Lions, Mammoths, and Black Friday Offers, oh my! ServaRICA is here! (4GB for $10/mo in Canada!)

Remember the iPhone 4?  Remember when LMFAO ruled the airwaves with “Party Rock Anthem”?  Remember “Occupy Wall Street” and the last Space Shuttle Discovery mission?  Then your memory goes back as long as ServaRICA has been posting offers on LEB!  Back in 2011 their top offer was a 256MB for $6.99/mo…

…fast forward to Cyber Monday 2020 and they’re bringing us:

  • The Lion package: A 4GB KVM with 750GB of SSD and 4vcpu with 4TB of bandwidth for $10/month! 
  • The Mammoth Storage package: An 8GB KVM with 8TB (!) of storage and unlimited 100mbps or 8TB on 1gbps for $20/month!

Wow, these are huge offers!  Thanks for remember LEB on Cyber-Monday ServaRICA.

Their WHOIS is public and they’re a registered company in Quebec (NEC #1173530495).  You can find their TOS/AUP on their website and you can pay with Paypal, Alipay, Credit Cards and crypto currencies like BTC , ETH etc.

Remember that the LEB community would love to hear about your experience in the comments section below!

Here’s what they had to say: 

Servarica is VPS Hosting provider located in Montreal, Qc (Canada) that started more than 10 years ago. We have been featured on LEB since 2011. We offer real support with those offers and our team do 24/7 livechat support something you will rarely find in low end market and with this price point.

What makes these offers special?

  • track record of excellent service and good products (10 years in business)
  • Owned hardware / Managing our network
  • High Availability (All our servers are in pools of N+1 which allow us to do security updates and other maintenance to servers without shutting down VMs)
  • Unlimited BW 100mbps port with each offer or 4TB on 1gbps
  • real 24/7 livechat and ticket support
  • we offer 7 days full refund with no question asked

Now read more to see the offers!

Lion SSD Offer

  • 4GB RAM

  • 4x vCPU

  • 750GB SSD SAN

  • 4TB transfer on 1gbps or unlimited on 100mbps

  • 1Gbps uplink

  • 1x IPv4

  • /64 IPv6 free on demand

  • XenHVM (using our Xenica Control panel integrated in WHMCS)

  • $10/month

  • (ORDER)

Mammoth Storage Offer

  • 8GB RAM

  • 4x vCPU


  • unlimited on 100mbps or 8TB on 1gbps

  • 1Gbps uplink

  • 1x IPv4

  • /64 IPv6 free on demand

  • XenHVM (using our Xenica Control panel integrated in WHMCS)

  • $20/month

  • (ORDER)



Please let us know if you have any questions/comments and enjoy!

Related posts:

Welcome Back, CometVPS! Cyber Monday Offers Include OpenVZ, KVM, Storage, Dedi, and Colo!

HostNamaste: Black Friday and Cyber Monday Deals! Shared, Reseller, OpenVZ, Windows, KVM Storage VPS…

HostSolutions’ First Offer on LowEndBox: Big Discounts for Black Friday! (1GB with 10TB traffic for …

SimpleNode Returns with Storage Nodes (1TB Disk for $10/mo in Dallas, TX!)


I’m Andrew, techno polymath and long-time LowEndTalk community Moderator. My technical interests include all things Unix, perl, python, shell scripting, and relational database systems. I enjoy writing technical articles here on LowEndBox to help people get more out of their VPSes.

sharepoint online – Site Design containing library with folders

I created a Site Script to create a site design, and the site script includes a document library with many folders in it.

The site design deploys without any problems, but when I try to apply it to the site, it errors:enter image description here

Is there actually a way to create a site template that comes prepopulated with libraries that has folders? Copying my site script below.

  "$schema": "",
  "actions": [
      "verb": "createSPList",
      "listName": "Documents",
      "templateType": 101,
      "subactions": [
          "verb": "addFolder",
          "path": "Application"

  "version": 1

MySQL database backup is 0

I tried to backup a database many times, and the result is 0KB, however it contains almost 1.5GB, all databases backed up with success BUT one is not:

ls -l /home/backups/www/mysql/DataBases/
total 2227380
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 2279704740 Nov 30 21:57 alfir.sql
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root      35607 Nov 30 21:57 auto.sql
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root     240622 Nov 30 21:58 bonneoccasionv2-16072018.sql
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root     240668 Nov 30 21:58 bonneoccasionv2_17072018.sql
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root     597044 Nov 30 21:57 bonneoccasionv2.sql
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root       1370 Nov 30 21:58 comp_bak.sql
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root          0 Nov 30 21:58 competitors.sql <== THIS ONE

Then I launched the repair, it is hanging, no response yet:

mysqlcheck -u root -p -r competitors

json rpc – RPC security of bitcoind node

If I have a fairly default bitcoin.conf file, let’s say:


ie: notably one where I don’t specify things like rpcuser, rpcpassword – is this insecure?

As I understand, this lets the node be queried locally without an authentication. However I’m not sure this is any more dangerous than wallet.dat sitting around – local access would mean private key access.

Are default settings of bitcoin insecure?

