Looking for FAST VPS service

Portal Home > Knowledgebase > Articles Database > Looking for FAST VPS service

Posted by ChefBoyardee, 04-19-2016, 09:27 PM
Traditionally was rocking with the standard 1k mbps 1 gb port speed servers and realized there are much better SSD and KVM vps out there. My problem is finding them. Can anyone direct me to a service with preferably 10gb ports speeds and can ping somewhere around 2-3k mbps on speediest.net? Not very knowledgable in the area and what specs I should be looking for in order to get these speeds. Speed is my main priority right now, don't need too much RAM, CPU, etc.... Thanks!
Posted by Savio13, 04-19-2016, 09:41 PM
If speed is important, then also consider SSD storage, what is your budget?
Posted by madRoosterTony, 04-19-2016, 09:45 PM
I havent seen any 10Gbps VPS that werent subject to highly overselling, simply because of their price. i.e. $7-10/mo. But that doesnt mean they arent out there. I have seen a few providers offering VDS or Semi-Dedicated Servers where you can get get a Dedicated 1Gbps NIC for a small fee. But even these are rare.
Posted by RDO Servers, 04-19-2016, 10:06 PM
What are you using the VPS for and what is your budget? I highly doubt you will find the speed your looking for in a VPS. Some hosts may tell you their VPS's have 10Gbps connectivity, but it's probably shared between 50+ VPS's so your still left with a slow speed.
Posted by ChefBoyardee, 04-19-2016, 10:15 PM
Max $200. I've seen services claim 30-70 monthly but they don't perform to what I'm looking for.
Posted by net, 04-19-2016, 10:18 PM
No provider will give you dedicated 10 Gbps for that amount of budget. Shared yes but not dedicated.
Posted by ChefBoyardee, 04-19-2016, 10:18 PM
I'll be running bots on the server, looking to pay max $200. I suppose it doesn't HAVE to be a VPS, just through that out there because they're generally cheaper. Need around 3 GB ram, 3 cpu cores. Speed is priority
Posted by ChefBoyardee, 04-19-2016, 10:21 PM
What is a reasonable price? I have gone through 3rd parties for servers that can get 2k upload and thought there prices were just to cover that middle man greed. 10 gbps just correlates to speed as far as I know. Whatever reputable service can get me 2-3k mbps, I'm satisfied.
Posted by madRoosterTony, 04-20-2016, 12:25 AM
What are your bandwidth requirements? Because some providers might be willing to put in a 10Gbps NIC into a server for that budget, but you are going to be limited to the standard 10 - 15TB of monthly bandwidth.
Posted by ChefBoyardee, 04-20-2016, 07:30 AM
10-15tb should be more than enough.
Posted by CentexHosting, 04-20-2016, 11:16 AM
most VPS providers will have set ups like 10mbps on a 1 gbps port or 100mbps on a 1 gbps port or sometimes 10gbps port. Take a look at hostdime or power up hosting. Both of these two are great VPS providers.
Posted by tarunap, 04-20-2016, 12:48 PM
@ChefBoyardee are you looking for windows or linux platform, do you have any specific budget restrictions. do mention that will help you get the exact vendor you are looking for.
Posted by ChefBoyardee, 04-20-2016, 05:17 PM
Windows platform 3gb ram 3 cpu core Less than 10Tb bandwidth Looking to spend $200 at most. VPS or server at this point. Said server initially because of the price difference. Last edited by ChefBoyardee; 04-20-2016 at 05:21 PM.
Posted by ChefBoyardee, 04-20-2016, 05:25 PM
So far these are the requirements I need; 3 gb ram 3 cpu core ! less than 10b bandwidth Windows platform 2k+ mbps VPS or server, whatever gets the job done Budget of $200 (wishful thinking?) Thanks for the help so far!
Posted by LeaseVPS, 04-20-2016, 10:56 PM
Hi, Did you need SSD or just a VPS connected at 10gig to the internet ?
Posted by HaBangNet, 04-20-2016, 11:43 PM
Your budget $200 monthly? or yearly? For your requirement, if $200 per month budget, is really alot and can easily find alot vps provider offer it. You can even go for a server on that budget.
Posted by ChefBoyardee, 04-21-2016, 07:25 PM
I thought $200 was a good number but I can't find the source of reliable fast servers. Is 2k mbps upload/download uncommon?
Posted by ChefBoyardee, 04-21-2016, 07:26 PM
Honestly couldn't tell you the difference. Get me 2k mbps upload/download and I'm happy...
Posted by madRoosterTony, 04-21-2016, 09:35 PM
I doubt you will find this advertised, but there is no reason you can not reach out to some providers to see if they can offer you bonded 1Gbps Network Cards as an option.
