Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!


Why not specialized VPS services?
New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.

All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.

Why not specialized VPS services?

I want VPSs for webhosting. A nice, solid, reliable platform where I can put 10 or 20 or 30 sites. Like most websites they don't use much bandwidth. And like well-configured sites they don't use a lot of CPU or disk I/0.

I don't really want a VPS where my node neighbours are running torrents, or VPNing movies, or file-sharing, or encoding video, or... whatever. I have nothing against those things, but it's sometimes disruptive for me. Instead, I'd like to have like-minded neighbours :)

So why don't providers start to specialize?

Thanked by 1asf
«1

Comments

  • rmlhhdrmlhhd Member
    edited February 2014

    +1 for this, I setup VPS's specifically for web hosting (I run a sys admin business) and I have people asking my why their site is sometimes slow or grinding to a halt. I get them to ask the provider about server load, most just say it's fixed but now and then we'll get things like. People using I/O like crazy, downloading torrents, mining etc.

    I also understand that if there was a host that specifically made VPS's for web hosting or other specific stuff then there would be issues like, how would we control it. At the end of the day it's still a VPS you can do a lot more than just web hosting. Unless it was fully managed or you did a lot of checking...

  • like.. that you can choose what to have pre-installed on the vps while ordering?

  • jarjar Patron Provider, Top Host, Veteran
    edited February 2014

    Assuming web hosting neighbors are like minded or not damaging is a mistake IMO. In fact I would go as far as to say that there would be more trouble rather than less. Less idle neighbors. Subnet wide Wordpress brute force and temporary outage until the ip is nulled.

    15 magento installations on the server and might as well give up.

  • SpiritSpirit Member
    edited February 2014

    @sleddog said:
    So why don't providers start to specialize?

    I think some of them do, just not so much in budget vps hosting sphere. If you look as example at those "top" WHT managed hosts, none of them allow IRC usage while most budget hosts do.
    My opinion is that budget hosting oritented companies just can't afford to be too picky regarding their clientele as long it's legal, otherwise they are loosing big market share.

    Thanked by 1RichardLeik
  • This is a nice idea. You could probably block all ports apart from 80, 443, and 25(maybe not) on the node end, limit CPU to .5 to prevent slowdowns, and use OpenVZ for the virtualization and nuke any process apart from httpd, sql, and other web hosting related processes.

  • Mark_R said: like.. that you can choose what to have pre-installed on the vps while ordering?

    No, more like packages advertised for specific purposes, with other uses denied by the TOS.

    If you want to VPN, buy a VPS-VPN package.

    If you want to webhost, but a VPS-Webhost package.

    Thanked by 1Mark_R
  • SpiritSpirit Member
    edited February 2014

    Question is if host can fill nodes for $2/m per user with too restrictive TOS and very limited AUP. As idea seems nice but only if you're not the one who run business and pay gear and colocation costs.
    Personally I would always pick a host who allows me to run private VPN and IRC even if my primary need would be only to host some website for now.

  • rmlhhdrmlhhd Member
    edited February 2014

    @dhamaniasad said:
    This is a nice idea. You could probably block all ports apart from 80, 443, and 25(maybe not) on the node end, limit CPU to .5 to prevent slowdowns, and use OpenVZ for the virtualization and nuke any process apart from httpd, sql, and other web hosting related processes.

    That is a reasonable idea.

    @sleddog said:

    That is also a good idea, since it would likely be done with OpenVZ the provider could make their own templates. So if you get VPS-VPN then you have access to pre-configured OpenVPN, SoftEther, PPTP, L2TP templates.

  • Spirit said: Question is if host can fill nodes for $2/m per user with too restrictive TOS and very limited AUP

    What about $5, or $6 or $7? There are a lot of web-development people out there looking for quality and affordable service. And a TOS/AUP is only restrictive if it limits what you want to do. Personally I love it when I buy a VPS (for webhosting) and I see "No gameservers, no torrents... etc." in the AUP :)

    Thanked by 1NodePing
  • Related but different, I would love to see more LEBs from reputable providers with choice for say RAID0 storage. I can redeploy my web stuff in a few mins and could live with disk failures (aka outage for a while). I still want to benefit from good node management but am happy to trade more space for less redundancy...

  • imperioimperio Member
    edited February 2014

    Only webhosting neighbours guaranteed managed VPS without root access:

    http://www.site5.com/vps/

  • This is also on/off topic. I see a lot of discussion where people have ideas, some of then really good but people don't end up doing them.

