mention how he's not rushing in to it since he wants to learn about the technology first (don't remember where I read that, correct me if I'm wrong), but that was a while ago and I feel like it's time that a company like CatalystHost should seriously pursue this.


Haven't even started the conversation with our IP provider. Perhaps we could open a dialogue with ARIN. So long as most ISPs in the US continue to ignore the protocol it just doesn't serve much of a purpose from my perspective. Certainly not opposed to it.


----------



## D. Strout (Jul 27, 2013)

jarland said:


> our IP provider


Ahh, just looked up the test IP and realized you're with Incero. Gordon still hasn't gotten around to implementing IPv6 either, so that would make it harder for you guys. As to ISP support, they seem to be saying "well, a lot of the DCs/providers aren't supporting it yet, so why should we?". And then the DCs/providers are saying the same thing about ISPs. Someone has to get the ball rolling, and I'm doing my level headed best, as far as my influence extends (not far, unfortunately). As you may have noticed, I do my best to encourage providers in setting up IPv6  But since you're with Incero, if you do decide to look in to supporting IPv6, you'd have to be among the not inconsiderable number that are asking Gordon to get on the ball. I mean, come on, this is Dallas. Easy access to a lot of upstreams with IPv6 set up and working.


----------



## jarland (Jul 27, 2013)

D. Strout said:


> Ahh, just looked up the test IP and realized you're with Incero. Gordon still hasn't gotten around to implementing IPv6 either, so that would make it harder for you guys. As to ISP support, they seem to be saying "well, a lot of the DCs/providers aren't supporting it yet, so why should we?". And then the DCs/providers are saying the same thing about ISPs. Someone has to get the ball rolling, and I'm doing my level headed best, as far as my influence extends (not far, unfortunately). As you may have noticed, I do my best to encourage providers in setting up IPv6  But since you're with Incero, if you do decide to look in to supporting IPv6, you'd have to be among the not inconsiderable number that are asking Gordon to get on the ball. I mean, come on, this is Dallas. Easy access to a lot of upstreams with IPv6 set up and working.


You have a fair point


----------



## jarland (Jul 27, 2013)

D. Strout said:


> My question is, when will you guys feel comfortable offering IPv6?


Interestingly I just realized that we've got 0.5ms ping to an IPv4 point for HE IPv6 tunnel. I just added some in SolusVM just for fun. If anyone has a reason for them and doesn't mind a tunnel. Don't know if that's something we'll advertise so much as offer when asked... until something more solid lands.


----------



## D. Strout (Jul 27, 2013)

jarland said:


> Interestingly I just realized that we've got 0.5ms ping to an IPv4 point for HE IPv6 tunnel. I just added some in SolusVM just for fun. If anyone has a reason for them and doesn't mind a tunnel. Don't know if that's something we'll advertise so much as offer when asked... until something more solid lands.


Traceroute from your server to the HE.net tunnel server?


----------



## jarland (Jul 27, 2013)

D. Strout said:


> Traceroute from your server to the HE.net tunnel server?


Certainly could be a worse situation for a tunnel.

 

[[email protected] ~]# traceroute 184.105.253.10

traceroute to 184.105.253.10 (184.105.253.10), 30 hops max, 60 byte packets

 1  23.29.121.65 (23.29.121.65)  2.419 ms  2.478 ms  2.506 ms

 2  r1-side-from-sc.inceronetwork.com (192.211.63.1)  0.149 ms  0.162 ms  0.144 ms

 3  inceronetwork.com.corexchange.com (74.124.30.97)  0.351 ms  0.359 ms  0.352 ms

 4  10gigabitethernet3-1.core1.dal1.he.net (206.223.118.37)  0.600 ms  0.810 ms  0.931 ms

 5  184.105.253.10 (184.105.253.10)  0.796 ms  0.786 ms  0.777 ms

 


[[email protected] ~]# ping 184.105.253.10 -c 5

PING 184.105.253.10 (184.105.253.10) 56(84) bytes of data.

64 bytes from 184.105.253.10: icmp_seq=1 ttl=60 time=0.673 ms

64 bytes from 184.105.253.10: icmp_seq=2 ttl=60 time=0.503 ms

64 bytes from 184.105.253.10: icmp_seq=3 ttl=60 time=0.473 ms

64 bytes from 184.105.253.10: icmp_seq=4 ttl=60 time=0.521 ms

64 bytes from 184.105.253.10: icmp_seq=5 ttl=60 time=0.536 ms

 

--- 184.105.253.10 ping statistics ---

5 packets transmitted, 5 received, 0% packet loss, time 4001ms

rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.473/0.541/0.673/0.070 ms


----------

