06-11-2020, 01:53 PM
(06-11-2020, 07:27 AM)sohamb03 Wrote:VPS 9 (Atlanta) - My Dream VPS!
Presented by @sohamb03 ; Directed by VirMach
Hello everyone!
This is none other than me to present a review on VPS 9 (Atlanta), belonging to the present mega-VPS group of Post4VPS, both in specifications and stock.
THE STORY
I won this VPS on the 7th of September, 2019. I'd casually submitted a VPS request to be honest, I'd never really thought of winning this amazing VPS at the end of the Giveaway. When the Giveaway was on-going, little did I realize that this VPS, which has been an all-time favorite at Post4VPS would be mine. My spirits were really dampened when I came to know that a lot of candidates had applied, and only three of them remaining in stock with about 5 canditates already in the race, I'd assumed I wasn't going to succeed this time.
Destiny was otherwise. On the 6th of September, 2019, @deanhills informed me (oh BTW I has initially applied for the Seattle location) that Seattle was the only location of VirMach VPSes that had a negative VPS review. He suggested that I could choose Atlanta, as Arsal has recently dropped it. I'm glad he made the suggestion that day, and today I take this opportunity to thank him a ton for the suggestion. Arsal is to be thanked too, for dropping this one, to my advantage.
The very next day, came the best news. I did win the VPS and my happiness knew no bounds. Thanks to @Dynamo for organizing this forum, that brought us all together. I must say I've made great friends here, and this VPS - VPS 9, is one which I could've otherwise never afforded myself. This VPS played a great role in improving my skills in the Linux Administration, and it is through this VPS, that I learnt a lot of things.
Agreed that this VPS did cause a lot of trouble during the OVZ to KVM migration, I've very little to complain about as these were very petty problems compared to the great benefit I derive out of this VPS. (FUN FACT: I'd 6 OS re-installations on this VPS, basically I troubled Dean a lot.)
It's been 9 long months that I've been the holder of this VPS, and its time I justify the VPS and convey my regards and thanks to VirMach, through the medium of this review. Enjoy reading further!
SPECIFICATIONS
Directly from the VPS Plans page-
Code: (Select All)Disk Space 100 GB SSD
RAM: 8 GB
IP Addresses: 1x IPv4
Virtualization - KVM
Monthly Traffic: 4 TB
Location: US
Control Panel: Ask Admin
Connection: 1Gbps
And confirming it via Post4VPS Benchmarking Script-
Code: (Select All)System Info
-----------
Processor : QEMU Virtual CPU version (cpu64-rhel6)
CPU Cores : 2 @ 2499.998 MHz
Memory : 7821 MiB
Swap : 7987 MiB
Uptime : 46 days, 1:48,
OS : CentOS Linux 7 (Core)
Arch : x86_64 (64 Bit)
Kernel : 3.10.0-1062.18.1.el7.x86_64
Hostname : google.com
CPU BENCHMARK
Here is the Geekbench CPU benchmark on my VPS - https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/2472702
Code: (Select All)Single-Core Score : 316
Multi-Core score : 414
Rest of the information can be found on the page I've linked above.
