[ikk157]

@fChk was the one closest to the truth.  This must have been entirely a phenomenon of how the host had configured the VPSs and Seattle (which you have) and Chicago VPS 9 were more carefully configured - the Seattle and Chicago Nodes were of the first to be upgraded to KVM.  Specifically Seattle performance in overall was improved from before if you check a Review of the VPS 9 (Seattle) a year or so before the upgrade to KVM.  The VPS Holder then thought that the VPS had performed sluggishly.  Your experience after the upgrade seems to be much more positive.

VPS 9 owners of the other VPSs had countless issues after the KVM upgrade with for example Selinux that had to be turned off when the OS was used.  I'd put my money on that the configuration of the other VPSs during their upgrade to KVM, Node by Node, was not as carefully managed and possibly not even by the same quality and experienced Admin. For example a universal template was used. The networking was not as efficient because of shortage of time and possibly they needed to take short cuts in the configuration to automate it.  The networking had lots of issues.  Doesn't mean the end product was bad, but compared with VPS 9 Seattle (which you have) and Chicago, the others were not as perfectly configured.  You can check the discussion here that is an indication of the many issues that happened with the upgrades to KVM of the other VPS 9s - in the words of Virmach:

https://post4vps.com/Thread-VPS-9-Schedu...0#pid31990

That actually explains why the upgrades might’ve failed. I thought the only issues that arose from the not so careful upgrades with the other VPS 9s was the issue with Selinux, which was the issue most talked about here.

I was not aware that other issues arose, such as the failed upgrades, due to the OVZ to KVM upgrade not being done as well on the other VPS 9s. Quite sad that the issues just keep on coming. I am so grateful to have one of the two “good” VPS 9s. Like wow that saved me so much time and frustration.

Anyways let’s not get too off topic:

The security patches for an already unsupported version of Ubuntu released 6 years ago is quite nice. I never knew Ubuntu had a service for this, certainly puts them ahead of the other distros! (Unless the other distros also provide a similar service). Provided that whatever you’re using still supports Ubuntu 14, then those security patches are all what you essentially need! Really neat to say the least.