96MB Low End VPS Review Part 45 – VPS6.Net
Among all of the VPS providers that I have reviewed so far, besides a few that I was curious about myself, others were either requested by the providers themselves or someone who is interested in purchasing their services. However, VPS6.Net stood out as the only one which there were requests from both sides: Jeremy from VPS6.Net has asked me to write a review about them a few months back and one of their potential customers has asked me to review their services as well. What is the magic power behind VPS6.Net that made them so attractive? I was curious about this and when I saw they actually offer free trial on their OpenVZ service, I took up the opportunity and signed up for a box.
Basic Information and Set Up
As mentioned above, the trial VPS offered by VPS6 comes with 128MB of RAM, 10GB of bandwidth, 2 CPU cores and 100Mbit transfer limit. It basically cost 3 cents USD to sign up, and is valid for 24 hours. The regular price for such VPS, as per this page here, cost 3.96 USD per month and is the cheapest VPS plan that they have available:
Finally, as mentioned above, you can actually ask for your 0.03 back if you email their customer support.
During the sign up stage, there are quite a few options available for the operating system to be installed. Obviously, it is a good way to let your customers know how many OS templates that you are capable to offer to them, however I find such a list may be a little too long to navigate around after a while. Good thing is that they are arranged in some orderly fashion with VPS6 though:
Other than the the operating systems, there are also options for you to choose the location of the VPS. Surprisingly, the prices of the VPS do not change (I believe even for the regular plans) between the locations, although I was under the impression that providers based in Germany seems to be able to provide a much cheaper price than most of the providers out of Chicago.
In terms of payment methods, I am pretty surprised by the different types of payments available to VPS6.NET, they even go as far as accepting Bitcoin. Although I am not sure how the conversion rate works, but it got me really curious: are they actually able to buy their equipments using Bitcoins as well?
Either way, I have decided to stick with the regular payments since I am not really a fan of virtual money, and after the payment was completed via Paypal, and after the payment is completed, you are being directed to this page where you see there is a 25% per cent off coupon.
I actually like the idea for them to have customized check out summary page, which is a lot better than just a simple page with an order number, since this is a page which every single customer will land on when signing up, therefore, it would be a great idea if this page could be used to introduce further discount on the purchase of the second VPS/purchase on the add-on that customers may need.
The server provision was supposed to be instant, however in my particular case, I did not receive the VPS after a while (payment sent at 4:55pm and did not receive the VPS at 5:10pm), so I put in a ticket and was told that the Chicago location has run out of space and since I was just looking for something to test, I opted to have the VPS set up in Los Angeles instead. The VPS was set up manually but was provisioned fairly quickly (I have received the VPS login information within 2 minutes after I have replied the ticket in fact). However, for some reason the VPS was not functioning initially, the VPS was shown as offline and I could not boot it up even from the SolusVM control panel. Logging in from the Serial Console in SolusVM has also proven to be futile and here is what I have seen:
Apparently the provision email was sent and I tried to log into the VPS before the VPS was actually provisioned! I thought all these were literally instant but I guess my fingers just moved too quickly.
One thing I have noticed in the welcome email is the fact that they have offered upgrade options in the email with an order link:
Although I thought it might be nice if they could include the price in there as well, I think it is nonetheless a pretty good marketing gimmick to keep the trial customers and convert them to actual paying customer if they are, at the bare minimum, happy with the set up.
The WHMCS system is using the HTTPS protocol and once logged in, full control of the VPS is available under My Services, oh, well, at least the buttons and bar graphs and charts.
However, the buttons do not seems to work, for example, here is the window I got after clicking on the Serial Console button:
And here is what I see while trying to reset the root password from the control panel in WHMCS.
In my view, it is really much better to have something not there at the first place rather than have something there but not working. However WHMCS is a complicated system and there is always SolusVM to back you up.
Unlike WHMCS system, the SolusVM system in VPS6.Net is not using secured connection. Once logged in, a pretty standard SolusVM interface is shown. One thing to note though, VPS6.Net is actually using the VSwap rather than burstable memory. I am not that familiar with VSwap, but I believe it does offer better memory management than the standard OpenVZ burstable RAM, and making the VPS almost a Xen-like one in terms of memory management.
As usual, there is no central backup feature and instant rDNS does not seems to be available.
However, one thing that worth mention is the enormous amount of OS templates that are listed and available for installation. Furthermore, there is a description next to every single OS template, which, although pretty brief, is better than nothing at all, which I have seen for some other VPS providers. Furthermore, they are one of the very few VPS providers who actually have CentOS 6 with CPanel templates, which is something I like since the version of Python in CentOS 5 is too old for my liking.
Test on the VPS
As mentioned above, the trial VPS comes with 128MB of RAM and 2 CPU cores, the VPS is based in Los Angeles, CA and I have installed Debian 6 32 bit for testing purposes.