Here are the UnixBench results:
Code: (Select All)# # # # # # # ##### ###### # # #### # #
# # ## # # # # # # # ## # # # # #
# # # # # # ## ##### ##### # # # # ######
# # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # #
# # # ## # # # # # # # ## # # # #
#### # # # # # ##### ###### # # #### # #
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
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Use directories for:
* File I/O tests (named fs***) = /root/byte-unixbench-master/UnixBench/tmp
* Results = /root/byte-unixbench-master/UnixBench/results
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: sohamb03.tk: GNU/Linux
OS: GNU/Linux -- 3.10.0-1062.18.1.el7.x86_64 -- #1 SMP Tue Mar 17 23:49:17 UTC 2020
Machine: x86_64 (x86_64)
Language: en_US.utf8 (charmap="UTF-8", collate="UTF-8")
CPU 0: QEMU Virtual CPU version (cpu64-rhel6) (5000.0 bogomips)
x86-64, MMX, Physical Address Ext, SYSENTER/SYSEXIT, SYSCALL/SYSRET
CPU 1: QEMU Virtual CPU version (cpu64-rhel6) (5000.0 bogomips)
x86-64, MMX, Physical Address Ext, SYSENTER/SYSEXIT, SYSCALL/SYSRET
00:19:26 up 47 days, 13:43, 1 user, load average: 1.36, 1.47, 1.59; runlevel 2020-04-24
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benchmark Run: Thu Jun 11 2020 00:19:26 - 00:47:41
2 CPUs in system; running 1 parallel copy of tests
Dhrystone 2 using register variables 21141958.6 lps (10.0 s, 7 samples)
Double-Precision Whetstone 2949.7 MWIPS (9.6 s, 7 samples)
Execl Throughput 600.6 lps (29.6 s, 2 samples)
File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks 104892.0 KBps (30.0 s, 2 samples)
File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks 29102.0 KBps (30.0 s, 2 samples)
File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks 317503.1 KBps (30.0 s, 2 samples)
Pipe Throughput 160349.3 lps (10.0 s, 7 samples)
Pipe-based Context Switching 29817.7 lps (10.0 s, 7 samples)
Process Creation 1660.5 lps (30.0 s, 2 samples)
Shell Scripts (1 concurrent) 1318.2 lpm (60.0 s, 2 samples)
Shell Scripts (8 concurrent) 245.6 lpm (60.1 s, 2 samples)
System Call Overhead 166583.2 lps (10.0 s, 7 samples)
System Benchmarks Index Values BASELINE RESULT INDEX
Dhrystone 2 using register variables 116700.0 21141958.6 1811.7
Double-Precision Whetstone 55.0 2949.7 536.3
Execl Throughput 43.0 600.6 139.7
File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks 3960.0 104892.0 264.9
File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks 1655.0 29102.0 175.8
File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks 5800.0 317503.1 547.4
Pipe Throughput 12440.0 160349.3 128.9
Pipe-based Context Switching 4000.0 29817.7 74.5
Process Creation 126.0 1660.5 131.8
Shell Scripts (1 concurrent) 42.4 1318.2 310.9
Shell Scripts (8 concurrent) 6.0 245.6 409.3
System Call Overhead 15000.0 166583.2 111.1
========
System Benchmarks Index Score 250.8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benchmark Run: Thu Jun 11 2020 00:47:41 - 01:16:01
2 CPUs in system; running 2 parallel copies of tests
Dhrystone 2 using register variables 30337697.9 lps (10.0 s, 7 samples)
Double-Precision Whetstone 4220.3 MWIPS (9.7 s, 7 samples)
Execl Throughput 1155.3 lps (29.9 s, 2 samples)
File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks 124781.7 KBps (30.0 s, 2 samples)
File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks 30154.0 KBps (30.0 s, 2 samples)
File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks 401904.3 KBps (30.0 s, 2 samples)
Pipe Throughput 229210.4 lps (10.0 s, 7 samples)
Pipe-based Context Switching 51869.9 lps (10.0 s, 7 samples)
Process Creation 2479.1 lps (30.0 s, 2 samples)
Shell Scripts (1 concurrent) 1880.1 lpm (60.1 s, 2 samples)
Shell Scripts (8 concurrent) 284.5 lpm (60.2 s, 2 samples)
System Call Overhead 227504.4 lps (10.0 s, 7 samples)
System Benchmarks Index Values BASELINE RESULT INDEX
Dhrystone 2 using register variables 116700.0 30337697.9 2599.6
Double-Precision Whetstone 55.0 4220.3 767.3
Execl Throughput 43.0 1155.3 268.7
File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks 3960.0 124781.7 315.1
File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks 1655.0 30154.0 182.2
File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks 5800.0 401904.3 692.9
Pipe Throughput 12440.0 229210.4 184.3
Pipe-based Context Switching 4000.0 51869.9 129.7
Process Creation 126.0 2479.1 196.8
Shell Scripts (1 concurrent) 42.4 1880.1 443.4
Shell Scripts (8 concurrent) 6.0 284.5 474.2
System Call Overhead 15000.0 227504.4 151.7
========
System Benchmarks Index Score 348.4
STORAGE BENCHMARK
I've 70GB of storage on my VPS. In VPS 9, you can choose in multiples of 5, and I didn't need much storage till now, but I'll need more soon with another OS re-installation.
