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.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
Comments
Sorry, seems like I make a wrong post
It's 10mbit vps, not the storage one
It's 10mbit vps, not the storage one
Oh, i thought it's from 30mb/s storage vps. For $2 a month, that's quiet good. My internet connection still cannot push more than 10mb/s though.
Which 1 would people prefer? I mean location.
If you are asking me then I'd choose Canada, but then a LEB storage VPS is not really possible here considering the bandwidth cost. How about somewhere close to the east? Say NY? Chicago? or even the new Buffalo DC?
You're spot on. Was just planning on Buffalo / Chicago.
Thanks for all the feedback so far. To update everyone, this should be the final specs, for what we can afford:
Gigabit port with everyone restricted to 90mbits unlimited. 1/2 core of CPU on all plans. 10% off if paid yearly.
Still ok?
@Taz - about bandwidth/network? Is this ok now?
Make the first one 200 gb and 7 $ so it can meet leb criteria so at least one plan can be listed on LET
M
Assuming you are going to sell at least 20 vps on that node,
90mbs unmetered =~27TB x 20= 540TB.
Assuming a gbit port will allow you a maximum 300TB, how are you planning to get 240TB extra bandwidth?
Forget the unmetered thing and calculate your plan.
90mbs unmetered =~27TB x 20= 540TB.
Assuming a gbit port will allow you a maximum 300TB, how are you planning to get 240TB extra bandwidth?
I assume 90mb/s per vps on shared 1gb/s node connection. So the bandwidth will never more than 330TB.
Yes. So you are selling 240TB extra that you can never provide.
O an did I mention that you need bandwidth for for the node itself+ something for lord Murphy.
A VPS with 200+ GB space and 90mbits unlimited/unmetered is a warez FTP, not a storage VPS.
You seem to assume 100% of clients will use 100% of their b/w 100% of the time, which will never ever happen.
Seriously how many people actually cap their available bandwidth per month besides who you just mentioned.
Not even "almost never" or "rarely." Never. Maybe a TOR node or someone who torrents 24/7. But that's never going to be everyone on a server.
Im interested, so you can count me in.
I am not assuming. I am just saying , what if I need 30TB and you cut me after 2-3tb?
Let's say I decided to get the 900gb plan and I need to backup restore on a daily basis.
I'm confused, where did he say he would cut people off?
Backup and delete 900GB data on daily basis, that's insane. Btw, what i understand 90mb/s just restriction for every vps on shared gigabit connection, so that no one can hog full gigabit speed.
You are twisting my word. He is not going to cut me. But he will not have enough bandwidth left to provide me what I want.
You need to understand that we are not talking about proven providers nor seasoned sysadmin like yourself. You are looking at someone who tried to hire a failed sysadmin just because he was willing to work for cheap.
You are just inviting more drama. Soon you will have some one posting here or wht complaining that provider cut me off for excessive data usage while I am only using what I have paid for. Then the same people who is saying yes here will rip the providers head off.
@buddingyun there are situation where I have done more than that. I know it is extreme but not impossible.
Lol it's unmetered, but it still on fair shared connection.
From 20 vps, the probability is 1/20 people will do that, if you know what i mean.
I sell unmetered and I don't provide a dedicated 1Gbps line to everyone who pays me $7/m. It's expected that you aren't going to get a line to yourself, is it not? Unmetered doesn't mean uninterrupted and capable of bursting 100% of the available bandwidth 24/7/365 (or ever....Cogent).
Great way to encourage growth, by predicting failure for everyone.
I for one believe these proposed plans to be fine.
We have current storage nodes and the biggest needs we have for them are:
1. Large disk
2. Fast network when we need it
3. Ability to run rsync based software on the backup server itself
While we have 100GBs sitting on storage, it is all legitimate stuff.
We don't use much bandwidth except blips when new data appears in our systems and occasional full backups of the backups (quarterly at best).
Haven't eyeballed what rsync needs RAM wise. We have lots of files and have ran into resource problems on larger VPSes mirroring files. We do have a large set of files (think 500k to several million) depending, but the files are structured and nested.
Jarland you and I both know pretty well that there's a huge difference between website and backup storage when it comes to space and transfer. Right here, I miss the good old wht styled argument. There are very few websites who requires TB data transfer for legit things while TB is nothing for storage.
Is there? Everyone purchases backup VPS to cap the available space and bandwidth each month? Based on what experience? Only two people here that could confirm that are Tim & Francisco.
Everything gets deleted and everyone gets infractions?
Based on personal usage?
Well then my personal usage implies the exact opposite. Which sort of hints at a similar usage pattern to standard VPS but then we'd need a larger sample size to make a call.
Have to look at the market for the offer too.
If you are attracting the end user LEB/LET crowd you may see more troubling use and types of stored files you may not want. Namely as a desktop extension sitting on a fast pipe for active use.
I use storage remotely both for business and for non business. But have different accounts for each. The non business use would see me maybe requesting those backed up files from my tablet (i.e. personal videos or photos). The business side is normally scheduled events, data integrity checks on a regular schedule. Infrequent mass data usage.
How a provider clamps down on the storage use is most important to viability of such.
Bandwidth clampdowns/QoS are mandatory, unless you have a pay per TB bandwidth model.
Should consider move in specials for bulk loading of data where a customer gets a speed bump to get their bulk of data there quickly. Similarly, a pay per incident or month where someone needs better throughput on demand to mirror their data elsewhere is something I'd pay for.
The plans seem absolutely reasonable for me, including the shared gbps port. We are talking about LEB/LET price after all. More than enough for the price.
If someone requires more, than there is rackspace, softlayer and etc. to make the TBs of daily backups.
Makes sense.
Exactly. It just makes it easier on the provider side and the user side. However, I do agree this might not be the way to go.
In light of all the growing concerns this will turn into Warez, disputes on whether someone might get their share etc - it might just be better to put a low bandwidth cap on it, but have the options for users as said by pubcrawler to either purchase a large block of bandwidth or to get a bump / download quota to move things across/off.
Great idea. Will have to consider the feasibility of this.
Not likely. As I described earlier, a large part of it will be for my own usage, however, I will also cap myself to said specs to be fair.
Even a Tor node (unless exit and even then...) will not max out the pipe all the time. I would say a relay will use about half and an exit about 80-85% at best.
You can, of course, run more instances in paralel, but that memory will not allow much of that voodoo, eventually will start to crap out because of other resources problems.
Heck, even me I cant setup a node to use all that BW in those conditions, but I think I can reach over 90% on an exit node, which is probably forbidden to begin with.
Oversell 2:1 is very mild, ppl start to notice on things like 10:1 in a large enough provider and only at times and on certain destinations.
M
Would anyone be interested in these types of services if they just had a shell account and not their own actual VPS?