Phoenix Double Storage || NAT Bundle || UK KVM 256MB €10 /year || UK KVM 2GB €29.95 /year

InceptionHosting

I have just finished doing a big audit of everything, I have some irregular space, due to plan size changes over the years and some nodes being almost full but still some space left from cancellations etc so I thought I would do a bit of a mix.

Please note these will last until I need to stop them I can't put a specific time scale on it, they could vanish in an hour some might still work in 2 weeks.

I have tried to make them appealing to the LE* crowd.

---

Phoenix Storage plans

All plans from the KVM500 and bigger get double the advertised storage space automatically, for example, the KVM500 plan gets 1000GB and costs €6.25 for 3 months.

Order Link: https://clients.inceptionhosting.com/cart.php?gid=30

sold out

---

NAT Bundle

€8 /year for all 3.

Netherlands, Phoenix USA and London UK.

OpenVZ 7
* 1 CPU Core
* 128mb Ram
* 2GB Disk Space
* 350 GB Transfer p/Month
* /64 IPv6 range
* 1 x NAT IPv4
* Orders manually accepted within 24 hours - not instant setup

NOTE: You need to set up each product one at a time, you will be taken to the next location when you complete the first, please use a minimum of 4 characters in the hostname or provisioning will fail and setup will be significantly delayed.

Order Link: https://clients.inceptionhosting.com/cart.php?a=add&bid=19

---

UK SSD Cached KVM 256MB

€10 /year

• 2 CPU Cores (Equal Share)
• 256 MB Ram
• 10 GB SSD Cached Disk space
• 350 GB Bandwidth @ 1 gbit (shared)
• 1 x IPv4 address
• 1 x /64 IPv6

Order Link: https://clients.inceptionhosting.com/cart.php?a=add&pid=175

---

UK SSD Cached KVM 2GB

€29.95 /year

• 4 CPU Cores (Equal Share)
• 2 GB Ram
• 40 GB Disk space
• 2000 GB Bandwidth @ 1 gbit (shared)
• 1 x IPv4 address
• 1 x /64 IPv6

Order link: https://clients.inceptionhosting.com/cart.php?a=add&pid=164

---

Terms tl;dr

• No tor
• Torrent abuse report = bye bye
• No open proxies
• No auto click/scam bots
• No crypto mining
• No bulk mailing
• If you don't actually read the terms they still apply
• Orders will be auto rejected if placed via a proxy or VPN

You cannot swap/change your current plan/product to any of these but you are obviously welcome to cancel the current ones and take one of these, you will not get any credit though, I am able to do these in limited quantities only.

elliotc

This is an important selling point and it should be stressed that DirectAdmin is included in all UK locations.

FAT32

@elliotc said:
This is an important selling point and it should be stressed that DirectAdmin is included in all UK locations.

Including UK NAT?

elliotc

@FAT32 said:

@elliotc said:
This is an important selling point and it should be stressed that DirectAdmin is included in all UK locations.

Including UK NAT?

It's included, but you can't apply because you need to ticket Anthony your IP Address.

If you want a free license then please open a support ticket with the following information:
Server hostname:
IP Address:
Operating System:

Bochi

Great offer! Storage plan is especially tempting, but I have no idea about SSHFS performance with the high latencies to the US. Any thoughts?

rajprakash

2€ per terabyte (500GB double deal) is great. Will you also bump the monthly data traffic limit accordingly?

InceptionHosting

@elliotc said:
This is an important selling point and it should be stressed that DirectAdmin is included in all UK locations.

yep, forgot to mention that

@Bochi said: Any thoughts?

Obviously performance is not great in terms of write speeds but it works.

@rajprakash said: Will you also bump the monthly data traffic limit accordingly?

Nope, keeping the shirt on my back this time thanks

tridinebandim

do you have lg for phoneix or test ip? found from other thread nope they were not ips

i think specs should be sufficient for a nextcloud install?