Code: (Select All)Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on
devtmpfs 3.9G 0 3.9G 0% /dev
tmpfs 3.9G 64M 3.8G 2% /dev/shm
tmpfs 3.9G 384M 3.5G 10% /run
tmpfs 3.9G 0 3.9G 0% /sys/fs/cgroup
/dev/mapper/centos-root 47G 17G 30G 36% /
/dev/loop0 1.5G 9.0M 1.4G 1% /tmp
/dev/mapper/centos-home 23G 1.1G 22G 5% /home
/dev/vda1 1014M 228M 787M 23% /boot
tmpfs 783M 4.0K 783M 1% /run/user/0
tmpfs 783M 0 783M 0% /run/user/5003
For the boot time: (Actually I've a GUI - XFCE - running on the VPS; not sure why it didn't show up)
Code: (Select All)Startup finished in 861ms (kernel) + 2.761s (initrd) + 12.130s (userspace) = 15.753s
Although, the boot time is pretty cool.
Now for the tests, directly from the Benchmarking Script:
Code: (Select All)Disk Speed
----------
I/O (1st run) : 799 MB/s
I/O (2nd run) : 781 MB/s
I/O (3rd run) : 827 MB/s
Average I/O : 802.333 MB/s
Which is a remarkable performance!
This is the disk-speed-beta.sh script, not yet merged into the benchmarking script but just a confirmation of the above results plus the cached mode.
Code: (Select All)Testing hard drive write speed.
Pass 1... Pass 2... Pass 3... 693 MB/s
Testing hard drive read speed with caching.
Pass 1... Pass 2... Pass 3... 2.5 GB/s
Testing hard drive read speed without caching.
Pass 1... Pass 2... Pass 3... 859 MB/s
(PS: Here I encountered a strange problem. I'm not an expert at all this; since I don't deal with hardware at all. For some reason, my system seems to be missing "/dev/sda" and I've the least idea why, so I performed the upcoming tests on "/dev/loop0". No idea if that makes a difference but nevermind. If I were to make a wild guess, I got CentOS 7 installed from ISO since I needed the default partitions for some purpose ... maybe that's why.)