When the OS template was first loaded, 12MB of RAM was used:
free -m
total used free shared buffers cached
Mem: 128 32 95 0 0 16
-/+ buffers/cache: 16 111
Swap: 128 0 128
The top output showing Apache2 and sendmail, among a bunch of other processes, running:
top - 03:18:36 up 10 min, 1 user, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00
Tasks: 15 total, 1 running, 14 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie
Cpu(s): 0.5%us, 0.0%sy, 0.0%ni, 99.5%id, 0.0%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.0%si, 0.0%st
Mem: 131072k total, 33464k used, 97608k free, 0k buffers
Swap: 131072k total, 0k used, 131072k free, 16588k cached
PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND
612 root 20 0 8544 3028 2472 S 1 2.3 0:00.09 sshd
382 root 20 0 5716 2432 1184 S 0 1.9 0:00.00 apache2
385 www-data 20 0 5716 1848 596 S 0 1.4 0:00.00 apache2
636 root 20 0 2960 1616 1292 S 0 1.2 0:00.00 bash
579 root 20 0 9992 1552 504 S 0 1.2 0:00.00 sendmail-mta
645 root 20 0 2328 1072 876 R 0 0.8 0:00.00 top
594 root 20 0 5488 964 576 S 0 0.7 0:00.00 sshd
404 root 20 0 2288 844 664 S 0 0.6 0:00.00 cron
553 root 20 0 2392 844 672 S 0 0.6 0:00.00 xinetd
356 root 20 0 8668 792 448 S 0 0.6 0:00.00 saslauthd
1 root 20 0 2028 684 588 S 0 0.5 0:00.00 init
371 root 20 0 1736 612 508 S 0 0.5 0:00.00 syslogd
357 root 20 0 8668 392 48 S 0 0.3 0:00.00 saslauthd
2 root 20 0 0 0 0 S 0 0.0 0:00.00 kthreadd/2495
3 root 20 0 0 0 0 S 0 0.0 0:00.00 khelper/2495
And the htop output for the htop fans:
Roughly 400MB of hard drive space was used:
df -h Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on /dev/simfs 10G 409M 9.7G 4% / tmpfs 64M 0 64M 0% /lib/init/rw tmpfs 64M 0 64M 0% /dev/shm
And the inodes are set to pretty reasonable values:
df -i Filesystem Inodes IUsed IFree IUse% Mounted on /dev/simfs 5242880 26102 5216778 1% / tmpfs 16384 4 16380 1% /lib/init/rw tmpfs 16384 1 16383 1% /dev/shm
When the LNMP stack is installed, only about 29MB of RAM was used, which was pretty surprising.
free -m
total used free shared buffers cached
Mem: 128 127 0 0 0 98
-/+ buffers/cache: 29 98
Swap: 128 25 102
Normally such a full stack will use about 70MB of RAM, therefore I was not too sure why the RAM consumption is so little in this case, although the swap was used quite heavily (the power of VSWAP?), however when I looked at the top output, I saw indeed the full LNMP stack was running:
top - 08:53:08 up 45 min, 1 user, load average: 0.28, 0.76, 0.66
Tasks: 27 total, 1 running, 26 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie
Cpu(s): 0.0%us, 0.0%sy, 0.0%ni,100.0%id, 0.0%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.0%si, 0.0%st
Mem: 131072k total, 129824k used, 1248k free, 0k buffers
Swap: 131072k total, 26316k used, 104756k free, 100848k cached
PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND
3018 www 20 0 15000 9408 436 S 0 7.2 0:00.01 nginx
3009 root 20 0 22616 1452 1404 S 0 1.1 0:00.01 php-cgi
3041 root 20 0 2328 1100 900 R 0 0.8 0:00.00 top
9314 root 20 0 2676 1004 1004 S 0 0.8 0:00.00 mysqld_safe
3010 www 20 0 22616 1000 1000 S 0 0.8 0:00.00 php-cgi
3011 www 20 0 22616 1000 1000 S 0 0.8 0:00.00 php-cgi
3012 www 20 0 22616 1000 1000 S 0 0.8 0:00.00 php-cgi
3013 www 20 0 22616 1000 1000 S 0 0.8 0:00.00 php-cgi
3014 www 20 0 22616 1000 1000 S 0 0.8 0:00.00 php-cgi
636 root 20 0 2960 752 604 S 0 0.6 0:00.02 bash
6870 root 20 0 9804 716 616 S 0 0.5 0:00.02 nmbd
6874 root 20 0 17196 472 472 S 0 0.4 0:00.00 smbd
1 root 20 0 2028 468 452 S 0 0.4 0:00.00 init
579 root 20 0 9992 400 264 S 0 0.3 0:00.05 sendmail-mta
6842 root 20 0 2392 384 384 S 0 0.3 0:00.00 xinetd
2634 bind 20 0 52080 376 376 S 0 0.3 0:00.02 named
612 root 20 0 8692 360 268 S 0 0.3 0:01.59 sshd
And the htop output just to confirm this once again:
At least the hard drive space used in this case was pretty “normal” at about 1.7GB:
df -h Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on /dev/simfs 10G 1.7G 8.4G 17% / tmpfs 64M 0 64M 0% /lib/init/rw tmpfs 64M 0 64M 0% /dev/shm
And the Inodes are, as before, set to pretty good values:
df -i Filesystem Inodes IUsed IFree IUse% Mounted on /dev/simfs 5242880 68874 5174006 2% / tmpfs 16384 4 16380 1% /lib/init/rw tmpfs 16384 1 16383 1% /dev/shm
Uptime shows the VPS is mostly idle:
uptime 13:18:07 up 5:10, 1 user, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.06
And this was again confirmed by the output of vmstat:
vmstat procs -----------memory---------- ---swap-- -----io---- -system-- ----cpu---- r b swpd free buff cache si so bi bo in cs us sy id wa 0 0 35604 1572 0 93780 16 21 1 155 0 367 11 16 71 2
I am not sure how the beancounters in the VSWAP kind of set up should be interpreted at, but as far as I can see, the barrier limit values are set to very high values:
cat /proc/user_beancounters
Version: 2.5
uid resource held maxheld barrier limit failcnt
2495: kmemsize 34308113 42209280 67108864 67108864 0
lockedpages 0 0 16384 16384 0
privvmpages 28754 85464 9223372036854775807 9223372036854775807 0
shmpages 642 978 9223372036854775807 9223372036854775807 0
dummy 0 0 0 0 0
numproc 32 108 9223372036854775807 9223372036854775807 0
physpages 31821 32768 0 32768 0
vmguarpages 0 0 9223372036854775807 9223372036854775807 0
oomguarpages 7872 19631 9223372036854775807 9223372036854775807 0