InceptionHosting

@tridinebandim said: i think specs should be sufficient for a nextcloud install?

more than sufficient

vimalware

@Bochi said:
Great offer! Storage plan is especially tempting, but I have no idea about SSHFS performance with the high latencies to the US. Any thoughts?

It would be a good spot for backups of your primary storage location (EU?). Write-only incrementals do not count against the transfer quota at all.

Tis an unbelievable deal for less than usd 2.5 per Terabyte of RAID6 .

bugrakoc

I was waiting for the UK storage but I finally caved and got a KVM500. The best part is it's not a yearly commitment so even if my ISP has garbage routing to Phoenix I won't be mad at myself that bad for not checking before buying

Great offer! Can't wait to set it up.

vimalware

I caved too ??. I figure with my 10mbps upstream cap, even USA is fine for workstation borgbackup remotes.

InceptionHosting

@bugrakoc said:
I was waiting for the UK storage but I finally caved and got a KVM500. The best part is it's not a yearly commitment so even if my ISP has garbage routing to Phoenix I won't be mad at myself that bad for not checking before buying

Great offer! Can't wait to set it up.

@vimalware said:
I caved too ??. I figure with my 10mbps upstream cap, even USA is fine for workstation borgbackup remotes.

Please let people know how you get on, the new storage offers in Phoenix I feel are quite different from the old ones and it would be great to get some feedback.

lowendmeow

Hi I saw your post in Hostedtalk, I am newhere. I posted over there, I had a question, that the storage KVM500 is a little less than the next tier up? I am looking for 2tb of storage but i'm confused about the pricing. Would there be anything stopping me from getting two plans?

InceptionHosting

@lowendmeow said:
Hi I saw your post in Hostedtalk, I am newhere. I posted over there, I had a question, that the storage KVM500 is a little less than the next tier up? I am looking for 2tb of storage but i'm confused about the pricing. Would there be anything stopping me from getting two plans?

Oh, nice spot, looks like I underpriced the KVM500, not sure what I was thinking, the plans recently changed, must be why so many people jumped on that plan.

I am a bit tired tonight I will look at it with fresh eyes tomorrow, no problem buying 2 though but they won't be merged.

vimalware

Should I be worried that the SolusVM for Phoenix seems to record data transfer usage, even for incoming flows?
I don't know anything about SolusVM. Can it be configured to avoid metering incoming transfers?

Edit: I've added my own vnstat logging for now.

InceptionHosting

@vimalware said:
Should I be worried that the SolusVM for Phoenix seems to record data transfer usage, even for incoming flows?
I don't know anything about SolusVM. Can it be configured to avoid metering incoming transfers?

Edit: I've added my own vnstat logging for now.

fixed.

lowendmeow

@AnthonySmith said:

@lowendmeow said:
Hi I saw your post in Hostedtalk, I am newhere. I posted over there, I had a question, that the storage KVM500 is a little less than the next tier up? I am looking for 2tb of storage but i'm confused about the pricing. Would there be anything stopping me from getting two plans?

Oh, nice spot, looks like I underpriced the KVM500, not sure what I was thinking, the plans recently changed, must be why so many people jumped on that plan.

I am a bit tired tonight I will look at it with fresh eyes tomorrow, no problem buying 2 though but they won't be merged.

Ok, that makes sense! If you can take a look tomorrow and maybe adjust or offer a discount code for the next tiers that would be cool

InceptionHosting

@lowendmeow said:

@AnthonySmith said:

@lowendmeow said:
Hi I saw your post in Hostedtalk, I am newhere. I posted over there, I had a question, that the storage KVM500 is a little less than the next tier up? I am looking for 2tb of storage but i'm confused about the pricing. Would there be anything stopping me from getting two plans?

Oh, nice spot, looks like I underpriced the KVM500, not sure what I was thinking, the plans recently changed, must be why so many people jumped on that plan.

I am a bit tired tonight I will look at it with fresh eyes tomorrow, no problem buying 2 though but they won't be merged.

