-
I estimate that I will rarely use VPS again in the future, so let’s sort out all the VPSs I have used. Disclaimer: All network speed evaluations are based on the US-US (apt-get) and US-Australia (filezilla download, VPN) network speeds. I have no conditions to test the domestic network speeds.
In chronological order:
1.mediatemple dv base: 50 dollars, 20G hard drive, 512M memory, 1T traffic, similar to openvz
Test: Performance unixbench4.1.2-wht score is 30 points, limit the number of inodes, limit tcp connections to 300, limit a bunch of
Usage experience: It hangs up as soon as there is a little traffic, and the memory is not used at all. It is restricted in kmem. You can see 1G of memory, but you can never use even 512M; the service is bad, and the support does not know much about technology and only knows how to use it. Perfunctory, even though it is a large company, the average waiting time for tickets is still nearly 8 hours, which is intolerable for a $50 plan.
Rating: I’ve never seen such a bad VPS before
2. rapidxen: $7, 5G hard drive, 128M memory, traffic calculation is weird, even 600G, xen
Test: unixbench4.1.2-wht scored 60 points, and the network speed was very poor.
Usage experience: The performance in Xen is considered poor. After setting up a pptp VPN, 10 people were online and the results were overwhelming; the service was pretty good, and tickets were returned faster than I expected.
Evaluation: It was a good value for money at the time, but now it seems like a scumbag
3. ramhost-kansas computer room: 12 dollars, 40G hard drive, 512 memory, 500G bandwidth, openvz
Test: unixbench4.1.2-wht 280 points, great network speed
Use experience:
The performance is extremely good, the only VPS provider that provides munin monitoring, you can see that ramhost is not overbooked at all.
Technically, compared to other merchants' single and rigid CPU limiting methods, their company uses unique burstable CPU technology. Any program will be given 100% dual-core CPU for 10 minutes. After that, according to the plan speed limit, the 512M plan will be limited to a single Core 15% of the CPU, which allows users to make full use of the overall performance and avoids abuse by a single user.
Service: Very good service. After receiving the MPAA complaint about my abuse, they did not shut down the VPS directly, but sent me an email to notify me of the processing; maintenance will be notified one month in advance, and there will be no unnotified downtime for one year of use. . The disadvantage is that maybe the stall is too big and there are not enough people, so the ticket returns have been very slow recently. Boss is a technical geek. He writes everything from the panel to the system himself, so the plan is quite flexible. He is also very proficient in Linux and has learned a lot through the exchange.
Evaluation: Although the price is no longer very competitive at the end of 2010, it is still highly recommended. It is my only recommendation among openvz.
4. photonvps: 16 dollars, 35G hard drive, 512M memory, 500G traffic, xen
Test: unixbench4.1.2-wht score is more than 300, the network speed is strong
User experience: The performance is very outstanding, and it was the most cost-effective xen at the time.
Evaluation: I don’t continue to use it because there is a stronger ramhost, but it is still very good.
5. I seem to have used a pretty bad VPS, but I can’t remember what it was.
The above is the experience in 2009.
After 2010, unixbench was updated on wht, saying that unixbench4 was very inaccurate for multi-core testing, and the previous results were all garbage.
So after that, I used unixbench5 for testing.
Attached is a reference for comparison of scores in 4 and 5:
ramhost atlanta computer room: i3 540
unixbench4 400 points
unixbench5 960 points single core
unixbench5 1700 points dual core 4 virtual cores
The following begins the 2010 experience.
6. dmehosting: 10 dollars, 50G hard drive, 512M memory, 2T traffic, openvz
Test: unixbench5 single and multi-core score 700 points
Usage experience: Disk IO deviation, poor MySQL performance, and feeling seriously overbooked
Rating: Not recommended
7.directspace: 10 dollars, 60G hard drive, 1G memory, 5T traffic, openvz
Test: unixbench5 single and multi-core score 900 points
Experience: The overbooking was very serious. It was fine when I first moved in, but it became a tragedy after a week.
Rating: Not recommended
8.alienvps-Original: $23, 100G hard drive, 2G memory, 2T traffic, openvz
Test: unixbench5 single and multi-core score 800 points
User experience: good performance, not oversold, high cost performance
Rating: Recommended. (Please continue reading 9 before making a decision)
9.alienvps-for sale: 12 dollars, 100G hard drive, 2G memory, 2T traffic, openvz
Usage experience: alienvps was sold in late November. The new owner desperately oversold it and the performance was extremely poor.