numtcpsock 15 17 9223372036854775807 9223372036854775807 0
numflock 16 23 9223372036854775807 9223372036854775807 0
numpty 1 2 9223372036854775807 9223372036854775807 0
numsiginfo 0 27 9223372036854775807 9223372036854775807 0
tcpsndbuf 348200 532104 9223372036854775807 9223372036854775807 0
tcprcvbuf 245760 10030656 9223372036854775807 9223372036854775807 0
othersockbuf 41616 59040 9223372036854775807 9223372036854775807 0
dgramrcvbuf 0 25760 9223372036854775807 9223372036854775807 0
numothersock 55 59 9223372036854775807 9223372036854775807 0
dcachesize 30831009 33554430 33554432 33554432 0
numfile 526 855 9223372036854775807 9223372036854775807 0
dummy 0 0 0 0 0
dummy 0 0 0 0 0
dummy 0 0 0 0 0
numiptent 24 24 9223372036854775807 9223372036854775807 0
As a result, programs that depends on beancounters, such as vzfree, shows some really interesting values:
vzfree
Total Used Free
Kernel: 64.00M 32.72M 31.28M
Allocate: 36028797018963968.00M 112.32M 36028797018963856.00M (36028797018963967M Guaranteed)
Commit: 36028797018963968.00M 63.47M 36028797018963904.00M (27.4% of Allocated)
Swap: -93.54M (-304.2% of Committed)
There are two CPU cores assigned to the VPS:
cat /proc/cpuinfo processor : 0 vendor_id : GenuineIntel cpu family : 6 model : 23 model name : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU X5460 @ 3.16GHz stepping : 10 cpu MHz : 3165.679 cache size : 6144 KB physical id : 0 siblings : 4 core id : 0 cpu cores : 4 apicid : 0 initial apicid : 0 fpu : yes fpu_exception : yes cpuid level : 13 wp : yes flags : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36 clflush dts acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss ht tm pbe syscall lm constant_tsc arch_perfmon pebs bts rep_good aperfmperf pni dtes64 monitor ds_cpl vmx est tm2 ssse3 cx16 xtpr pdcm dca sse4_1 xsave lahf_lm tpr_shadow vnmi flexpriority bogomips : 6331.35 clflush size : 64 cache_alignment : 64 address sizes : 38 bits physical, 48 bits virtual power management: processor : 1 vendor_id : GenuineIntel cpu family : 6 model : 23 model name : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU X5460 @ 3.16GHz stepping : 10 cpu MHz : 3165.679 cache size : 6144 KB physical id : 1 siblings : 4 core id : 0 cpu cores : 4 apicid : 4 initial apicid : 4 fpu : yes fpu_exception : yes cpuid level : 13 wp : yes flags : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36 clflush dts acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss ht tm pbe syscall lm constant_tsc arch_perfmon pebs bts rep_good aperfmperf pni dtes64 monitor ds_cpl vmx est tm2 ssse3 cx16 xtpr pdcm dca sse4_1 xsave lahf_lm tpr_shadow vnmi flexpriority bogomips : 6332.46 clflush size : 64 cache_alignment : 64 address sizes : 38 bits physical, 48 bits virtual power management:
It is good to see that the CPU is not throttled, and with 2 CPU cores are pretty standard for a 128MB VPS.
And the meminfo does not produce anything too interesting either:
cat /proc/meminfo MemTotal: 131072 kB MemFree: 968 kB Cached: 94256 kB Active: 8824 kB Inactive: 86220 kB Active(anon): 384 kB Inactive(anon): 404 kB Active(file): 8440 kB Inactive(file): 85816 kB Unevictable: 0 kB Mlocked: 0 kB SwapTotal: 131072 kB SwapFree: 95468 kB Dirty: 0 kB AnonPages: 788 kB Shmem: 2568 kB Slab: 34220 kB SReclaimable: 30820 kB SUnreclaim: 3400 kB
And time sync:
time sync real 0m0.063s user 0m0.001s sys 0m0.059s
In terms of the disk I/O, the speed is actually quite unstable, this is output from the first time I was running dd:
dd if=/dev/zero of=test bs=64k count=16k conv=fdatasync 16384+0 records in 16384+0 records out 1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB) copied, 51.0844 s, 21.0 MB/s
However, after a few minutes, I re-ran the dd test and the results were so impressive that I almost blew my jaw off:
dd if=/dev/zero of=test bs=64k count=16k conv=fdatasync 16384+0 records in 16384+0 records out 1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB) copied, 10.941 s, 98.1 MB/s
But the good time did not last too long, and the third time while I was running the test, dd output was absolutely pathetic:
dd if=/dev/zero of=test bs=64k count=16k conv=fdatasync 16384+0 records in 16384+0 records out 1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB) copied, 135.784 s, 7.9 MB/s
I did the ioping tests three times as well due to the unstable disk I/O, and it seems I/O ping is actually a lot better than the output of dd:
ioping -c 10 . 4096 bytes from . (simfs /vz/private/2495): request=1 time=0.2 ms 4096 bytes from . (simfs /vz/private/2495): request=2 time=0.1 ms 4096 bytes from . (simfs /vz/private/2495): request=3 time=0.1 ms 4096 bytes from . (simfs /vz/private/2495): request=4 time=0.2 ms 4096 bytes from . (simfs /vz/private/2495): request=5 time=0.2 ms 4096 bytes from . (simfs /vz/private/2495): request=6 time=0.1 ms 4096 bytes from . (simfs /vz/private/2495): request=7 time=0.2 ms 4096 bytes from . (simfs /vz/private/2495): request=8 time=0.1 ms 4096 bytes from . (simfs /vz/private/2495): request=9 time=0.2 ms 4096 bytes from . (simfs /vz/private/2495): request=10 time=0.2 ms --- . (simfs /vz/private/2495) ioping statistics --- 10 requests completed in 9002.9 ms, 6219 iops, 24.3 mb/s min/avg/max/mdev = 0.1/0.2/0.2/0.0 ms
As you can see, the ioping is at least pretty stable.