HDPARM
Direct:
Code: (Select All)/dev/mapper/centos-root:
Timing O_DIRECT cached reads: 1570 MB in 2.00 seconds = 786.52 MB/sec
Timing O_DIRECT disk reads: 3374 MB in 3.00 seconds = 1124.29 MB/sec
/dev/mapper/centos-root:
Timing O_DIRECT cached reads: 1196 MB in 2.00 seconds = 598.63 MB/sec
Timing O_DIRECT disk reads: 3204 MB in 3.00 seconds = 1067.33 MB/sec
/dev/mapper/centos-root:
Timing O_DIRECT cached reads: 1252 MB in 2.00 seconds = 626.79 MB/sec
Timing O_DIRECT disk reads: 2826 MB in 3.00 seconds = 941.83 MB/sec
Cached:
Code: (Select All)/dev/mapper/centos-root:
Timing cached reads: 6780 MB in 1.99 seconds = 3408.66 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 3198 MB in 3.00 seconds = 1065.62 MB/sec
/dev/mapper/centos-root:
Timing cached reads: 7404 MB in 1.99 seconds = 3724.59 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 3406 MB in 3.00 seconds = 1134.39 MB/sec
/dev/mapper/centos-root:
Timing cached reads: 7968 MB in 1.99 seconds = 4009.13 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 3190 MB in 3.15 seconds = 1013.77 MB/sec
IOPING
Disk Seek Rate:
Code: (Select All)--- /dev/mapper/centos-root: (block device 78 GiB) ioping statistics ---
5.11 k requests completed in 2.78 s, 19.9 MiB read, 1.84 k iops, 7.18 MiB/s
generated 5.11 k requests in 3.00 s, 19.9 MiB, 1.70 k iops, 6.65 MiB/s
min/avg/max/mdev = 185.0 us / 544.1 us / 17.0 ms / 792.0 us
Disk Sequential Speed:
Code: (Select All)--- /dev/mapper/centos-root: (block device 78 GiB) ioping statistics ---
3.53 k requests completed in 2.76 s, 882.8 MiB read, 1.28 k iops, 320.1 MiB/s
generated 3.53 k requests in 3.00 s, 883 MiB, 1.18 k iops, 294.3 MiB/s
min/avg/max/mdev = 311.7 us / 780.9 us / 16.3 ms / 963.3 us
DISK I/O LATENCY:
Default Mode:
Code: (Select All)--- /tmp (ext4 /dev/loop0) ioping statistics ---
19 requests completed in 2.31 ms, 76 KiB read, 8.22 k iops, 32.1 MiB/s
generated 20 requests in 19.0 s, 80 KiB, 1 iops, 4.21 KiB/s
min/avg/max/mdev = 86.7 us / 121.6 us / 195.3 us / 31.1 us
Asynchronous Mode:
Code: (Select All)--- /tmp (ext4 /dev/loop0) ioping statistics ---
19 requests completed in 6.32 ms, 76 KiB read, 3.00 k iops, 11.7 MiB/s
generated 20 requests in 19.0 s, 80 KiB, 1 iops, 4.21 KiB/s
min/avg/max/mdev = 103.2 us / 332.7 us / 1.80 ms / 477.6 us
Direct Mode:
Code: (Select All)--- /tmp (ext4 /dev/loop0) ioping statistics ---
19 requests completed in 7.57 ms, 76 KiB read, 2.51 k iops, 9.80 MiB/s
generated 20 requests in 19.0 s, 80 KiB, 1 iops, 4.21 KiB/s
min/avg/max/mdev = 83.0 us / 398.5 us / 2.52 ms / 645.5 us
Cached Mode:
Code: (Select All)--- /tmp (ext4 /dev/loop0) ioping statistics ---
19 requests completed in 493.8 us, 76 KiB read, 38.5 k iops, 150.3 MiB/s
generated 20 requests in 19.0 s, 80 KiB, 1 iops, 4.21 KiB/s
min/avg/max/mdev = 13.3 us / 26.0 us / 177.9 us / 35.9 us
Write Mode:
Code: (Select All)--- /tmp (ext4 /dev/loop0) ioping statistics ---
19 requests completed in 69.6 ms, 76 KiB written, 272 iops, 1.07 MiB/s
generated 20 requests in 19.0 s, 80 KiB, 1 iops, 4.21 KiB/s
min/avg/max/mdev = 1.10 ms / 3.67 ms / 20.0 ms / 4.16 ms
Alternate Read-Write Mode:
Code: (Select All)--- /tmp (ext4 /dev/loop0) ioping statistics ---
19 requests completed in 3.18 s, 76 KiB, 5 iops, 23.9 KiB/s
generated 20 requests in 21.2 s, 80 KiB, 0 iops, 3.78 KiB/s
min/avg/max/mdev = 110.9 us / 167.3 ms / 3.15 s / 704.1 ms
NETWORK BENCHMARK
Benchmarking Script:
Code: (Select All)Speedtest (IPv4 only)
---------------------
Your public IPv4 is 8.8.8.8
Location Provider Speed
-------- -------- -----
CDN Cachefly 47.2MB/s
Atlanta, GA, US @sohamb03 19.3MB/s
Dallas, TX, US Softlayer 41.5MB/s
Seattle, WA, US Softlayer 19.4MB/s
San Jose, CA, US Softlayer 20.0MB/s
Washington, DC, US Leaseweb 14.9MB/s
Sao Paulo, Brazil Softlayer 6.34MB/s
Singapore Softlayer 5.84MB/s
Taiwan Hinet 3.71MB/s
Tokyo, Japan Linode 4.20MB/s
Nuremberg, Germany Hetzner 4.15MB/s
Rotterdam, Netherlands id3.net 7.54MB/s
Haarlem, Netherlands Leaseweb 17.4MB/s
Milan, Italy Softlayer 7.54MB/s
Melbourne, AU Softlayer 5.85MB/s
Please note that the Atlanta speedtest server is my VPS itself and I'm so embarrassed inserting it here.