Ok, that makes sense! If you can take a look tomorrow and maybe adjust or offer a discount code for the next tiers that would be cool

Erm, it’s the KVM500 that is to low, there is no discount it is a double storage offer

schnafi

Is there any way to test the network performance (eg. looking glass or test files)? 1TB for 25€/y sounds tempting, I would prefer EU/UK tho. But for backup purposes it would be a nice machine... I canceled my NAT bundle weeks ago, so I can't test it myself apparently. Any help is appreciated

InceptionHosting

@schnafi said:
Is there any way to test the network performance (eg. looking glass or test files)? 1TB for 25€/y sounds tempting, I would prefer EU/UK tho. But for backup purposes it would be a nice machine... I canceled my NAT bundle weeks ago, so I can't test it myself apparently. Any help is appreciated

http://148.163.68.178/1g.bin

vimalware

IOFLOOD Phoenix is listed on the speed test app too as a location.

Intelpentiumm

In June madness thread, I bought one KVM500. I know it's double storage now. Could have waited ?

bdl

@lowendmeow said:
Hi I saw your post in Hostedtalk, I am newhere. I posted over there, I had a question, that the storage KVM500 is a little less than the next tier up? I am looking for 2tb of storage but i'm confused about the pricing. Would there be anything stopping me from getting two plans?

They are close in price, however note that the KVM500's price is for three months and the KVM1000 is monthly...

InceptionHosting

Storage offer over

vyas

@AnthonySmith said:

Storage offer over

Congratulations, looks like you sold out soon!
okay now I am FOMO'd. :-)
after the flowvps mail, was planning to sign up.
Ah! Next time

InceptionHosting

@vyas said:

@AnthonySmith said:

Storage offer over

Congratulations, looks liek you sold out soon!
okay now I am FOMO'd. :-)
after the flowvps mail, was planning to sign up.
Ah! Next time

I have messed something up in the pricing and the orders are flooding in, I am happy to honour anyone who purchased already but I need some time to revise and see what i have done

bdl

@vyas said:

@AnthonySmith said:

Storage offer over

Congratulations, looks like you sold out soon!
okay now I am FOMO'd. :-)
after the flowvps mail, was planning to sign up.
Ah! Next time

haha me, too (re ex-Flow)... oh well, I have my host solutions 1tb service for backup

@AnthonySmith said:
I have messed something up in the pricing and the orders are flooding in, I am happy to honour anyone who purchased already but I need some time to revise and see what i have done

@AnthonySmith , you're getting ioflooded!

vimalware

@AnthonySmith said:
I have messed something up in the pricing and the orders are flooding in, I am happy to honour anyone who purchased already

This right here, is the AnthonySmith brand. ??

lgsin

I'm surprised that this incredible storage deal lasted more than half an hour and that I managed to get one.

@AnthonySmith Thanks for the offer and honouring the previous orders. Maybe you'd want to update hostedtalk's post too??

InceptionHosting

Ok I found my mistake on the storage plans, pricing updated.

I will see what sort of offer I can bring to the table on Thursday with the updated pricing

rajprakash

@AnthonySmith said:

@rajprakash said: Will you also bump the monthly data traffic limit accordingly?

Nope, keeping the shirt on my back this time thanks

Who needs a shirt. They're overrated!!! J/k. It's still a killer deal!

risturiz

Anyone with Phoenix Storage can test drive speed? ( i know for storage is slow but i want a reference ) Thanks!

bdl

@AnthonySmith said:
Ok I found my mistake on the storage plans, pricing updated.

I will see what sort of offer I can bring to the table on Thursday with the updated pricing

any moar storage dealz, @AnthonySmith ?

InceptionHosting

@risturiz said:
Anyone with Phoenix Storage can test drive speed? ( i know for storage is slow but i want a reference ) Thanks!

What tests would you like?

root@test:~# 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, 1.0 GiB) copied, 1.28056 s, 838 MB/s

root@test:~# 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, 1.0 GiB) copied, 1.35039 s, 795 MB/s

root@test:~# 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, 1.0 GiB) copied, 1.30985 s, 820 MB/s

Running a yabs now with curl -sL yabs.sh | bash -s -- -ig I will post that when it is done.

# ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## #
#              Yet-Another-Bench-Script              #
#                     v2020-06-20                    #
# https://github.com/masonr/yet-another-bench-script #
# ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## #

Sat Aug 29 08:52:26 CEST 2020

Basic System Information:
---------------------------------
Processor  : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2660 0 @ 2.20GHz
CPU cores  : 4 @ 2199.998 MHz
AES-NI     : ✔ Enabled
VM-x/AMD-V : ✔ Enabled
RAM        : 1.9G
Swap       : 255M
Disk       : 89G

fio Disk Speed Tests (Mixed R/W 50/50):
---------------------------------
Block Size | 4k            (IOPS) | 64k           (IOPS)
  ------   | ---            ----  | ----           ----
Read       | 4.49 MB/s     (1.1k) | 79.37 MB/s    (1.2k)
Write      | 4.50 MB/s     (1.1k) | 79.78 MB/s    (1.2k)
Total      | 8.99 MB/s     (2.2k) | 159.15 MB/s   (2.4k)
           |                      |
Block Size | 512k          (IOPS) | 1m            (IOPS)
  ------   | ---            ----  | ----           ----
Read       | 116.63 MB/s    (227) | 155.62 MB/s    (151)
Write      | 122.83 MB/s    (239) | 165.99 MB/s    (162)
Total      | 239.46 MB/s    (466) | 321.62 MB/s    (313)

risturiz

I'm getting this with Debian 10:

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, 1.0 GiB) copied, 5.44341 s, 197 MB/s
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, 1.0 GiB) copied, 3.82891 s, 280 MB/s
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, 1.0 GiB) copied, 2.74356 s, 391 MB/s


# ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## #
#              Yet-Another-Bench-Script              #
#                     v2020-06-20                    #
# https://github.com/masonr/yet-another-bench-script #
# ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## #

Mon 31 Aug 2020 11:16:40 AM -05

Basic System Information:
---------------------------------
Processor  : QEMU Virtual CPU version 2.5+
CPU cores  : 1 @ 2199.998 MHz
AES-NI     : ❌ Disabled
VM-x/AMD-V : ❌ Disabled
RAM        : 987Mi
Swap       : 1.0Gi
Disk       : 983G

fio Disk Speed Tests (Mixed R/W 50/50):
---------------------------------
Block Size | 4k            (IOPS) | 64k           (IOPS)
  ------   | ---            ----  | ----           ---- 
Read       | 5.28 MB/s     (1.3k) | 72.14 MB/s    (1.1k)
Write      | 5.30 MB/s     (1.3k) | 72.52 MB/s    (1.1k)
Total      | 10.58 MB/s    (2.6k) | 144.66 MB/s   (2.2k)
           |                      |                     
Block Size | 512k          (IOPS) | 1m            (IOPS)
  ------   | ---            ----  | ----           ---- 
Read       | 91.74 MB/s     (179) | 134.82 MB/s    (131)
Write      | 96.61 MB/s     (188) | 143.80 MB/s    (140)
Total      | 188.35 MB/s    (367) | 278.63 MB/s    (271)

InceptionHosting

@risturiz said: Processor : QEMU Virtual CPU version 2.5+

please request cpu passthrough and make sure you have virtio drivers enabled, you would only have that CPU type if you installed from ISO.

risturiz

@AnthonySmith said:

@risturiz said: Processor : QEMU Virtual CPU version 2.5+

please request cpu passthrough and make sure you have virtio drivers enabled, you would only have that CPU type if you installed from ISO.

Yes i installed from Debian 10 ISO... Good to know... So the recommendation is not to install from ISO? Thanks for the info

vimalware

@risturiz said:
Yes i installed from Debian 10 ISO... Good to know... So the recommendation is not to install from ISO? Thanks for the info

I believe it's more like qemu gets set as default cpu type when installing from iso. Just a simple ticket to 'correct' it

InceptionHosting

@risturiz said:

@AnthonySmith said:

@risturiz said: Processor : QEMU Virtual CPU version 2.5+

please request cpu passthrough and make sure you have virtio drivers enabled, you would only have that CPU type if you installed from ISO.