ioping -c 10 . 4096 bytes from . (simfs /vz/private/2495): request=1 time=0.1 ms 4096 bytes from . (simfs /vz/private/2495): request=2 time=0.2 ms 4096 bytes from . (simfs /vz/private/2495): request=3 time=0.2 ms 4096 bytes from . (simfs /vz/private/2495): request=4 time=0.2 ms 4096 bytes from . (simfs /vz/private/2495): request=5 time=0.2 ms 4096 bytes from . (simfs /vz/private/2495): request=6 time=0.2 ms 4096 bytes from . (simfs /vz/private/2495): request=7 time=0.2 ms 4096 bytes from . (simfs /vz/private/2495): request=8 time=0.2 ms 4096 bytes from . (simfs /vz/private/2495): request=9 time=0.7 ms 4096 bytes from . (simfs /vz/private/2495): request=10 time=0.1 ms --- . (simfs /vz/private/2495) ioping statistics --- 10 requests completed in 9003.3 ms, 4938 iops, 19.3 mb/s min/avg/max/mdev = 0.1/0.2/0.7/0.2 ms
And finally, the last trial, when the worst dd output was produced:
ioping -c 10 . 4096 bytes from . (simfs /vz/private/2495): request=1 time=0.1 ms 4096 bytes from . (simfs /vz/private/2495): request=2 time=0.2 ms 4096 bytes from . (simfs /vz/private/2495): request=3 time=0.2 ms 4096 bytes from . (simfs /vz/private/2495): request=4 time=0.1 ms 4096 bytes from . (simfs /vz/private/2495): request=5 time=0.2 ms 4096 bytes from . (simfs /vz/private/2495): request=6 time=0.1 ms 4096 bytes from . (simfs /vz/private/2495): request=7 time=0.1 ms 4096 bytes from . (simfs /vz/private/2495): request=8 time=0.2 ms 4096 bytes from . (simfs /vz/private/2495): request=9 time=0.1 ms 4096 bytes from . (simfs /vz/private/2495): request=10 time=0.1 ms --- . (simfs /vz/private/2495) ioping statistics --- 10 requests completed in 9002.6 ms, 7163 iops, 28.0 mb/s min/avg/max/mdev = 0.1/0.1/0.2/0.0 ms
As you can see, even when the dd output is showing pretty bad results, ioping remains to be somewhat consistent, which is definitely something good.
Compare to the disk I/O tests, I was more impressed with the results of the network tests, I was able to get 13MB/s on the download tests from Cachefly:
wget http://cachefly.cachefly.net/100mb.test -O /dev/null --2012-02-22 08:59:05-- 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: `/dev/null' 100%[=======================================================================================================================================>] 104,857,600 13.0M/s in 7.7s 2012-02-22 08:59:13 (13.0 MB/s) - `/dev/null' saved [104857600/104857600]
And trying after 6 minutes showed exactly the same results:
wget http://cachefly.cachefly.net/100mb.test -O /dev/null --2012-02-22 09:05:19-- 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: `/dev/null' 100%[======================================>] 104,857,600 12.9M/s in 7.7s 2012-02-22 09:05:27 (13.0 MB/s) - `/dev/null' saved [104857600/104857600]
On a 100Mbit line, this is definitely something impressive.
The upload tests, on the other hand, did not go as well as the download test, first was from a VPS in BuffaloVPS in Chicago, IL:
wget 64.250.127.224/100mb.test -O /dev/null --2012-02-21 23:59:36-- http://64.250.127.224/100mb.test Connecting to 64.250.127.224:80... connected. HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK Length: 104857600 (100M) [application/octet-stream] Saving to: `/dev/null' 100%[======================================>] 104,857,600 1.95M/s in 37s 2012-02-22 00:00:14 (2.68 MB/s) - `/dev/null' saved [104857600/104857600]
On a side note, since there are quite a few people complaining that the upload tests may not be accurate since I was using some providers that are known to have connection issues, I have decided to get a VPS with Quickweb on their Chicago location on the East Coast and together with the Quickweb test VPS that I have in LA for the West Coast, and XenVZ I have in UK, should provide some reliable and consistent test results to accurately determine the upload speed for the server. And no worries, I am not going to ask my dear readers to pay for getting an “expensive” Quickweb server (“expensive” in my own budget).
Next is a BuyVM VPS in San Jose, CA:
wget 64.250.127.224/100mb.test -O /dev/null --2012-02-22 00:12:37-- http://64.250.127.224/100mb.test Connecting to 64.250.127.224:80... connected. HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK Length: 104857600 (100M) [application/octet-stream] Saving to: `/dev/null' 100%[======================================>] 104,857,600 6.89M/s in 15s 2012-02-22 00:12:52 (6.63 MB/s) - `/dev/null' saved [104857600/104857600]
And finally, from a XenVZ VPS in Maidenhead, UK:
wget 64.250.127.224/100mb.test -O /dev/null --2012-02-22 13:12:56-- http://64.250.127.224/100mb.test Connecting to 64.250.127.224:80... connected. HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK Length: 104857600 (100M) [application/octet-stream] Saving to: `/dev/null' 100%[======================================>] 104,857,600 667K/s in 3m 7s 2012-02-22 13:16:03 (547 KB/s) - `/dev/null' saved [104857600/104857600]
As you can see, the VPS offers the best connection along the west coast while the connection to the east coast and Europe is less optimal.