    There should be an idea's section on this forum where people can express their ideas wether their new or just improving something. @mpkossen

    The those providers that like the ideas and have the money can give it a try of a group of us could work together and start it up.

  • jarjar Patron Provider, Top Host, Veteran

    @rmlhhd said:
    This is also on/off topic. I see a lot of discussion where people have ideas, some of then really good but people don't end up doing them.

    There should be an idea's section on this forum where people can express their ideas wether their new or just improving something. mpkossen

    The those providers that like the ideas and have the money can give it a try of a group of us could work together and start it up.

    Preview: the "Solusvm alternative forum" ;)

  • SpiritSpirit Member
    edited February 2014

    sleddog said: What about $5, or $6 or $7?

    The same. It's still low budget with need to fill nodes + a lot of competition which allow everything you wouldn't.
    I understand your perspective completely but I doubt that any budget host can live from you and few other picky individuals solely. WiredTree and LiquidWeb can afford this. But they charge $50/m per VPS package and they don't need 50 - 100 clients per node.

  • It doesn't seem like rocket science to me. Dedicate a node to webhosting. Block everything but ports 80 and 443 incoming. Open other ports (e.g., 25) per client on request and monitor usage. Watch disk I/O. Politely kick or migrate the video encoder site (it's in your TOS). Charge a $5/month minimum. Use KVM or Xen PV. Awesome :)

    Thanked by 1skagerrak
  • @sleddog said:
    It doesn't seem like rocket science to me. Dedicate a node to webhosting. Block everything but ports 80 and 443 incoming. Open other ports (e.g., 25) per client on request and monitor usage. Watch disk I/O. Politely kick or migrate the video encoder site (it's in your TOS). Charge a $5/month minimum. Use KVM or Xen PV. Awesome :)

    If you want shared hosting, why not buy shared hosting with a dedicated IP via a provider who is reputable and doesn't overload their nodes? Seems awfully silly to pay for root access on a server and only be allowed to do basic shared hosting functions. Would be near impossible for a provider to fill a node when they could just sell a standard VPS and fill the node 10x as fast.

  • SkylarM said: If you want shared hosting, why not buy shared hosting

    Huh? Where did I say I wanted shared hosting? I want a (virtual) server environment that I can configure the way I want and use the way I want for web hosting. That doesn't equate to "shared hosting".

    Most people with the same needs as me end up going to the lower end of the managed providers market, like FutureHosting etc., because they can't find the stability in the "real" lowend market.It's not because they need "management", they need stability.

  • SkylarMSkylarM Member
    edited February 2014

    @sleddog said:

    Right but disabling everything but web-based stuff sort of defeats the purpose of a VPS at that point. You can still configure it to your needs, but a lot of people buy a vps for more than one singular purpose, or at least the ability to use it for a different need if plans change, etc.

    In the low end segment, it doesn't make much sense to sell something so specific and specialized such as a "webhosting only vps". While the idea is neat, there's just not enough overall interest in the market to warrant doing that instead of using the same configuration to sell a general purpose VPS that can be used for anything within the decided upon AUP. You'd simply sell faster at that point.

    The same idea can essentially be achieved with a provider that doesn't allow irc, gameservers, mining, etc and monitors load/abuse accordingly, minus all the restrictions. End goal should still be there, stable service.

    Biggest issue is obviously abuse. Your cost in the low end segment is so little, that people turn to that for their abuse desires (email spam, cpu mining, torrenting, so forth) since they lose so little if/when they get suspended for abuse. A higher price tag inherently deters quite a bit of abuse automatically because people aren't willing to risk as much money for the sake of abuse (it still happens, just less likely).

  • So kind of, sort of something like shared/reseller hosting BUT with root/sudo access so you can have more control?

    I think it'd end up "bad" because nobody is going to be able to guarantee that your "like-minded neighbors" are not going to do naughty things?

    Don't get me wrong, something like this would be great but not sure how it'd be properly set up... or if it's even feasible, realistically speaking.

  • proper virtualisation would mean it didn't matter what your neighbour did

  • SkylarM said: Right but disabling everything but web-based stuff sort of defeats the purpose of a VPS at that point.

    I see it differently. Specialization is a good thing, and it's the way many technology-related companies succeed. Its the way of differentiating yourself from the masses.

    In the low end segment, it doesn't make much sense to sell something so specific and specialized such as a "webhosting only vps". While the idea is neat, there's just not enough overall interest in the market to warrant doing that instead of using the same configuration to sell a general purpose VPS that can be used for anything within the decided upon AUP. You'd simply sell faster at that point.