And now the official SpeedTest.NET CLI :
Code: (Select All)Speedtest by Ookla
Server: Sprint - Enid, OK (id = 11232)
ISP: ColoCrossing
Latency: 18.54 ms (0.34 ms jitter)
Download: 531.59 Mbps (data used: 846.4 MB)
Upload: 917.35 Mbps (data used: 914.9 MB)
Packet Loss: 0.0%
Iperf3 Downstream to California, USA (Hurricane Electric):
Code: (Select All)Connecting to host iperf.he.net, port 5201
[ 4] local 8.8.8.64 port 43796 connected to 216.218.207.42 port 5201
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth Retr Cwnd
[ 4] 0.00-1.00 sec 29.3 MBytes 245 Mbits/sec 0 6.42 MBytes
[ 4] 1.00-2.00 sec 50.0 MBytes 421 Mbits/sec 0 6.42 MBytes
[ 4] 2.00-3.00 sec 51.2 MBytes 429 Mbits/sec 0 6.42 MBytes
[ 4] 3.00-4.00 sec 46.2 MBytes 388 Mbits/sec 0 6.42 MBytes
[ 4] 4.00-5.04 sec 51.2 MBytes 415 Mbits/sec 0 6.42 MBytes
[ 4] 5.04-6.01 sec 50.0 MBytes 432 Mbits/sec 0 6.42 MBytes
[ 4] 6.01-7.00 sec 45.0 MBytes 381 Mbits/sec 0 6.42 MBytes
[ 4] 7.00-8.00 sec 48.8 MBytes 409 Mbits/sec 0 6.42 MBytes
[ 4] 8.00-9.01 sec 51.2 MBytes 428 Mbits/sec 0 6.42 MBytes
[ 4] 9.01-10.00 sec 52.5 MBytes 442 Mbits/sec 0 6.42 MBytes
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth Retr
[ 4] 0.00-10.00 sec 476 MBytes 399 Mbits/sec 0 sender
[ 4] 0.00-10.00 sec 476 MBytes 399 Mbits/sec receiver
iperf Done.