Posted by ChefBoyardee, 04-22-2016, 04:46 PM
Bonded 1gps network cards... What else should I ask for or what advertised server specs should I look for? High RAM? Bandwidth? Which correlates to upload/download speed? Not sure a VPS is my best option anymore, no one has the speeds I need... But on another note I've been looking at these guys https://www.serverhosh.com/netherland-dedicated-server/
Posted by madRoosterTony, 04-22-2016, 05:03 PM
The rest depends on your exact application. The reason they can offer 2Gbps on a seed box is that the torrent client uses very little CPU / RAM. I would try to figure out what CPU / RAM you need to keep the server under 40% usage of each resource. That way this is not your bottleneck. If you are serving files, then you need to worry about Disk IO as well.
Posted by panamaserver, 04-23-2016, 01:17 PM
in order to get a service that perform for as you looking for, trust me you need to higly increase your budged, 200 is a matter of child's and you want to play at mayor league, so consider this. do you really need such speed on internet? your site visitors will have an internet connections similar to this? if not then whats the sense of having 10Gbps if your users will only have 5mbps??? will you have more than 2k simultaneous and permanent visitors?
Posted by ChefBoyardee, 04-23-2016, 07:35 PM
Not hosting a site man! Using server speeds for my bot applications, speed IS that important to me!
Posted by ChefBoyardee, 04-23-2016, 07:40 PM
Alright, I seem to have found a reputable service that has given 2 reasonable offers. I am located on the East Coast U.S. Theoretically, which option should yield the better speeds for me? Option 1. - Intel Xeon 3440 / 16Gb RAM / 4x 2TB / 1Gbps FULL DUPLEX / USA **/ 100TB traffic **(EAST COAST USA)* Option 2. - I**ntel Xeon E3-1230 / 16GB RAM / 4x 3TB HDD / 10GE NIC / 100TB traffic (EVOSWITCH- NETHERLANDS)* Please explain THEORETICALLY why one or the other should perform better than the other. Both are dedicated server, thanks.
Posted by MightWeb-Marcus, 04-23-2016, 08:25 PM
I'm not sure if I'm understanding you correctly here - but you mention the usage of bots. What kind of bots are we talking about? I'm asking this as your personal location (East Coast in the US) becomes fairly irrelevant if you don't need a direct connection to the application running. In that scenario, what the bots are doing (or more accurately, where they're doing it) becomes more relevant. As for cross-atlantic connections, you're likely not going to get anywhere near 10 or even 1 Gig toward yourself - so if your connection to said node is important, I'd suggest the East Coast one.
Posted by ChefBoyardee, 04-23-2016, 09:33 PM
Let me explain briefly what I do... I run bots on major clothing and sneaker retailers (such as Nike, Adidas, Footlocker) checking out limited goods for customers. Sneakers and clothes limited enough to sell out in seconds, virtually impossible to checkout manually. I use their given card and address info to check the goods out in their name, they only pay the given service fee (on top of retail). Most of the retailers botted are within the United States, a few U.K. I feel the 10gb port in the Netherlands will reach the Nike HQ in Oregon before the 1 Gb on the East Coast does(?). I'm all open to what you all have to say...
Posted by Postbox, 04-23-2016, 09:55 PM
No, the size of the pipe doesn't affect the speed of the water. if you want to be first to reach a site in Oregon, find out what network(s) it's connected to and get yourself something in or very close to Oregon on those same networks (with a much smaller sized pipe to save expense). EDIT: Actually, even that won't do it. nike.com isn't in Oregon - It appears to be hosted on Akami, so it's likely to be hosted on multiple edge servers of theirs in many, many locations.
Posted by ChefBoyardee, 04-23-2016, 10:30 PM
I see what you're saying, but with the smaller pipe it isn't even possible to spew out gallons of water in seconds. The 1Gb port doesn't have the ability to get me 3000 mbps up/down speeds like the 10g. Some releases are a drawn out 30 minute fight, where the site is going down due to the traffic and all 100,000+ people are trying to send their add to cart and checkout requests until success. I feel the 10g would be especially useful here. But on another note, where is Adidas.com's US server located? http://www.adidas.com/us/ Appreciate the help this community has provided very much!
Posted by MightWeb-Marcus, 04-23-2016, 10:50 PM
Breaking it down to its simplest forms (and yeah, as Postbox mentioned, there's routing involved here to be taken into consideration): You say you think the 10G pipe would be more useful toward US. Let's look at a few things: a) Let's assume 100 bots are accessing the site at the same time. That's ~100 Mbit/s of connection each. Every network activity consumes X amount of your throughput. In fact, loading times of most websites will have barely any difference (if any at all) on a 100 Mbit/s connection vs a 10 Gbit/s connection. There's latency, opposite end throughput & loads, congestion, and most importantly the way HTTP works to factor in here. A lot of the time, the load time for a website has far less to do with the content you download, and more with how fast the opposing end server respond and handle your requests. This isn't applicable to most e-commerce sites as they are typically content-heavy - but it's worth factoring in. Render-blocking elements are also things to take into account. b) The 100 Mbit/s per bot described in the above example will (with good certainty) be slower than if each of those bots had 10 Mbit/s each - but in a very close proximity with good routing. c) Real-world example; My home connection here in Sweden has a capacity of 500 Mbit/s downstream. Actual throughput varies of course - but the fastest I've ever come up to is 51 megabytes per second (400+ Mbit/s). Downloading a one gigabyte test file from a latent Chicago (or Dallas for that matter) server with an unused, dedicated gigabit uplink renders me receiving it at about ~1.3 megabytes per second (~10 Mbit/s). The same applies for your scenario - except you'll be handling smaller individual data volumes (but more of them instead), and you'll likely have better connectivity from NL to US than I have from Sweden to US. With that said, you'll still get nowhere near the 10 gig throughput, and will lose tons of it on the trip over. TL;DR: If the website is in the US and latency is important - go for a server in the US.