Rating: Not recommended
10.burstvps: 10 dollars, 50G hard drive, 1G memory, 1T traffic, openvz
Test: unixbench5 600-700 points, inode limit is low, only 500,000
Usage experience: It’s pretty good. There’s nothing that consumes too much performance. From some of my other tests, it seems to be a little worse than 8, but much better than 6 and 7. It’s worth mentioning that the network speeds to all computer rooms are pretty good. , I used it as a transit host for a while.
Rating: Neutral.
11.linode: 20 dollars, 16G hard drive, 512 memory, 200G traffic, xen
Test: unixbench5 around 800 points
Usage experience: Xen is very powerful. Although the score is average, the database performance is very powerful. The disadvantage is that the hard disk and traffic are too tragic. I logged out after using it for a few days; it’s worth mentioning that I couldn’t even log in after logging out, which was really amazing.
Rating: Recommended
12.ramhost-atlanta computer room: 12 dollars, 40G hard drive, 512 memory, 500G traffic, openvz
Test: unixbench5 single-core 960 points, multi-core 1700 points, the *only* VPS with improved multi-core performance
Usage experience: It uses better hardware than the ramhost-kansas computer room, so the performance is more buggy. To put it more intuitively: when I am very satisfied with it, the load average of alienvps usually hovers around 0.5-1.5. ramhost-atalanta serves the same traffic and configuration, and the load average generally hovers around 0.1-0.2.
Rating: Highly recommended
13. yardvps-openvz: $15 a year, 15G hard drive, 128M memory, openvz
Test: No unixbench test was done
Usage experience: Disk IO hovers at the tragic speed of 500K/s-3M/s all year round. It sometimes takes half a minute to log in to the VPS, and basically nothing can be done.
Evaluation: I have never seen such a tragic openvz, I have learned a lot.
14. yardvps-xen: 8 dollars, 15G hard drive, 512M memory, 1.5T traffic, xen
Test: No unixbench test was done
Use experience:
The disk IO is very good, often reaching 100M/s, and the performance is also very good. Currently, I am not increasing the traffic. I am just doing some tests. The experience of using the database performance is on the same level as alienvps and linode.
Yard is the vest of photonvps, and the network speed is also quite good. This xen can be regarded as one of the most cost-effective xen.
Rating: Recommended.
15. citynethost: 12 dollars for half a year, 15G hard drive, 512 memory, 1T traffic, openvz
Test: No unixbench test was done
Usage experience: I gave up at first because the Internet speed was too slow. Later I found that the Internet speed was quite strong, nearly 1M/s. This company is in Egypt and is very unstable. There was a bad record of the website and all VPS being offline. The performance There are also obvious signs of oversold.
Rating: Not recommended.
16. nordiacvps: 6 dollars, 15G hard drive, 512 memory, 1T traffic, openvz
Test: No unixbench test was done
Usage experience: I purchased a VPS in order to test the speed of the Hetzner computer room in the field. The speed in the United States and Australia is good. I have always been curious about how it is in China.
Rating: Neutral
17. 2host; 15 dollars, 50G hard drive, 1G memory, 10T traffic, xen
Test: No unixbench test was done
Use experience:
Their hardware is very powerful, 15000RPM RAID1+0, Dual Xeon QuadCore
The Internet is so tragic. I have never seen such a tragic Internet. Otherwise, it is really a great deal.
Rumor has it that the boss is an Indian guy who disappears frequently, and the reviews are polarizing, but I couldn’t resist the tempting introduction and ended up dead.
Rating: Not recommended
I heard it is a good VPS but I have never used it.
a. quickweb, $7, 25G hard drive, 512M memory, 250G traffic, openvz
This company is currently ranked first in the voting for the best VPS in the fourth quarter of 2010 on lowendbox, even ahead of ramhost.
Lowendbox, a blog website with a daily traffic of 20W PV, is installed on an 80M xen host on quickweb.
b. buyvm, $15 a year, 15G hard drive, 128M memory, 500G traffic, openvz $13, 60G hard drive, 2G memory, 3T traffic, 4 cores.
openvz currently ranks third in voting for leb, and the evaluation on the hostloc forum seems to be pretty good.
===========Summary dividing line==============
The following three VPSs are recommended, ranked in order, purely personal preference
ramhost Atlanta>Kansas,
yardvps-xen
linode
The following neutrals are sorted in order of preference, with the best among the neutrals at the top.
phonontonvps-xen
burstvps
nodiacvps
The following are not recommended, sorted in order of more recommendation, the first is the best among the not recommended
alienvps,
citynethost
directspace
dmehosting
rapidxen
yardvps-oepnvz
mediatemple
Article source: http://obmem.info/?p=777 Please indicate the source link when reprinting
Author of the article: observer