Final part, as you have always expected, is the benchmark testing. For a VPS with 2 cores of CPU, I have to confess that I did not expect a lot from the Unixbench score, possibly even in the three digit range. Therefore, I was a little surprised when the score came out well above what I expected:
# # # # # # # ##### ###### # # #### # #
# # ## # # # # # # # ## # # # # #
# # # # # # ## ##### ##### # # # # ######
# # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # #
# # # ## # # # # # # # ## # # # #
#### # # # # # ##### ###### # # #### # #
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
2 x Dhrystone 2 using register variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
2 x Double-Precision Whetstone 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
2 x Execl Throughput 1 2 3
2 x File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks 1 2 3
2 x File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks 1 2 3
2 x File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks 1 2 3
2 x Pipe Throughput 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
2 x Pipe-based Context Switching 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
2 x Process Creation 1 2 3
2 x System Call Overhead 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
2 x Shell Scripts (1 concurrent) 1 2 3
2 x Shell Scripts (8 concurrent) 1 2 3
========================================================================
BYTE UNIX Benchmarks (Version 5.1.3)
System: *******: GNU/Linux
OS: GNU/Linux -- 2.6.32-042stab044.17 -- #1 SMP Fri Jan 13 12:53:58 MSK 2012
Machine: i686 (unknown)
Language: en_US.utf8 (charmap="ANSI_X3.4-1968", collate="ANSI_X3.4-1968")
CPU 0: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU X5460 @ 3.16GHz (6331.4 bogomips)
Hyper-Threading, x86-64, MMX, Physical Address Ext, SYSCALL/SYSRET, Intel virtualization
CPU 1: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU X5460 @ 3.16GHz (6332.5 bogomips)
Hyper-Threading, x86-64, MMX, Physical Address Ext, SYSCALL/SYSRET, Intel virtualization
09:11:48 up 1:03, 1 user, load average: 0.10, 0.07, 0.21; runlevel 2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benchmark Run: Wed Feb 22 2012 09:11:48 - 09:44:48
2 CPUs in system; running 1 parallel copy of tests
Dhrystone 2 using register variables 15857431.2 lps (10.0 s, 7 samples)
Double-Precision Whetstone 3229.9 MWIPS (10.0 s, 7 samples)
Execl Throughput 2389.2 lps (29.9 s, 2 samples)
File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks 542028.6 KBps (30.0 s, 2 samples)
File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks 162080.5 KBps (30.0 s, 2 samples)
File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks 835725.0 KBps (30.0 s, 2 samples)
Pipe Throughput 1003934.0 lps (10.0 s, 7 samples)
Pipe-based Context Switching 92400.8 lps (10.0 s, 7 samples)
Process Creation 4641.6 lps (30.0 s, 2 samples)
Shell Scripts (1 concurrent) 3831.6 lpm (60.0 s, 2 samples)
Shell Scripts (8 concurrent) 894.6 lpm (60.0 s, 2 samples)
System Call Overhead 785078.3 lps (10.0 s, 7 samples)
System Benchmarks Index Values BASELINE RESULT INDEX
Dhrystone 2 using register variables 116700.0 15857431.2 1358.8
Double-Precision Whetstone 55.0 3229.9 587.3
Execl Throughput 43.0 2389.2 555.6
File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks 3960.0 542028.6 1368.8
File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks 1655.0 162080.5 979.3
File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks 5800.0 835725.0 1440.9
Pipe Throughput 12440.0 1003934.0 807.0
Pipe-based Context Switching 4000.0 92400.8 231.0
Process Creation 126.0 4641.6 368.4
Shell Scripts (1 concurrent) 42.4 3831.6 903.7
Shell Scripts (8 concurrent) 6.0 894.6 1491.1
System Call Overhead 15000.0 785078.3 523.4
========
System Benchmarks Index Score 767.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benchmark Run: Wed Feb 22 2012 09:44:48 - 10:13:33
2 CPUs in system; running 2 parallel copies of tests
Dhrystone 2 using register variables 30939970.5 lps (10.0 s, 7 samples)
Double-Precision Whetstone 5607.1 MWIPS (10.1 s, 7 samples)
Execl Throughput 4038.1 lps (29.5 s, 2 samples)
File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks 381408.7 KBps (30.0 s, 2 samples)
File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks 104188.6 KBps (30.0 s, 2 samples)
File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks 948825.7 KBps (30.0 s, 2 samples)
Pipe Throughput 1875826.0 lps (10.0 s, 7 samples)
Pipe-based Context Switching 396105.8 lps (10.0 s, 7 samples)
Process Creation 11060.4 lps (30.0 s, 2 samples)
Shell Scripts (1 concurrent) 5967.4 lpm (60.0 s, 2 samples)
Shell Scripts (8 concurrent) 1172.4 lpm (60.1 s, 2 samples)
System Call Overhead 1164024.3 lps (10.0 s, 7 samples)
System Benchmarks Index Values BASELINE RESULT INDEX
Dhrystone 2 using register variables 116700.0 30939970.5 2651.2
Double-Precision Whetstone 55.0 5607.1 1019.5
Execl Throughput 43.0 4038.1 939.1
File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks 3960.0 381408.7 963.2
File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks 1655.0 104188.6 629.5
File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks 5800.0 948825.7 1635.9
Pipe Throughput 12440.0 1875826.0 1507.9
Pipe-based Context Switching 4000.0 396105.8 990.3
Process Creation 126.0 11060.4 877.8
Shell Scripts (1 concurrent) 42.4 5967.4 1407.4
Shell Scripts (8 concurrent) 6.0 1172.4 1954.0
System Call Overhead 15000.0 1164024.3 776.0
