Anyone interested in these storage plans?

concerto49

Seeing so many people ask for storage plans I might just set some up as a special if there's enough interest.

All plans will be limited to 100mbit, 128mb ram / 128mb swap, 1 CPU core. It will be on RAID6.

Prices are (in USD):

250GB: $7/month 500GB: $13/month 1000GB: $25/month 2000GB: $49/month

This will be hosted in USA. This is not an offer at this point.

Alex_LiquidHost

Once it gets an offer, PM me ;)

@concerto49 said: This will be hosted in USA. This is not an offer at this point.

>

Nick

Yup.

pubcrawler

I'd be interested in any storage offer. There are a total lack of them in the industry.

But I am picky about bandwidth between anything and existing servers. If the conduit between us and you moves slower than my formula tolerates I jump ship. Peering and good routing is the gold in the pot.

ChrisPV

Not a bad deal. I would be interested, depending on the location I'd prefer central US like Chicago, Kansas City or Dallas.

joepie91

Sounds very nice. Few questions though: is the traffic unmetered (if not, how much per month), and would you restrict what you can run on it?

concerto49

Traffic is unmetered at 100mbit. Don't see how you can backup otherwise :)

Can only be used for storage/backups. No irc, illegal content etc.

Taz

Assuming your nodes are on a 100mbit "shared" connection and you will be sharing that shared connection will be charged with 30-50 vps or more, customers will be lucky to receive even 10mbps on any given time. I as a client would much prefer limited 100mbps transfer from a node on a GB port.

Cirium

@Taz Gbit nodes & 30mbit/plan guarantee'd in Chicago

http://vpscheap.net/backup-vps.aspx

ErawanArifNugroho

@Cirium said: Gbit nodes & 30mbit/plan guarantee'd in Chicago

@Cirium, are they good? Won't be in deadpolled soon? If yes, I want to try them

Taz

Don't really want to bash anyone but the combination of space, bandwidth and price doesn't sound right. For example, on a noe with let's say 20 active container, we are looking at 600tb and a node on and you are looking at a node on 2gbit minimum. Which is not going to be cheap. And they have to be selling a lot more then 20 vps to make profit.

Cirium

@ErawanArifNugroho I have been using them for a awhile now, the company is a couple years old and still running.

I do not think they will fall anytime soon.

@Taz So your saying that they company will not make profits?

Taz

No I am saying, as an user, I will not get what I have paid for. Pretty sure they have one of those unlimited host type clause somewhere or I can not maxout "my" 100mbps connection 24/7 (typical 24/7 rsync backups that I used to have for some personal projects of mine).

Cirium

@Taz

If they colo it at a cheap price that would allow them to offer low prices, along with giving all the clients what they paid for.

Correct?

Taz

You are not going to get anything cheap for 2+Gbit dedicated connection per server unless you are a big player with big commits. These types of plans are same as typical unlimited hosts.

Cirium

@Taz Well I can't say the same for you, but as a customer I've gotten everything I've paid for from them and I'm happy with the service.

ErawanArifNugroho

Well then, let me try vpscheap.net for a while. I will only use the unmetered for watching hulu anyway. :)

Back to topic :). Sorry for derailing :D

zhuanyi

@concerto49: location (East/West coast)? And which DC would you use?

Taz

As I have said, it is based on those unlimited host model. You assume than 90% of your typical clients will never use their full resource.

lele0108

Tons of hosts do unmetered. Users who buy VPSs and dedicated for cheap don't expect dedicated 100mb/s.

pubcrawler

Everyone should already know that vast majority of folks subscribe, but few actually are big resource users of their paid services.

So long as the active users aren't on the same resource colliding, you are fine. Otherwise, you end up with what we often see in the VPS world, bad IO, slow throughput, slow CPUs.

There is a model that is sustainable with storage, otherwise Google, Amazon, etc. wouldn't be involved in that they ways they are.

I'd be apprehensive about dealing with a small provider with several servers though. Big blocks of disk and bandwidth should be dealing in racks of gear. But everyone has to start somewhere, so I sometimes shop with smaller providers too.

Taz

I do not expect 100mb/s dedicated. I only want that 100mb available when I need it. I can't imagine backing up tb worth data over 1-5mb connection.

Oliver

If all users with these types of services just did incremental backups with something like rsnapshot and rsync it would be a lot easier for providers to cater for it. The risk in providing these types of services is that people expect to be able to move huge amounts of data in and out at once at high speed rather than spread out over time.

E.g. @Taz illustrates this: "I only want that 100mb available when I need it." That's completely fair to ask for but pretty hard at the providers end. The moment two or three people need to move 10GB each and each of them wants the speed available because they need it you suddenly have a problem.

FWIW I have considered offering this type of services as I have a fair bit of storage capacity free on nodes in LA (with WebNX and GorillaServers) but would sell the service with a pretty clear disclaimer about what I am and am not selling. I haven't had the time to develop this properly which is why it's not going anywhere at the moment...

IMO @miTgiB did this well with his storage plans (which aren't offered anymore). He had the capacity and the (very) solid network performance; when I had some his storage plans I had incremental backups working fine with no complaints at my end or his end. But if I went and tried to move 100GB of data in or out at once and was suddenly using 20+MB/s of bandwidth I did get an email from him requesting that I reduce the speeds (5MB/s was considered fair FWIW). I did this and didn't have a problem doing so, but I imagine many people might complain and expect to be able to move data in or out at maximum speed all the time.

My 5c anyway...

pubcrawler

@Oliver, that's what we use and many more technical folks use ---> rsync.

That solution while alright and portable, does have some limits we've seen in some environments. A bunch of folks with large filesets running regularly can put a beating on server without moving very much traffic around.

Taz

@Oliver I get your point. My issue was with the vpscheap link that was posted. If provider said I would get 30tb/mo, then will I should get it. And the only way to achieve 30tb would be constantly pushing my 100mb unless I have access to gb port. That's why I said, those price and product don't add up.

Now if the provider mentioned I will get say 1tb transfer per month, well that's a different equation. I can achieve that 1tb over a months term with out any issue and without pushing my limit. My problem is, if I have paid for "30tb", I might have the need for 30tb and it is providers duty to provide me my 30tb. Am I being unreasonable? I think not ;)

Oliver

@pubcrawler Yes, that is also relevant since basically everyone offering these plans at low price points is just using slower SATA drives.

@Taz Yes I understand, I wasn't having a go at you at all and only just got the reference to that link. You're right that it doesn't add up, so no you're not being unreasonable.

Taz

Ya. That's another one. Well @mitGib os have ssd cache so as Fran and other good people.

pubcrawler

SSD's are suitable economically for backup services as the end low cost storage medium. Fine for caches and small VPS allocations though.

Think we are down to 80 cents per gigabyte now. $100 for 120GB or for a $100 you could buy a 2TB SATA drive. Big difference there in space.

Lots of ways to dice up space via virtualization and that is where many drive RAIDS and exotic connector fabrics come in. Rather costly. You can accomplish much of the same on the cheap with ARM SOC boards and a SATA drive.

One model is the super computer, the other is the cloud, basically.

lele0108

So, bringing this up:

RPi and external HDD? Though I/O will be poor.

Oliver

To be honest if I were to offer backup services I'd just run the VPS or whatever from bare drives. No RAID. If it's a backup service and the types of customers who I'd be aiming for are the ones who have their data backed up in multiple places... I wouldn't be backing it up either. Not really viable if you want to offer something at the prices people here expect anyway. :-)

Taz

Well ya. We are talking about typical LET :P