OVH offers KVM virtual servers with SSD starting at $2.5/mo[1], and announced they will have an even smaller $1.25/mo plan[2]. All that with more memory than DO.
I'm guessing that VPS providers have a low support cost/customer compared to shared hosting. No hairy compatibility issues, everything is neatly abstracted away, everyone has their own, independent environment with most of the administrative tasks offloaded onto the user.
After you toss in a few guides that double as marketing, and are usually written by the users themselves, all that's left is to take care of the hardware and bill.
Is there anything inherently different (security, performance, or otherwise) about these servers of Runabove's?
I run a fair amount of dev servers, and that price ($2.50) is mind blowing. But i fear that it's far too cheap to be anything but a letdown.. Thoughts?
They're based on OpenStack where DO rolled out their own system, I believe. On the upside, you can use all the CLI tools (nova, etc) that come with OpenStack, existing software should be compatible, and you get some of the additional cloud features (object storage, security groups). On the downside, the panel isn't as nice. The "expert mode" is just OpenStack's Horizon.
But the servers, the instances themselves, are not really any different. I benchmarked the cheapest one for ServerBear[1] a few days ago.
The one thing I miss is IPv6. DO is ahead here.
Would it be OK if I plugged my referral link[2]? With it, you get $10 to test things out.
I was going to sign up, but halfway through realized I can't do it without actually providing a payment method (in spite of the credit). I hope you got the $10 credit for my initial sign-up though.
I think where they win is when somebody buys a $5/mo server and uses $0.50/mo worth of capacity. They shut down all the hardware they don't need and save the electricity costs.
We're growing so fast that shutting down hardware is the last thing we would ever do. We have the opposite problem -- it's quite challenging to provision hardware fast enough to keep up with demand. :)
Haha, that's surprising. I've heard lots of stories about load balancing VMs to certain corners of the datacenter so the rest can be shut down that I figured everybody had unused metal at least at some point during the day.
They're hardly the only VPS provider offering that price point. (Although it's true, many of the others have a slightly fly-by-night look about them. But by no means all of them.)
Sadly 99.9% of the other companies are shitty solusvm customers who dont understand the hypervisors they are using, and completely fail to manage resources properly, resulting in retarded TOS such "a load average of more than 1.0 for more than 15 minutes" results in warning/suspension/ban. You'd be insane to trust any production stuff to retard kiddie hosts from LowEndBox or WHT.
Definitely. These are good for VPN/proxy endpoints in various geographic areas to test servers or get around restrictions and not much else. I use the cheap VPS boxes for backup static file hosting for my products, but I serve everything primarily off Amazon S3.
