ChicagoVPS 256MB "Basic Holiday Promo" $12/year OpenVZ VPS

[Tux]

Yeah, I know all of it with ColoCrossing, Chris, Shovenose's bad experience with them, but let's have an honest review of their VPS service.

tl;dr: It's really not half-bad, but they need some improvement

The meat: the review

• Provider: ChicagoVPS
• Virtualization: OpenVZ
• R/B/D: 256MB/100GB/10GB
• Box usage: Very light, only thing running was a idle Jenkins instance
• Purchase date: 12/26/2012
• Location: Chicago, IL (this was before Atlanta came available)

FreeVPS benchmark:


CPU model : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E3-1240 V2 @ 3.40GHz
Number of cores : 1
CPU frequency : 3399.959 MHz
Total amount of ram : 256 MB
Total amount of swap : 0 MB
Download speed from CacheFly: 77.7MB/s
Download speed from Linode, Atlanta GA:
Download speed from Linode, Dallas, TX:
Download speed from Linode, Tokyo, JP:
Download speed from Linode, London, UK:
Download speed from LeaseWeb, Haarlem, NL: 13.5MB/s
Download speed from Softlayer, Singapore: 5.14MB/s
Download speed from Softlayer, Seattle, WA: 25.0MB/s
Download speed from Softlayer, San Jose, CA: 23.7MB/s
Download speed from Softlayer, Washington, DC: 50.8MB/s
I/O speed : 109 MB/s

The Linode errors are because the test download servers are denying connections. I think Linode changed their URLs for the downloads.

Upload speedtest

Web server used was nginx 1.4.1 from dotdeb repos.

RamNode (Atlanta):


tux@darrington:~$ wget -O /dev/null 192.210.REMOVED/testfile
--2013-06-08 06:01:30-- http://192.210.REMOVED/testfile
Connecting to 192.210.REMOVED:80... connected.
HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK
Length: 104857600 (100M) [application/octet-stream]
Saving to: `/dev/null'

100%[=============================================================================================================================>] 104,857,600 31.3M/s in 3.5s

2013-06-08 06:01:34 (28.7 MB/s) - `/dev/null' saved [104857600/104857600]

OVH dedicated server (SP 1, 100Mbit unmetered, BHS datacenter):


tux@REMOVED:~$ wget -O /dev/null 192.210.REMOVED/testfile
--2013-06-08 06:05:24-- http://192.210.REMOVED/testfile
Connecting to 192.210.REMOVED:80... connected.
HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK
Length: 104857600 (100M) [application/octet-stream]
Saving to: `/dev/null'

100%[=============================================================================================================================>] 104,857,600 11.0M/s in 9.8s

2013-06-08 06:05:34 (10.2 MB/s) - `/dev/null' saved [104857600/104857600]

Extra speedtests:


2013-06-08 06:09:23 (54.5 MB/s) - `/dev/null' saved [104857600/104857600] (ATL RN)
2013-06-08 06:09:46 (19.9 MB/s) - `/dev/null' saved [104857600/104857600] (SEA RN)
2013-06-08 06:11:34 (40.6 MB/s) - `/dev/null' saved [104857600/104857600] (NY DO)
2013-06-08 06:13:35 (13.9 MB/s) - `/dev/null' saved [104857600/104857600] (NL DO)
2013-06-08 06:14:10 (24.3 MB/s) - `/dev/null' saved [104857600/104857600] (SF DO)

UnixBench:



# # # # # # # ##### ###### # # #### # #
# # ## # # # # # # # ## # # # # #
# # # # # # ## ##### ##### # # # # ######
# # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # #
# # # ## # # # # # # # ## # # # #
#### # # # # # ##### ###### # # #### # #

Version 5.1.3 Based on the Byte Magazine Unix Benchmark

Multi-CPU version Version 5 revisions by Ian Smith,
Sunnyvale, CA, USA
January 13, 2011 johantheghost at yahoo period com


1 x Dhrystone 2 using register variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1 x Double-Precision Whetstone 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1 x Execl Throughput 1 2 3