Iperf3 Upstream to California, USA (Hurricane Electric):
Code: (Select All)Connecting to host iperf.he.net, port 5201
Reverse mode, remote host iperf.he.net is sending
[ 4] local 8.8.8.8 port 43856 connected to 216.218.207.42 port 5201
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth
[ 4] 0.00-1.00 sec 6.60 MBytes 55.4 Mbits/sec
[ 4] 1.00-2.00 sec 8.22 MBytes 69.0 Mbits/sec
[ 4] 2.00-3.00 sec 7.02 MBytes 58.9 Mbits/sec
[ 4] 3.00-4.01 sec 7.52 MBytes 62.8 Mbits/sec
[ 4] 4.01-5.00 sec 7.61 MBytes 64.1 Mbits/sec
[ 4] 5.00-6.00 sec 7.79 MBytes 65.5 Mbits/sec
[ 4] 6.00-7.00 sec 7.80 MBytes 65.4 Mbits/sec
[ 4] 7.00-8.00 sec 8.05 MBytes 67.5 Mbits/sec
[ 4] 8.00-9.00 sec 8.13 MBytes 68.1 Mbits/sec
[ 4] 9.00-10.00 sec 8.01 MBytes 67.2 Mbits/sec
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth Retr
[ 4] 0.00-10.00 sec 81.9 MBytes 68.7 Mbits/sec 319 sender
[ 4] 0.00-10.00 sec 77.3 MBytes 64.8 Mbits/sec receiver
iperf Done.
Download speed may not be great, but good enough for my purpose.
USAGE
Here's the most important part - the use case of the VPS lol.
- I presently have CyberPanel running on he VPS - and two websites including my speedtest server being powered by the same. Also, I give free web hosting to one of my friend.
- I've 6 Discord Bots running on that VPS (3 for me and 3 for yet another friend). All of them are coded in Python, and the server handles the load quite well. Not using much RAM and CPU honestly, except a few occasional spikes.
- A GUI - XFCE - is running on the VPS. It's the lightest GUI available (cuz I've previously faced problems with GNOME and MATE).
- Development and testing of my scripts.
- A private OpenVPN server for myself.
- I'd installed Pterodactyl panel initially on the VPS; but on noticing that it consumes a lot of resources and conflicts with other applications on my VPS, I wiped it off.
- I always keep aside little resources (which is why the free space) for testing new stuff, panels and beta testing of other applications.
SUMMARY
Let's sum up this review.
1. I'm extremely satisfied with the VPS ... it's perfect for my needs and use-case. I do not regret keeping a considerable space empty cuz they get filled and wiped occasionally.
2. As we all know, VPS 9 doesn't have a control panel, but honestly I never felt the need of having one. Dean and HR have been very active at support and my level of satisfaction knows no bounds.
Again, a huge thanks to VirMach and Post4VPS, for this amazing VPS. Also, thanks for taking time to read this review, dear readers. Although I've tried to keep this review as descriptive as possible, any feedback, suggestions are welcome. I'll try my best to include them as soon as possible.
Regards,
Amazing and insanely detailed review you got there! Looks beautiful too with the way you formatted it! I enjoyed reading every little character on your review, so kudos for that!
Since we both have VPS 9, just different locations, the specs a vert identical! However performance wise, something just isn’t right on my end (more on that below).
It specially caught my attention that you mentioned that Deanhills informed you that the previous holder of VPS 9 Seattle had negative feedback on it (never knew that to be honest). That, if anyone here doesn’t already know, is the same VPS i had currently. And apart from a ton of miscommunication that went on almost every time i tried to ask the staff to do me something for it (not really the VPSs fault)... I haven’t had much negative to say about it except for ONE thing that I haven’t mentioned before (simply because I don’t want to trouble the admins more than I already have... so I learned to live with it):
And that one thing is that it tends to be quite slow in tasks such as establishing the SSH connection and logging in, along with running tasks as such updating dependencies and upgrading the packages. At first (for several months for a matter of fact) I thought that was normal... however, based on feedback i got from several VPS 9 holders, I’m the only one experiencing this. I couldn’t narrow the issue dowm however... network speeds are at a comfortable 800-900Mbps, and disk I/O speeds have been very inconsistent, but the max I’ve seen was around 500MBps, which is quite good (interesting to see that your VPS has almost double that... but I doubt that this could be the issue since ~500MBps I/O speeds is still blazing fast). But anyways, it’s not that huge of a deal as I’ve, just like I’ve mentioned previously, learned to live with it.
Thank you Post4VPS and VirMach for providing me with VPS9! But now it’s time to say farewell due to my studies.