arrow_upward

Pages (2):
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Host4Fun  VPS 1 Review
#1
Introduction
I'm not a VPS 1 Holder, however thought to check it out and provide our members with a brief overview of the VPS.  In summary it is not a bad VPS at all.  Particulatly when one compares it with VPS 9 that I'm used to. From the moment I started to work with VPS 1 in its Virtualizor Panel, I realized that Host4Fun is keeping the panel up to date - the templates were up to date.  What is attractive about this VPS is of course the User Panel that the VPS Holder gets so one can reinstall the OS if one needs to do that.  One can also boot and reboot the VPS, check out disk and bandwidth use but not much more than that.  VPS 1 also comes with VNC access.  Location of the VPS is France.

VPS Sponsor
Post4vps is indebted to Host4Fun for the very long duration it has supported us.  It has been providing us with six VPSs with very generous specs and a great Admin Panel. Host4Fun offers cheap and budget web hosting and VPS services from 25+ Global Locations and 36+ Datacenters.

VPS 1 Plan Specifications
vCPU: 1
Disk Space: 100 GB
RAM: 1 GB RAM
IP Addresses: 1x IPv4
Virtualization: KVM
Monthly Traffic: 1 TB
Location:  Roubaix, France
Control Panel: Virtualizor
Connection: 1 GBit/s
Games servers: Allowed
Provided by: Host4Fun
Terms: TOS
Requirements: Backlinks to Host4Fun and Post4VPS are required when a Website is hosted. And a sig backlink

Network, Performance & Reliability
From feedback from previous VPS holders, performance and reliability of VPS 1 is very good.  We very rarely have needed to submit any tickets except in the case of using VPS 1 as a Games Server.  Although Host4Fun says it's OK to use VPS 1 for a Games Server, members have experienced repetitive Firewall issues that couldn't be solved by the sponsor.  So regrettably we have had to advise our members not to use VPS 1 as a Games Server.

One of our members also tried VPS 1 for Teamspeak.  And that was not entirely successful either.  So maybe the way Firewall works with Host4Fun it's not an ideal VPS for scripts that require Firewall to be set up to deal with it.

For regular use however, this VPS is great.  I loaded some WordPress sites on it.  And speed is completely acceptable.  Fast by normal standards, just a little less fast than VPS 9.  So I can recommend it for regular use.

System Information
The System Information below was generated by the the Benchmark Test script:

wget --no-check-certificate https://raw.githubusercontent.com/sohamb03/bench-sh/master/bench.sh && bash bench.sh && rm -rf bench.sh

Processor       : Intel® Core™ i7-7700K CPU @ 4.20GHz
CPU Cores       : 1 @ 4199.996 MHz
Memory          : 991 MiB
Swap            : 0 MiB
Uptime          : 21:47,

OS              : CentOS Linux 7 (Core)
Arch            : x86_64 (64 Bit)
Kernel          : 3.10.0-957.1.3.el7.x86_64
Hostname        : ******

Here are the speedtest results generated by the Benchmark Test:

Speedtest (IPv4 only)
---------------------
Your public IPv4 is 164.***.**.220

Location                Provider        Speed
--------                --------        -----
CDN                     Cachefly        9.22MB/s

Atlanta, GA, US         @sohamb03       14.8MB/s
Dallas, TX, US          Softlayer       2.48MB/s
San Jose, CA, US        Softlayer       2.09MB/s
Washington, DC, US      Leaseweb        3.51MB/s

Sao Paulo, Brazil       Softlayer       1.86MB/s

Singapore               Softlayer       1.66MB/s
Taiwan                  Hinet           4.30MB/s
Tokyo, Japan            Linode          2.10MB/s

Nuremberg, Germany      Hetzner         6.40MB/s
Rotterdam, Netherlands  id3.net         12.9MB/s
Haarlem, Netherlands    Leaseweb        10.7MB/s
Milan, Italy            Softlayer       8.81MB/s

Sydney, AU              Future Hosting  233KB/s


Buffered Sequential Write Speed
-------------------------------
I/O (1st run)   : 326 MB/s
I/O (2nd run)   : 380 MB/s
I/O (3rd run)   : 391 MB/s
Average I/O     : 365.667 MB/s

Here is a speed test that was taken yesterday:

[Image: mgzozTz.png]


Conclusion
As previously mentioned VPS 1 is a very good VPS.  Specs are great for regular straight up and down Websites or blogs.  However, as soon as it gets more involved where the Firewall ports need to be opened up, there may be issues.  So the VPS is not recommended for use as a Games Server or for Teamspeak or similar projects.