1 x File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks 1 2 3

1 x File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks 1 2 3

1 x File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks 1 2 3

1 x Pipe Throughput 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1 x Pipe-based Context Switching 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1 x Process Creation 1 2 3

1 x System Call Overhead 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1 x Shell Scripts (1 concurrent) 1 2 3

1 x Shell Scripts (8 concurrent) 1 2 3

========================================================================
BYTE UNIX Benchmarks (Version 5.1.3)

System: crypt: GNU/Linux
OS: GNU/Linux -- 2.6.32-042stab076.8 -- #1 SMP Tue May 14 20:38:14 MSK 2013
Machine: i686 (unknown)
Language: en_US.utf8 (charmap="UTF-8", collate="UTF-8")
CPU 0: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E3-1240 V2 @ 3.40GHz (6799.9 bogomips)
Hyper-Threading, x86-64, MMX, Physical Address Ext, SYSENTER/SYSEXIT, SYSCALL/SYSRET, Intel virtualization
06:18:58 up 20 days, 13:52, 1 user, load average: 0.29, 0.07, 0.02; runlevel 2

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benchmark Run: Sat Jun 08 2013 06:18:58 - 06:47:10
1 CPU in system; running 1 parallel copy of tests

Dhrystone 2 using register variables 15551702.3 lps (10.0 s, 7 samples)
Double-Precision Whetstone 3386.3 MWIPS (10.1 s, 7 samples)
Execl Throughput 4809.1 lps (29.8 s, 2 samples)
File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks 227061.7 KBps (30.0 s, 2 samples)
File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks 56634.3 KBps (30.0 s, 2 samples)
File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks 655491.9 KBps (30.0 s, 2 samples)
Pipe Throughput 800431.3 lps (10.0 s, 7 samples)
Pipe-based Context Switching 169192.0 lps (10.0 s, 7 samples)
Process Creation 11879.3 lps (30.0 s, 2 samples)
Shell Scripts (1 concurrent) 3068.6 lpm (60.0 s, 2 samples)
Shell Scripts (8 concurrent) 888.9 lpm (60.0 s, 2 samples)
System Call Overhead 695931.2 lps (10.0 s, 7 samples)

System Benchmarks Index Values BASELINE RESULT INDEX
Dhrystone 2 using register variables 116700.0 15551702.3 1332.6
Double-Precision Whetstone 55.0 3386.3 615.7
Execl Throughput 43.0 4809.1 1118.4
File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks 3960.0 227061.7 573.4
File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks 1655.0 56634.3 342.2
File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks 5800.0 655491.9 1130.2
Pipe Throughput 12440.0 800431.3 643.4
Pipe-based Context Switching 4000.0 169192.0 423.0
Process Creation 126.0 11879.3 942.8
Shell Scripts (1 concurrent) 42.4 3068.6 723.7
Shell Scripts (8 concurrent) 6.0 888.9 1481.5
System Call Overhead 15000.0 695931.2 464.0
========
System Benchmarks Index Score 737.7

Support:

I've filed 2 tickets: one about moving to a CentOS 6 node and RDNS, and the other was about a networking issue which was fixed. Response time is good.

Uptime:

Not perfect, but it happens to us all

Conclusion:

If you need a cheap, okay box, ChicagoVPS is perfect for you. I didn't feel any overselling at all, and the UnixBench is on par with RamNode and the like.

In case you doubt I've used CVPS service, this is my invoice. I've blotted out some information except for the first few numbers/letters of my invoice ID and PayPal transaction ID.

 

[mikho]

Question regarding uptime:


When you write "not perfect" i expect somthing around 95-97%.


But then you say that "don't care much about uptime", this makes me wonder if it's more around 50-70%.


Do you have some monitoring on it so we perhaps can get some measurable info about the uptime?

 

[MannDude]

Thanks for the review. It's nice to have an honest review without the bias. Double points for posting verification without anyone having to ask for it first

Let us know how the service is over time.

 

[shovenose]

Hi, I only had issues with their dedicated servers. I have had a VPS with them the entire time with no issues. 

 

[wlanboy]

Question regarding uptime:


When you write "not perfect" i expect somthing around 95-97%.