Posted by madRoosterTony, 04-23-2016, 11:18 PM
Given exactly what you are doing now, I have agree, Its not the size of the Pipe you need to be worried about, its "water pressure" to keep in terms of water. Having a 10Gbps connection will do you no good if the server you are connecting too limits each connection, which with services like Akami is common. So what you need is faster ping time to Akami, which has absolutely due to the connection speed. Finding out what Datacenters Akami locates out of, is easy enough to research. So what can effect ping time, besides physical location, lets stick with your idea of being on a VPS. 1. Number of people on the same server vs the connection type. As most VPS servers only have 1 or 2 connections upto the switch, everyone on the server can be limited to a "take turns" type of connection. 2. Uplink connection of the switch VS total use of a switch. Many hosts might advertise 1Gbps connection, but often they are talking about the connection type to the switch, well then if their switch only has a 1 or 2 Gbps connection back to the core routers, then with a full rack full of servers, you could have 40+ servers all trying to connected at the same time, which will slow down your ping times 3. Backbone Core Bandwidth VS Total Clients - A completely full Datacenter would probally try to operate at 80% max capacity of its total connection speed. But this might mean, that during peak times, your ping times might be a little slower then normal. What you need to do is create a list of all your exact domains you are trying to run your bot against, i.e. store.nike.com vs nike.com if that is the case, etc. Then open tickets to each support team of potential hosting companies and ask them to run pings against each one and return a list to you. Even better would to be run MTR, so that way you could see number of hops and average ping times.
Posted by Postbox, 04-24-2016, 06:22 AM
They're also on Akami. So here's the thing, before you decide on what location(s) you want. If you do a WHOIS enquiry on adidas.com the IP listed as hosting them is shown as being registered to a company in Seattle, Washington. But, if you are connecting to them, that's not necessarily where your traffic/connection will end up. For example I'm in the UK, and if I do a traceroute to adidas.com I end up at a more local Akami edge server in Germany (near Nuremberg, in fact). My route to them doesn't even cross the Atlantic, let alone cross northern USA to Seattle - It depends on my location and the nearest available Akami edge server that can handle my requests. (And the IP for that server is actually registered to Akami's office in Vienna, Austria ). I think you need to do a lot more research on where you're going to need to locate your software, based on multiple traceroutes to the various companies you want to connect to and where the servers physically are that you'll be connecting to. Last edited by Postbox; 04-24-2016 at 08:49 AM. Reason: typo
Posted by ChefBoyardee, 04-24-2016, 06:53 PM
Thank you all for clearing this up for me, the support has really been helpful. As of now I am waiting on a response from the company, the first server option seems to be the pick. Just one more question based on my understanding of what you guys have said... A 10gb port server in the U.S would perform the same on a given site as the high speed 1Gb, seeing as at some point user speeds don't matter, the given website server has to respond. Is this correct?
Posted by madRoosterTony, 04-25-2016, 11:10 AM
This is correct. It wouldnt matter if you had a 1000Gb connection, the server you are talking to can only respond at its connection speed. Instead what you need is the shortest connection to the server.
Posted by ChefBoyardee, 04-25-2016, 04:53 PM
Thanks again, y'all have saved a few bucks and taught me thing or two about servers. I'll be back with any questions.... You guys know your stuff.
Posted by ChefBoyardee, 04-30-2016, 09:16 PM
Alright... Got the server, ran some tests and it's performance is mediocre. 900 mbps upload, around 700 mbps download. Turns out they are middleman from LeaseWeb servers, just reselling. I would be all for filing a refund claim through credit card company but can't be bothered with all that drama. Did a little research on LeaseWeb (lots of which lead to forum posts here) and I'd like to know their competitors. OVh, Nforce and i3D are all services I've come across so far. Basically, I'm searching for a list of direct server providers. NO more middleman for me, their going to charge rape prices for the high performance servers I'm looking for. Thanks.
Posted by LeaseVPS, 04-30-2016, 10:21 PM
Hi, Another option is to look for a provider housed in one of the Serverius Datacenters. Serverius don't sell Physical or Virtual servers so every provider on their network tends to own their own hardware / Colo clients etc.. See below a simple test I just did to akamia speedtest from a 10g vps (likely the akamia server is only a 1g server)