========
System Benchmarks Index Score 1176.6
Testing again showed the results was pretty consistent:
# # # # # # # ##### ###### # # #### # #
# # ## # # # # # # # ## # # # # #
# # # # # # ## ##### ##### # # # # ######
# # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # #
# # # ## # # # # # # # ## # # # #
#### # # # # # ##### ###### # # #### # #
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
2 x Dhrystone 2 using register variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
2 x Double-Precision Whetstone 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
2 x Execl Throughput 1 2 3
2 x File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks 1 2 3
2 x File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks 1 2 3
2 x File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks 1 2 3
2 x Pipe Throughput 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
2 x Pipe-based Context Switching 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
2 x Process Creation 1 2 3
2 x System Call Overhead 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
2 x Shell Scripts (1 concurrent) 1 2 3
2 x Shell Scripts (8 concurrent) 1 2 3
========================================================================
BYTE UNIX Benchmarks (Version 5.1.3)
System: ********: GNU/Linux
OS: GNU/Linux -- 2.6.32-042stab044.17 -- #1 SMP Fri Jan 13 12:53:58 MSK 2012
Machine: i686 (unknown)
Language: en_US.utf8 (charmap="ANSI_X3.4-1968", collate="ANSI_X3.4-1968")
CPU 0: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU X5460 @ 3.16GHz (6331.4 bogomips)
Hyper-Threading, x86-64, MMX, Physical Address Ext, SYSCALL/SYSRET, Intel virtualization
CPU 1: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU X5460 @ 3.16GHz (6332.5 bogomips)
Hyper-Threading, x86-64, MMX, Physical Address Ext, SYSCALL/SYSRET, Intel virtualization
11:14:17 up 3:06, 1 user, load average: 0.26, 0.16, 0.10; runlevel 2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benchmark Run: Wed Feb 22 2012 11:14:17 - 11:47:19
2 CPUs in system; running 1 parallel copy of tests
Dhrystone 2 using register variables 15747444.2 lps (10.0 s, 7 samples)
Double-Precision Whetstone 2866.0 MWIPS (9.8 s, 7 samples)
Execl Throughput 2385.4 lps (29.9 s, 2 samples)
File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks 558510.2 KBps (30.0 s, 2 samples)
File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks 161764.3 KBps (30.0 s, 2 samples)
File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks 836071.4 KBps (30.0 s, 2 samples)
Pipe Throughput 1004220.0 lps (10.0 s, 7 samples)
Pipe-based Context Switching 92067.0 lps (10.0 s, 7 samples)
Process Creation 4594.1 lps (30.0 s, 2 samples)
Shell Scripts (1 concurrent) 3794.0 lpm (60.0 s, 2 samples)
Shell Scripts (8 concurrent) 890.2 lpm (60.1 s, 2 samples)
System Call Overhead 783473.1 lps (10.0 s, 7 samples)
System Benchmarks Index Values BASELINE RESULT INDEX
Dhrystone 2 using register variables 116700.0 15747444.2 1349.4
Double-Precision Whetstone 55.0 2866.0 521.1
Execl Throughput 43.0 2385.4 554.7
File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks 3960.0 558510.2 1410.4
File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks 1655.0 161764.3 977.4
File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks 5800.0 836071.4 1441.5
Pipe Throughput 12440.0 1004220.0 807.3
Pipe-based Context Switching 4000.0 92067.0 230.2
Process Creation 126.0 4594.1 364.6
Shell Scripts (1 concurrent) 42.4 3794.0 894.8
Shell Scripts (8 concurrent) 6.0 890.2 1483.7
System Call Overhead 15000.0 783473.1 522.3
========
System Benchmarks Index Score 758.8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benchmark Run: Wed Feb 22 2012 11:47:19 - 12:16:09
2 CPUs in system; running 2 parallel copies of tests
Dhrystone 2 using register variables 30187173.6 lps (10.0 s, 7 samples)
Double-Precision Whetstone 5642.4 MWIPS (8.9 s, 7 samples)
Execl Throughput 3919.5 lps (29.9 s, 2 samples)
File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks 382407.6 KBps (30.0 s, 2 samples)
File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks 102777.5 KBps (30.0 s, 2 samples)
File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks 972217.2 KBps (30.0 s, 2 samples)
Pipe Throughput 1921475.3 lps (10.0 s, 7 samples)
Pipe-based Context Switching 418195.9 lps (10.0 s, 7 samples)
Process Creation 10675.8 lps (30.0 s, 2 samples)
Shell Scripts (1 concurrent) 5767.2 lpm (60.0 s, 2 samples)
Shell Scripts (8 concurrent) 1136.9 lpm (60.0 s, 2 samples)
System Call Overhead 1118170.2 lps (10.0 s, 7 samples)
System Benchmarks Index Values BASELINE RESULT INDEX
Dhrystone 2 using register variables 116700.0 30187173.6 2586.7
Double-Precision Whetstone 55.0 5642.4 1025.9
Execl Throughput 43.0 3919.5 911.5
File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks 3960.0 382407.6 965.7
File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks 1655.0 102777.5 621.0
File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks 5800.0 972217.2 1676.2
Pipe Throughput 12440.0 1921475.3 1544.6
Pipe-based Context Switching 4000.0 418195.9 1045.5
Process Creation 126.0 10675.8 847.3
Shell Scripts (1 concurrent) 42.4 5767.2 1360.2
Shell Scripts (8 concurrent) 6.0 1136.9 1894.9
System Call Overhead 15000.0 1118170.2 745.4
========
System Benchmarks Index Score 1167.2
I think part of the reasons at least why the score is so high is because the CPU was not throttled, sometimes that actually makes a huge differences.