    Have you done market research to determine the level of interest and reach this conclusion?

    Since inception until today, lowendbox.com and lowentalk.com have demonstrated that it feasible to offer excellent service at a low price. But sometimes the excellent service fails, because of (a) provider failures -- which this site quickly identifies, and (b) user abuse.

    Offering specialized, limited service is IMO an excellent way for you and other providers to limit user abuse.

    A solid, reliable, limited, webhosting-only lowend VPS could I think start to compete with the "managed" providers -- whose business is overwhelming webhosting -- for clients who buy that product for stability, not management.

  • AnthonySmithAnthonySmith Member, Patron Provider

    Its a great idea in principal however it lacks control as it would need to be heavily managed and monitored way beyond the demands of a standard VPS node, you could not prevent people from taking on clients of their own that then install a bloated wordpress site with 200 plugins.

    This sort of thing is currently best suited to a dedicated server however with the advent of bigger SSD drives etc it is becoming more likely that this sort of thing would be achievable on budget, personally I would not want to be the first to test the market waters though as I suspect with the bottom dollar wins market framework we currently live in you would end up with a very empty node for a very long time.

    I love the idea but it would require very specialist set up, maintenance, monitoring and management, simply blocking ports would not be enough.

  • raindog308raindog308 Administrator, Veteran

    @Bruce said:
    proper virtualisation would mean it didn't matter what your neighbour did

    Sure, and who offers that in the LEB world? No one.

    Completely transparent virtualization to me means I can:

    • run 100% CPU all day long
    • use 100% of my memory + swap all day long
    • hammer the disk as much as I want whenever I want for as long as I want
    • use as much network as I want

    The only way you get that today is with either a dedicated server or a big-boy cloud provider like AWS or Azure, or enterprise vmware. You don't get it with generic OvZ/Xen/KVM.

    Amazon/Microsoft/etc. last I heard were using their own custom Xen builds and probably some fancy in-house mods, plus dedicated disk and metered network, on custom hardware, and it's a lot more expensive than $7/month.

    To the OP, I think what you want is not distinguishable enough from shared hosting to really be a market niche at the lowend. That's my guess...but hey, when the next lowendkickstarter comes around...

  • MelitaMelita Member, Host Rep
    edited February 2014

    I already did this, though not for web hosting.

    I was kickstarted in providing game server hosting by giving each of game server its own VPS and IP. Later then I expanded to selling VPS for general needs.

    Because of this, I allocate one of my node only for VPS specialized in game server, while another nodes is for mixed things (like many other VPS providers). They still get SSH and charged higher, and they are agreed to only run source dedicated server (written on my TOS).

    By doing this, I can assure that each of source dedicated server on that nodes get a stable tickrate and var. I also can easily predict their cpu load behaviour and bandwidth consumption, unlike in normal nodes where some badly configured wordpress customer can make the server load spikes in some split seconds (even though I already used pure SSD on all my nodes).

    Thanked by 1raindog308
  • I think setting up VPS's do do (or not do) a few specific tasks is a little bit counter intuitive. Servers are there to host data, simple as that and to say some type of data should not be hosted or processed just doesn't sit too well with me. Besides regulating it might be near impossible

  • jcalebjcaleb Member
    edited February 2014

    I thought of the title as having pre-configured VPS for very specialized purpose (like turnkey). Or maybe more specialized. Like "Ruby on Rails" development server. Pre-configured so that it has version control (git, svn), MySQL, and a jenkins (or other CI tool) so that you can deploy to VPS (via web GUI of jenkins) a build and test them.

    On topic: I like the idea as most VPS I use for web hosting. But don't want too restrictive as I also want to run other things on it.

  • drserverdrserver Member, Host Rep

    raindog308 said: Sure, and who offers that in the LEB world? No one.

    Completely transparent virtualization to me means I can: - run 100% CPU all day long - use 100% of my memory + swap all day long - hammer the disk as much as I want whenever I want for as long as I want - use as much network as I want

    We have that options. Some of them are under 7 USD.

  • I think companies like eleven2, site5 offer such. Pricing is not low-end though

  • Zen said: As a consumer, I am sure it sounds like an awesome idea

    Yup. And when consumers think something is an awesome idea, it usually means there's money to be made providing it :)

    But I guess this isn't what lowend providers want to do, so that's the end of it.

  • @sleddog said:

    If there are enough people, I can dedicated a node for just web stuff.

Sign In or Register to comment.