ServerNode - 1Gbit Unmetered VPS from $14 for KWWH users (FR)

[Bharat]

Check PM please .

[NaHoW]

In actual fact, they allow it but require that reported content be removed within a reasonable amount of time (usually 24-36 hours). We have had several discussions with them about this topic specifically and came to an agreement that we will handle DMCAs ourselves.

So in a sentence, the server will not be shut down under any circumstances and warez linking is allowed but reported content must be removed.

Not correct, that's for the first 3 complaints, on the 4th they will just wipe the machine ;-)

[ServerNode]

Again, not correct. We have already had discussions with OVH before expanding into their datacenter, they will not shutdown or wipe the system. They will forward all DMCAs to us and we will deal with them directly with our clients, using the same time restrictions they do.

If you have any issues with this fact, feel free to PM or talk to someone else, but please keep this thread on topic, the topic being VPS sales.

[vgnheart]

@Bharat, According to new hosting rules. A hosting provider is not allowed to comment on another provider's thread

[inject0r]

Has anyone tested them already?

cheers

[ServerNode]

vgnheart, it's fine he had a legitimate question which we've discussed via PM.

For those of you who would like some form of verification regarding the network speed, here are a few tests one of our technicians ran:

Softlayer's European Location (NL):

[root@corp ~]# wget http://speedtest.ams01.softlayer.com...ds/test500.zip
--2011-12-26 23:46:50-- http://speedtest.ams01.softlayer.com...ds/test500.zip
Resolving speedtest.ams01.softlayer.com... 159.253.132.18
Connecting to speedtest.ams01.softlayer.com|159.253.132.18|:80.. . connected.
HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK
Length: 524288000 (500M) [application/zip]
Saving to: `test500.zip'

100%[================================================== ================================================== ======================================>] 524,288,000 112M/s in 4.5s

2011-12-26 23:46:55 (110 MB/s) - `test500.zip' saved [524288000/524288000]

CacheFly:

[root@corp ~]# wget http://cachefly.cachefly.net/100mb.test
--2011-12-26 23:52:22-- http://cachefly.cachefly.net/100mb.test
Resolving cachefly.cachefly.net... 205.234.175.175
Connecting to cachefly.cachefly.net|205.234.175.175|:80... connected.
HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK
Length: 104857600 (100M) [application/octet-stream]
Saving to: `100mb.test'

100%[================================================== ================================================== ======================================>] 104,857,600 35.9M/s in 2.8s

2011-12-26 23:52:25 (35.9 MB/s) - `100mb.test' saved [104857600/104857600]

You can increase this speed even further by multiple streams/connections (e.g. a download accelerator, these do exist in linux too).

It is also my understanding that many of you upload to popular file hosting websites, so here is the result our technician returned for uploading to filesonic.com:

[root@corp ~]# ftp ftp.eu.filesonic.com
Trying 78.140.171.16...
Connected to ftp.eu.filesonic.com (78.140.171.16).
220 ProFTPD 1.3.4rc1 Server (FileSonic FTP Server) [78.140.171.16]
Name (ftp.eu.filesonic.com:root): ***
331 Password required for ***
Password:
230 User *** logged in
Remote system type is UNIX.
Using binary mode to transfer files.
ftp> put test500.zip
local: test500.zip remote: test500.zip
227 Entering Passive Mode.
150 Opening BINARY mode data connection for test500.zip
226 Transfer complete
524288000 bytes sent in 6.27 secs (8.2e+04 Kbytes/sec)

In the above example, 8.2e+04 Kb/s is equal to approximately 640 megabits.

[xElliex]

I bought the cheapest one today for $14 with 1/4 discount. The connection is really fast, it's used mostly for torrents and I get often max speed.
The support is pretty fast too, even email support.

[Lifetalk]

ServerNode provided Hawk with a 24-hour test VPS (Hawk forwarded it to me), to gauge the performance. Here's my feedback on the initial tests I ran.

The network is solid; not surprised, since this is basically OVH systems. Expect good performance within the EU and to some/specific US providers. Good enough to host sites too, but if your audience is non-EU for the majority, then getting a french server is not a good idea, obviously.

The server itself is good. I know when a VPS is placed on an oversold server and when it's on a server that has redundant capacity. This one was pretty quick in terms of transactions. Maybe that's because it's relatively new. If ServerNode maintains a low number of VM's/server and/or the same performance as I just saw, then this is definitely a good choice.

I did some benchmarking, and memory throughput and disk reads/writes look good. Again, this is probably because everything is relatively new. From the looks of it, this is the i7-W3520 that OVH provide.

All in all, it's a good VPS. For the price it's being sold at, it's a good choice if ServerNode can maintain quality. The only question is, how do they intend to maintain that quality for the price they're selling their VMs for? They probably have that planned out; at least, that's what I hope.

Good luck.

[ServerNode]

Much appreciated, Lifetalk, thankyou for testing it out.

We will not oversell as our main goal is to keep performance at a maximum, so it is more likely that we will setup another node rather than clutter the current one.

Quality will be maintained even at this price, given what I just said.