But then you say that "don't care much about uptime", this makes me wonder if it's more around 50-70%.

I would like to know the uptime too Just a rough number.

 

[Tux]

Sorry for the confusing language. I literally wrote that at 2am.

It's pretty much 99% with some blips here and there.

 

[Tux]

Thanks for the review. It's nice to have an honest review without the bias. Double points for posting verification without anyone having to ask for it first

Let us know how the service is over time.

I've had this box for almost 6 months now, mostly as a personal web server and BNC. I noticed the issues most when I was using the BNC, but alas. I'm going to repurpose it for DNS.

 

[Tux]

Question regarding uptime:


When you write "not perfect" i expect somthing around 95-97%.


But then you say that "don't care much about uptime", this makes me wonder if it's more around 50-70%.


Do you have some monitoring on it so we perhaps can get some measurable info about the uptime?

No monitoring, sorry.

 

[mikho]

Sorry for the confusing language. I literally wrote that at 2am.


It's pretty much 99% with some blips here and there.

Then its close to "almost perfect".


Thank you!

 

[drmike]

I see those speedtests and they don't match with the advertised port speed

Basic Yearly VPS

• 256MB Ram
• 10GB Diskspace
• 100GB Bandwidth
• 100Mbps Port
• 1xIPv4 Address
• SolusVM/OpenVZ
• $12/Year

100Mbps port is the package, but the speed tests are showing gigabit speeds.  Yes, a win for the customer, but nothing to expect in the future.

When I see mismatches on packages like this, I think it shines on the provider in a bad light (i.e. misconfiguration problems there and probably elsewhere).

Yeah, I'd say the same thing about any provider, not just CVPS dislike. Sure CVPS should push the gigabit speeds if it can.  Know other folks have been asking for it for eons.

 

[Chronic]

I've had a 2GB plan with them for close to 7 months now. Bought it at a promotion and paid for annually. I can't think of any issues I had with it so far, but it's only really been used to provide shared hosting to a few of my friends and to power a few Mumble servers.

 

[CVPS_Chris]

100Mbps port is the package, but the speed tests are showing gigabit speeds

This has been answered in other forums/threads you are on under other names. We advertise 100Mbit speeds but have been phasing it out to gigabit. The customers are getting better performance then what they paid for. I don't see a problem there. All nodes are not gigabit so that is why its still advertised as 100Mbit because we don't want to false advertise.

Thanks.

 

[MannDude]

This has been answered in other forums/threads you are on under other names. We advertise 100Mbit speeds but have been phasing it out to gigabit. The customers are getting better performance then what they paid for. I don't see a problem there. All nodes are not gigabit so that is why its still advertised as 100Mbit because we don't want to false advertise.

Thanks.

That was what I was thinking. I thought I had read in a previous LEB offer that that was the case.

Thanks for stopping by and clearing that up. 

 

[drmike]

All nodes are not gigabit so that is why its still advertised as 100Mbit because we don't want to false advertise.

 

Hey, I even thanked you on that explanation  Headed in the right direction there.

 

[Tux]

Note, I've now sent dmmcintyre3 a notice about the Linode speedtest files moving.

 

[D. Strout]

Did this box of yours go down in the recent outage?

 

[Tux]

Did this box of yours go down in the recent outage?

It got off lucky. I was on CHI55.

I'm going to send in a ticket for a reset on it because I need a testing VPS for my panel.

 

[upsetcvps]

I would like to mention that CVPS was hacked and solusvm db leaked.  My vps went down June 18, 2013 around 3am EDT.  As of June 22, 11am, vps is still not accessible.  Customers were kept in the dark  initially and I only received an e-mail at 5pm on Tuesday (14 hours later!).  Since then, the story has changed several times as to what the situation is, what backups are available, and how and when the situation will be resolved.

I urge you to read this topic where the matter is discussed before choosing to go with CVPS.

I am a very upset customer, not because they were hacked, but because of how they are handling the situation.  You should avoid and pick a competitor imho.

 

[Jeffrey]

Not bad, but if you want a VPS in a ColoCrossing location, I would recommend BuyVM.