And of course, the GeekBench score:
System Information
Platform: Linux x86 (32-bit)
Compiler: GCC 4.1.2 20070925 (Red Hat 4.1.2-33)
Operating System: Linux 2.6.32-042stab044.17 i686
Model: Linux PC (Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU X5460 @ 3.16GHz)
Motherboard: Unknown Motherboard
Processor: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU X5460 @ 3.16GHz
Processor ID: GenuineIntel Family 6 Model 23 Stepping 10
Logical Processors: 2
Physical Processors: 2
Processor Frequency: 3.17 GHz
L1 Instruction Cache: 0.00 B
L1 Data Cache: 0.00 B
L2 Cache: 6.00 MB
L3 Cache: 0.00 B
Bus Frequency: 0.00 Hz
Memory: 128 MB
Memory Type: N/A
SIMD: 1
BIOS: N/A
Processor Model: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU X5460 @ 3.16GHz
Processor Cores: 2
Integer
Blowfish
single-threaded scalar 2223 ||||||||
multi-threaded scalar 3406 |||||||||||||
Text Compress
single-threaded scalar 2545 ||||||||||
multi-threaded scalar 4858 |||||||||||||||||||
Text Decompress
single-threaded scalar 2294 |||||||||
multi-threaded scalar 4631 ||||||||||||||||||
Image Compress
single-threaded scalar 2146 ||||||||
multi-threaded scalar 2686 ||||||||||
Image Decompress
single-threaded scalar 1200 ||||
multi-threaded scalar 2522 ||||||||||
Lua
single-threaded scalar 4217 ||||||||||||||||
multi-threaded scalar 8387 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Floating Point
Mandelbrot
single-threaded scalar 2363 |||||||||
multi-threaded scalar 3598 ||||||||||||||
Dot Product
single-threaded scalar 4307 |||||||||||||||||
multi-threaded scalar 6423 |||||||||||||||||||||||||
single-threaded vector 2597 ||||||||||
multi-threaded vector 7418 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LU Decomposition
single-threaded scalar 1660 ||||||
multi-threaded scalar 4230 ||||||||||||||||
Primality Test
single-threaded scalar 3684 ||||||||||||||
multi-threaded scalar 5899 |||||||||||||||||||||||
Sharpen Image
single-threaded scalar 5148 ||||||||||||||||||||
multi-threaded scalar 9738 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blur Image
single-threaded scalar 5592 ||||||||||||||||||||||
multi-threaded scalar 11196 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Memory
Read Sequential
single-threaded scalar 2279 |||||||||
Write Sequential
single-threaded scalar 3334 |||||||||||||
Stdlib Allocate
single-threaded scalar 2873 |||||||||||
Stdlib Write
single-threaded scalar 1335 |||||
Stdlib Copy
single-threaded scalar 217
Stream
Stream Copy
single-threaded scalar 1478 |||||
single-threaded vector 1732 ||||||
Stream Scale
single-threaded scalar 1889 |||||||
single-threaded vector 1494 |||||
Stream Add
single-threaded scalar 1831 |||||||
single-threaded vector 2137 ||||||||
Stream Triad
single-threaded scalar 2005 ||||||||
single-threaded vector 1533 ||||||
Integer Score: 3426 |||||||||||||
Floating Point Score: 5275 |||||||||||||||||||||
Memory Score: 2007 ||||||||
Stream Score: 1762 |||||||
Overall Geekbench Score: 3622 ||||||||||||||
And test again, which showed almost exactly the same score:
System Information
Platform: Linux x86 (32-bit)
Compiler: GCC 4.1.2 20070925 (Red Hat 4.1.2-33)
Operating System: Linux 2.6.32-042stab044.17 i686
Model: Linux PC (Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU X5460 @ 3.16GHz)
Motherboard: Unknown Motherboard
Processor: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU X5460 @ 3.16GHz
Processor ID: GenuineIntel Family 6 Model 23 Stepping 10
Logical Processors: 2
Physical Processors: 2
Processor Frequency: 3.17 GHz
L1 Instruction Cache: 0.00 B
L1 Data Cache: 0.00 B
L2 Cache: 6.00 MB
L3 Cache: 0.00 B
Bus Frequency: 0.00 Hz
Memory: 128 MB
Memory Type: N/A
SIMD: 1
BIOS: N/A
Processor Model: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU X5460 @ 3.16GHz
Processor Cores: 2
Integer
Blowfish
single-threaded scalar 2254 |||||||||
multi-threaded scalar 3050 ||||||||||||
Text Compress
single-threaded scalar 2536 ||||||||||
multi-threaded scalar 4935 |||||||||||||||||||
Text Decompress
single-threaded scalar 2296 |||||||||
multi-threaded scalar 4692 ||||||||||||||||||
Image Compress
single-threaded scalar 2171 ||||||||
multi-threaded scalar 4190 ||||||||||||||||
Image Decompress
single-threaded scalar 1212 ||||
multi-threaded scalar 2458 |||||||||
Lua
single-threaded scalar 4260 |||||||||||||||||
multi-threaded scalar 7015 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Floating Point
Mandelbrot
single-threaded scalar 2362 |||||||||
multi-threaded scalar 4795 |||||||||||||||||||
Dot Product
single-threaded scalar 4312 |||||||||||||||||
multi-threaded scalar 5843 |||||||||||||||||||||||
single-threaded vector 3255 |||||||||||||
multi-threaded vector 4705 ||||||||||||||||||
LU Decomposition
single-threaded scalar 2510 ||||||||||
multi-threaded scalar 5032 ||||||||||||||||||||
Primality Test
single-threaded scalar 3703 ||||||||||||||
multi-threaded scalar 5872 |||||||||||||||||||||||
Sharpen Image
single-threaded scalar 7723 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
multi-threaded scalar 9763 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blur Image
single-threaded scalar 5581 ||||||||||||||||||||||
multi-threaded scalar 7371 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Memory
Read Sequential
single-threaded scalar 2501 ||||||||||
Write Sequential
single-threaded scalar 3396 |||||||||||||
Stdlib Allocate
single-threaded scalar 2801 |||||||||||
Stdlib Write
single-threaded scalar 1280 |||||
Stdlib Copy
single-threaded scalar 1649 ||||||
Stream
Stream Copy
single-threaded scalar 1651 ||||||
single-threaded vector 1876 |||||||
Stream Scale
single-threaded scalar 1753 |||||||
single-threaded vector 1775 |||||||
Stream Add
single-threaded scalar 1730 ||||||
single-threaded vector 1977 |||||||
Stream Triad