Note of Appreciation to Sponsor
We wish to extend a special note of appreciation to Host4Fun for providing our membership with years of continued sponsorship of VPS 1.
Terminal
Thank you to Post4VPS and VirMach for my awesome VPS 9!  
#2
Seems the average port speed is around 100Mbit/s and the disk speed and space is good.And when I was choosing the plans I almost choose this one however Racknerd do offer a test ip and you know things are different in China.

Anyway thanks for the review for a better image of vps1 for members before selecting.
VPS 3 Provided by Post4vps and Racknerd .
#3
(05-06-2021, 11:31 PM)mzltest Wrote: ... and you know things are different in China.

I would love it if you dedicated a thread where you would explain in what ways things would seem different in China.

An inside look is always great to read. Thanks!
VirMach's Buffalo_VPS-9 Holder (Dec. 20 - July 21)
microLXC's Container Holder (july 20 - ?)
VirMach's Phoenix_VPS-9 Holder (Apr. 20 - June 20)
NanoKVM's NAT-VPS Holder (jan. 20 - ?)
#4
Nice review again assuring the performance of VPS 1. In my early review I had expressed the same results. The client will be very much satisfied with this performance. It has very less downtime too. While selecting a VPS I always consider an overall performance. This VPS 1 is a top one considering the overall performance in comparison with other boxes.
The storage is HDD if someone wondering whether this 100 GB is SSD or HDD.


Thank you  Sweet



#5
(05-07-2021, 05:33 AM)Littlemaster Wrote: The storage is HDD if someone wondering whether this 100 GB is SSD or HDD.

How did you come to that conclusion?

There isn't much data in this review nor in your own (https://post4vps.com/Thread-Host4Fun-Rev...y-Host4Fun) to confidently make such a statement.

This assertion in your old VPS1 review thread is false:
(03-29-2020, 05:55 PM)Littlemaster Wrote: It is HDD.
Terminal
lsblk -d -o name,rota
NAME ROTA
sda     1

Why?.. Because the /dev/sda device is a virtual disk and, by the look of it, I would guess it has a virtio_scsi controller, which -together with its friend virtio_blk- will always use the rotational mode, whatever storage device was actually used inside the VPS host.

See this 2009 discussion where the problem first cropped up:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=509383

Second, even if you run that command inside the host and the host is using a HW RAID setup, you'll still get ROTA=1 even if the RAID is based on SSD devices. Because in that case the disk is a construct(/an array) and it uses the RAID controller.

Conclusion:
The best way to know the storage nature is to ask the service provider as it's hard to tell the difference between an SSD-based storage and a HW-RAID-HDD based storage, from a VM stand-point.
[I tried it many times but the results aren't always clear-cut!]

The only thing that can make me lean towards it being an HDD-based storage is its capacity (100 GB), but that's just speculation based on the cost..
VirMach's Buffalo_VPS-9 Holder (Dec. 20 - July 21)
microLXC's Container Holder (july 20 - ?)
VirMach's Phoenix_VPS-9 Holder (Apr. 20 - June 20)
NanoKVM's NAT-VPS Holder (jan. 20 - ?)
#6
(05-08-2021, 04:06 AM)fChk Wrote: How did you come to that conclusion?

There isn't much data in this review nor in your own (https://post4vps.com/Thread-Host4Fun-Rev...y-Host4Fun) to confidently make such a statement.

This assertion in your old VPS1 review thread is false:

Why?.. Because the /dev/sda device is a virtual disk and, by the look of it, I would guess it has a virtio_scsi controller, which -together with its friend virtio_blk- will always use the rotational mode, whatever storage device was actually used inside the VPS host.

See this 2009 discussion where the problem first cropped up:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=509383

Second, even if you run that command inside the host and the host is using a HW RAID setup, you'll still get ROTA=1 even if the RAID is based on SSD devices. Because in that case the disk is a construct(/an array) and it uses the RAID controller.

Conclusion:
The best way to know the storage nature is to ask the service provider as it's hard to tell the difference between an SSD-based storage and a HW-RAID-HDD based storage, from a VM stand-point.
[I tried it many times but the results aren't always clear-cut!]

The only thing that can make me lean towards it being an HDD-based storage is its capacity (100 GCool, but that's just speculation based on the cost..
https://ostechnix.com/how-to-find-if-the...-in-linux/
I have run cat /sys/block/vda/queue/rotational
Let me know if you find the command behavior is wrong.
We can't assume to a conclusion by cost or by asking the service provider. There is always a chance for wrong information.