NDSolve is finding a stiff system very quickly trying to solve a large set of differential equations

I’m a physics PhD student solving lubrication equations (non-linear PDEs) related to the evaporation of binary droplets in a cylindrical pixel in order to simulate the shape evolution. So I split the system into N ODEs, each representing the height evolution (dh/dt) at point i, write as finite differences, and solve simultaneously using NDSolve. For single-liquid droplets this works perfectly, the droplet evaporates cleanly.

However for binary droplets I include N additional ODEs for the composition fraction evolution (dX/dt) at each point. This also adds a new term (marangoni stress) to the dh/dt equations. Immediately NDSolve says:

At t == 0.00029140763302667777`, step size is effectively zero;
singularity or stiff system suspected.

I plot the droplet height at this t-value and it shows a narrow spike at the origin (clearly exploding, hence the stiffness); plotting the composition shows a narrow plummet at the origin (also exploding, just negative. Also, the physics obviously shouldn’t permit the composition fraction to be below 0).

Finally, both sets of equations have terms depending on dX/dr, the composition gradient. If this is set to zero and I also set the evaporation interaction to zero (meaning the two liquids evaporate at the same rate and there can be no X gradient) there should be no change in X anywhere and it should reduce to the single liquid case (dX/dt = 0 and dh/dt no longer depends on X). However, the procedure is introducing some small gradient in X nonetheless, which explodes and causes the same numerical instability.

My question is this: is there anything about NDSolve that might be causing this? I’ve been over the equations and discretisation a hundred times and am sure it’s correct. I’ve also looked into the documentation of NDSolve, but didn’t find anything that helps me. Could it be introducing a small numerical error in the composition gradient?

I can post an MRE code below, but it’s pretty dense and obviously written in mathematica code (doesn’t transfer to the real world well…) so I don’t know how much it’d help. Anyway thank you for reading this!

layout – Is there a usability reason for centering a website’s content area on a page?

Regarding the system – maybe not, except situations where you have some special features on it, e.g. a game, which needs users to click around the content quickly, and some clicks may occur in the very side of it.

However – since usability in general is about making the system reflect user expectations better, it gets quite important. I believe most of the users have some sense of balance, and aligning the layout to one of the sides abuses the feeling of a website being balanced, this making it – in user’s perception – not perfect. This may lead the user to perceive it as “worse” and “less handy”, which is very close to being less usable.

On a second thought. As a right handed person I prefer to keep my cursor in the right part of the screen. It may be silly preference, but it is so. So, moving it to the left part of the screen is less handy for me. This becomes even more important on tablet. I ususally hold it in/on my left hand and operate it with right hand. So, the more to the left the content is, the more I need to move my hand. At some point it becomes important.

dnd 5e – For the Fey Touched and Shadow Touched feats, what exactly does “spell slots […] of the appropriate level” mean?

“Appropriate level” means one with which the spell could normally be cast

The relevant quote from the new Fey Touched and Shadow Touched feats is (TCoE, p. 79-80):

You can also cast these spells using spell slots you have of the appropriate level.

In this case, the phrase “spell slots (…) of the appropriate level” means you can cast the spells using any slots that would normally be appropriate for you to cast the spells with. There is no ambiguity here, as “spell slots” is plural modifying the subject to which the “of the appropriate level” applies to to be the totality of the spell slots you have.

So you can use the base spell slot level of the spell, or you can opt to use a higher-level spell slot as outlined in the PHB rules:

When a character casts a spell, he or she expends a slot of that spell’s level or higher, effectively “filling” a slot with the spell.

So, at a minimum you have to use a slot of the spell’s level, but are free to use a higher one.

Is the word “the” not intended to restrict it to only using a single slot level (the base level)?

If the feature was intended to only allow the spells to be cast at the base level, the wording would need to be “You can also cast these spells using a spell slot you have at the base level of the spell.” or “You can cast these spells using appropriate spell slots, but only at their base level.”

What about the Artificer Initiate feat?

One of the other points raised is that in another feat in the same book, Artificer Initiate (p. 79), the corresponding part of the description says:

You can also cast the spell using any spell slots you have.

Here, it is unambiguous that you can cast using higher-level spell slots. So does this mean the text for the Fey Touched and Shadow Touched feats was intentional to prevent being able to use “any slots”?

There is a significant difference between the Artificer Initiate feat and the Fey/Shadow Touched feats. The Artificer Initiate feat only allows you to learn 1st level spells, whereas the Fey/Shadow Touched feats allow for 2nd level spells as well (e.g. misty step). Given that 5e is explicitly an exceptions-based game (via the “specific beats general” principle), if the same wording were used on the Fey Touched and Shadow Touched feats, it would create an exception allowing the 2nd-level misty step to be cast using a 1st-level slot (given that 1st-level is a valid choice from “any” spell slots, but not from the “appropriate” spell slots).

It’s also worth considering, that not all feats (or indeed features) are written by the same writer, and that 5e is written using natural language, as opposed to strictly defined and interpreted language. There are multiple ways to convey the same meaning using natural language. As a result, trying to put two features side-by-side and using one feature to try disprove a feature application in the other due to wording differences won’t be appropriate in most cases.