single-threaded scalar 2027 ||||||||
single-threaded vector 1573 ||||||
Integer Score: 3422 |||||||||||||
Floating Point Score: 5201 ||||||||||||||||||||
Memory Score: 2325 |||||||||
Stream Score: 1795 |||||||
Overall Geekbench Score: 3662 ||||||||||||||
Customer Service and Support
As what I have mentioned before, the VPS set up process with VPS6.Net was definitely the most smooth ride I have had. At first I signed up for the Chicago location, but there was no space available, so I raised a ticket at 16:10 and was responded by 16:44 informing me there is no spot left. However, if you think this is really fast, my request to get them set me up at another location was responded in 2 minutes with the VPS set up email. In fact, the email was sent so fast that the VPS was actually not ready when the email was sent out and after realized that for some reason I could not boot up the VPS, I sent in another reply to ask them why the VPS was not online at 17:57 and was responded by 18:04, which is in 7 minutes!
The next morning, when I tried to boot up the VPS, I could not connect into it and no luck looking into SolusVM as well. So I replied to that ticket in order to know what happened to the VPS, and was told, in literally 1 minute, that they are having a DDoS attack and should be back online shortly.
Overall, I am impressed with the customer service, particularly the rate that they are replying tickets, during different hours of the day, is great. Furthermore, they have a quite comprehensive knowledgebase with many useful articles, which is a great alternative if you are looking for immediate help as well.
Conclusion
Although I was with VPS6 for just 24 hours, I was impressed by a few aspects of their services: the vast amount of OS templates and the fast response time of their customer services. Granted that they still have many obstacles to overcome, such as to get all the controls over WHMCS working, and more importantly, to offer more stable disk I/O speed and hence I would not use them as a production system just yet, however, I am confident that they will improve in the long run and hopefully become a successful company in the field.
I got a custom 2-core 1GB Xen server at VPS6′s Chicago datacenter about a month ago (I actually bought a 512MB OpenVZ server, but they upgraded me to 1GB because I used a coupon code; upgraded to Xen because their OpenVZ servers were out of stock). At first I was having problems with random reboots and really crappy disk I/O, but I reinstalled Debian 6, which fixed everything.
Here are some stats:
# dd if=/dev/zero of=test bs=64k count=16k conv=fdatasync
16384+0 records in
16384+0 records out
1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB) copied, 10.4952 s, 102 MB/s
10 minutes later:
# dd if=/dev/zero of=test bs=64k count=16k conv=fdatasync
16384+0 records in
16384+0 records out
1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB) copied, 7.63722 s, 141 MB/s
When signing up I was *really* frustrated because they only accepted a couple limited payment options, and the only payment portal that accepted credit cards didn’t work. After about five tries on different browsers and IPs, it finally went through. It’s nice to see they now offer more payment options so I don’t have to deal with that again.
Their customer support has been amazing, however. Even though I had a little rant during the payment problem, they apologized and tried to help. After I got my VPS working, they have been very quick to resolve any problem (I especially like their live chat).
So far I have had uptime of ~12 days (since I manually reinstalled my VPS). Right now I don’t expect VPS6 to have complete 100% reliability (there are still a few occasional slow-downs and problems due to things like DDOS attacks and server reconfiguration), but I hope it does eventually reach production-quality status a la Linode. I’ll report back in a month or two to follow-up on uptime.
In a sentence, VPS6 offers great specs at an amazing value and nice customer service, but should probably be only used for non-critical servers at the moment.
@Michael: Thanks so much for the detailed input and glad you like them
I got a nice fast server (VZ-512). Very nice support team as well, probably the best I have had since I was with HostGator. Looking forward on staying their customer many years to come.
@VH: Thanks for letting us know you are having a great time with them so far. I actually saw this comment on WHT today: http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?t=1160243, which actually lead me to this post: http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?t=1157582, I guess people have really extreme experience with VPS6.Net, either really happy or very not so. It would be really great if you could update us in a few months time to see how they are doing then!
I sure will! To follow my server status (sort of;) you can check out my Tor server status page on http://torstatus.all.de/router_detail.php?FP=5d16eb7a965d034ce86598edee9ba0cd00d37e57
The VPS is hosted in their Turkey datacenter.
The uptime listed there resets every time I update Tor but you see there hasn’t been any reboots since I ordered (a week ago).
@VH: Thanks a lot for sharing with us this information! They do allow Tor nodes? That’s great since many providers do not allow that.
Yes they do
I always open a ticket and ask before ordering 
The truth on VPS6 and Dan Fry
http://www.lowendtalk.com/discussion/1063/vps6.net/p1
http://www.lowendtalk.com/discussion/2383/vps6-and-donn-fry-dan-fry-dan-keen/p1
I have been unable to reach VPS6.net for a few days. Turns out they are under DDOS attack. My services haven’t been affected, though.
@VH: I think they are back now, but I am sure the admin guys are busy working on their tickets