Yes i installed from Debian 10 ISO... Good to know... So the recommendation is not to install from ISO? Thanks for the info

It is a limitation of the VPS control panel.

For hosts that use solusvm, I suggest you deploy a template first even if you plan to then immediately install from ISO, as this will usually give you the optimal CPU and driver set if things have been set up properly.

The performance difference is not insignificant.

risturiz

@AnthonySmith said:

It is a limitation of the VPS control panel.

For hosts that use solusvm, I suggest you deploy a template first even if you plan to then immediately install from ISO, as this will usually give you the optimal CPU and driver set if things have been set up properly.

The performance difference is not insignificant.

Ok, know the VPS is flying!... Reinstall first with template solve the issue... Thanks!

InceptionHosting

@risturiz said: Ok, know the VPS is flying!... Reinstall first with template solve the issue... Thanks!

>

Great! I really wish I could make virtio and cpu passthrough default, such a better end-user first experience.

bugrakoc

I also had the same problem with passthrough, and Ant fixed it today. (Thanks!) Anyway, I see some marginal improvement but I wouldn't say it's "flying" per se. Not complaining or anything, just some feedback.

Before:

Basic System Information:
---------------------------------
Processor  : QEMU Virtual CPU version 2.5+
CPU cores  : 1 @ 2199.998 MHz
AES-NI     : ❌ Disabled
VM-x/AMD-V : ❌ Disabled
RAM        : 981Mi
Swap       : 1.9Gi
Disk       : 197G

Geekbench 5 Benchmark Test:
---------------------------------
Test            | Value
                |
Single Core     | 397
Multi Core      | 412

After:

Basic System Information:
---------------------------------
Processor  : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2660 0 @ 2.20GHz
CPU cores  : 1 @ 2199.998 MHz
AES-NI     : ✔ Enabled
VM-x/AMD-V : ✔ Enabled
RAM        : 981Mi
Swap       : 1.9Gi
Disk       : 984G

Geekbench 5 Benchmark Test:
---------------------------------
Test            | Value
                |
Single Core     | 429
Multi Core      | 431

InceptionHosting

@bugrakoc said: I also had the same problem with passthrough, and Ant fixed it today. (Thanks!) Anyway, I see some marginal improvement but I wouldn't say it's "flying" per se. Not complaining or anything, just some feedback

Yeah I mean it is a multi-tenant environment and looking at the base geekbench 5 benchmarks for the CPU model that is about right. I used geekbench 4 in the initial tests as it is more appropriate to that CPU's generation.

The main difference with using CPU passthrough is in real-world performance, not benchmarks, you see when you have a qemu-cpu model a large number of CPU instruction sets are not available as standard and that means that the CPU has to emulate them in software.

AES for example, you could quite literally be looking at 1000's of times slower than with passthrough for simple operations commonly used by VPN's, SSL/TLS etc.

I raised the lack of default passthrough again with the solusvm dev team off the back of this thread and got a positive response so it is possible that what OnApp (solusvm previous owners) felt it was ok just to leave as it is and not a big impact Plesk see the benefit of and are considering it worth the time to look into.

bugrakoc

@AnthonySmith said: I raised the lack of ... again with the solusvm dev team and got a positive response

I didn't know they were capable of a positive response.

bugrakoc

I need some help not abusing the CPU. My VM has:

1 CPU Core (1/2 core dedicated)

How I interpret this is: I can use a full core anytime, but if I hog more than %50 cpu constantly then I'm in trouble. So:

cpulimit -l 50 ffmpeg <args>

Is this enough? Am I using more than my share with this? Less than my share?

ToS only states this about CPU usage:

Excessive CPU use or continued high disk IO R+W requests will be considered server abuse, CPU cores are given on an equal share basis only they are not dedicated cores for your server alone.