Thank you  Sweet



#7
(05-08-2021, 05:41 AM)Littlemaster Wrote: I have run cat /sys/block/vda/queue/rotational
I did anticipate this response -because I did check your VPS1 review; you should re-read my previous response carefully.

(05-08-2021, 05:41 AM)Littlemaster Wrote: Let me know if you find the command behavior is wrong.
As I said in the previous post, although the virtual disk is registered as rotational it doesn't mean that the underlying Host storage is HDD-based.

Again, please, re-read the previous post.

What you can do from your side -given that you have VPS 1- is to run the command below to see what storage controller you're using:
lsmod | grep virt

As I said in the previous post, I'm expecting it to throw virtio_scsi as the in-kernel storage driver.
VirMach's Buffalo_VPS-9 Holder (Dec. 20 - July 21)
microLXC's Container Holder (july 20 - ?)
VirMach's Phoenix_VPS-9 Holder (Apr. 20 - June 20)
NanoKVM's NAT-VPS Holder (jan. 20 - ?)
#8
(05-08-2021, 09:45 PM)fChk Wrote: I did anticipate this response -because I did check your VPS1 review; you should re-read my previous response carefully.

As I said in the previous post, although the virtual disk is registered as rotational it doesn't mean that the underlying Host storage is HDD-based.

Again, please, re-read the previous post.

What you can do from your side -given that you have VPS 1- is to run the command below to see what storage controller you're using:
lsmod | grep virt

As I said in the previous post, I'm expecting it to throw virtio_scsi as the in-kernel storage driver.
For your query here is the answer
virtio_balloon         18015  0
virtio_pci             22985  0
virtio_ring            22991  2 virtio_pci,virtio_balloon
virtio                 14959  2 virtio_pci,virtio_balloon

As I said in the previous post you can add the following as a reference for my query, I had not made a false statement without some reference. Just see the most upvoted answer in the following.
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/9081...e-is-a-ssd

Also I don't update the previous review now as it is older than this review. Sometimes things may have been changed. So expect responses about my comments here. Consider this review as the recent VPS 1 review.


Thank you  Sweet



#9
(05-09-2021, 12:28 AM)Littlemaster Wrote: As I said in the previous post you can add the following as a reference for my query, I had not made a false statement without some reference. Just see the most upvoted answer in the following.
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/9081...e-is-a-ssd
Understood!.. Just be aware that not all the 'good' answers apply necessarily to the situation you're interested in.

Searching for the right answers online requires that one be fully aware of the specific situation that he is in and that needs to be addressed. In this specific case what you want is the right answer in the context of KVM guests--which in their 95% all use VirtIO for I/O virtualization.

(05-09-2021, 12:28 AM)Littlemaster Wrote: Also I don't update the previous review now as it is older than this review. Sometimes things may have been changed. So expect responses about my comments here. Consider this review as the recent VPS 1 review.

Good, then can you submit the output of these commands:
lsblk  --output "NAME,KNAME,MODEL,HCTL,SIZE,VENDOR,SUBSYSTEMS"
#
lshw -class storage -class disk

This output still makes things ambiguous:
(05-09-2021, 12:28 AM)Littlemaster Wrote: For your query here is the answer
virtio_balloon         18015  0
virtio_pci             22985  0
virtio_ring            22991  2 virtio_pci,virtio_balloon
virtio                 14959  2 virtio_pci,virtio_balloon
VirMach's Buffalo_VPS-9 Holder (Dec. 20 - July 21)
microLXC's Container Holder (july 20 - ?)
VirMach's Phoenix_VPS-9 Holder (Apr. 20 - June 20)
NanoKVM's NAT-VPS Holder (jan. 20 - ?)
#10
This server has no problem and the only problem is the cpu limit that used to cause the software to hang. I ask you to remove this restriction for trusted friends
Thanks Post4VPS
Pages (2):


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread
Author
Replies
Views
Last Post
970
07-18-2021, 08:47 AM
Last Post: fChk
 Evolution Host  VPS 10 Review
1,427
05-31-2021, 07:06 PM
Last Post: Decent12
 Evolution Host  VPS 10 Review
611
05-31-2021, 07:02 PM
Last Post: Decent12
1,427
04-30-2021, 10:02 AM
Last Post: Sn1F3rt
3,079
04-28-2021, 10:44 AM
Last Post: sAmI

person_pin_circle Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)
Sponsors: VirMach - Host4Fun - CubeData - Evolution-Host - HostDare - Hyper Expert - Shadow Hosting - Bladenode - Hostlease - RackNerd - ReadyDedis - Limitless Hosting