As a general rule as long as you are not impacting others then you will not be restricted however as a guide line we ask that you do not average over 60% of a CPU core/thread for more than 24 hours on average or 100% of a core/thread for more than 1 hour.

So this is for fair share CPU plans, and by the way it is actually fair. I interpret this as, I can use <%60 CPU (read: %59) constantly on my fair share OpenVZ plan. Nice. The thing is, by the look of it a fair share core can be hogged more than this 1/2 dedicated core, and that kinda defeats the purpose of a dedicated (albeit half) core.

My guess is I'm screwing up somewhere in my thought process, but you never know. I'm just trying to use my resources without causing trouble. Speed doesn't matter that much, so I can cpulimit the hell out of it. If speed did matter I would be doing this elsewhere anyway, I just want to consolidate everything related to my videos. Any insight would be appreciated.

vimalware

If you're just using it for rsyncing data over from EU, it should stay just under the limit even with aes encryption via LUKS volume (16-20 MB/sec max throughput right?)

Edit: re-read and yes, you should use cpu limit if your ffmpeg jobs are running for way more than 2hrs.

InceptionHosting

It just means you can burn 50% all day without having to worry about it and burst to 100%.

It is really a soft guide, no issues if you are not disrupting others but also keep in mind that if you limit a single process to 50% then you are going to be using more than 50% because you know.. your VPS runs a kernel and is alive etc and needs some CPU time itself.

Additionally, ffmpeg is just in no way suitable to be running on a storage VPS on a slow spinning rusty disk array, you will be hammering the disk read requests p/second no doubt and that is probably going to be the thing that gets you slapped across the back of the legs with a 4-foot cane!

There is a box you tick during order about understanding that the product is designed for storage, video encoding is a different animal, worst case scenario I have to hard limit your disk IOPS which will mean that your CPU time will be no concern as you won't be able to read as fast as the CPU can encode

bugrakoc

@AnthonySmith said: if you limit a single process to 50% then you are going to be using more than 50%

Duh... Stupid me. 25-30% should make more sense since I'm not only running a kernel and whatnot, I also have Nextcloud+nginx+MariaDB so yeah... Nothing a few tries and top can't solve.

@AnthonySmith said: Additionally, ffmpeg is just in no way suitable to be running on a storage VPS on a slow spinning rusty disk array, you will be hammering the disk read requests p/second no doubt and that is probably going to be the thing that gets you slapped across the back of the legs with a 4-foot cane!

Oof.. Those 1.2192 metre canes must really hurt! I'd rather not hammer the disk. Looks like cpulimit alone won't cut it IO-wise, so I should be limiting the IO on my end. Maybe something like pv might work? Example: ffmpeg <args> | pv -L 1M (Saw it here)

@AnthonySmith said: There is a box you tick during order about understanding that the product is designed for storage

Yes I am very well aware of that, I initially meant to just throw nextcloud on it and be done with it. The thing is I recently realised my capture box is fixed to 60 fps and I'm recording presentations so really 25 fps would be more than enough. Then I thought since I'm transcoding anyway, I might as well crop out my taskbar etc... I'll be doing all this on my local machine before uploading from now on, mostly because my upload speed is 600 KiB/s max on a good day. I have ~30GB of videos already uploaded, I figured I might as well use the dedicated CPU to do it instead of re-uploading them on my sucky connection. Didn't think of the IOPS at all.

@AnthonySmith said: worst case scenario I have to hard limit your disk IOPS

I'd rather upload the videos again, I'll try to avoid the worst case scenario. Another approach is I can do it in several chunks as I'm in no rush at all.

Anyway thank you for your time and reading all my rambling

InceptionHosting

@bugrakoc said: Anyway thank you for your time and reading all my rambling

Either way, don't worry about it, I am not evil so if its a problem it will be a conversation, not a termination

bugrakoc

@AnthonySmith said:

@bugrakoc said: Anyway thank you for your time and reading all my rambling

Either way, don't worry about it, I am not evil so if its a problem it will be a conversation, not a termination

I know, that's why I'm with IH since 2017