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
I'm sure this is all true. Yet there are two issues:
As a user, I have no idea how much IO and CPU I'm buying. Do I get more when I pay more? How much (more)? Providers' websites rarely say anything about this, except maybe 'fair share CPU'....
As a user, I have no idea of how much CPU and IO I'm using. I log into the control panel and I see a graph for network transfer (and maybe one for RAM). That looks fine....
If resource usage (other than RAM & storage space & monthly transfer) is an issue, then providers need to be more up front about it on their websites. And they need to give users the means to monitor it.
Back to you @serverian
I love that article!
http://lowendbox.com/blog/yes-you-can-run-18-static-sites-on-a-64mb-link-1-vps/
root access?
I take your points though.
Nah, we need pitchures...
I/O is also a major issue with me. Got into this low end market because of the very hard capping on shared servers (literally killing apps if they hit some unknown cap. Unknown because it's not mentioned how much is the cap, and the host counts even their backups against your cap -- e.g. your app takes 640MB memory [when it's enabled], and in comes their cron job, and it peaks to over 1024MB and kills the app and lose everything, deal).
Hosts aren't advertising their I/O limits so a customer can judge what plan they need (especially when they don't specify what services count against your own resources) BEFORE ordering.
Tried it myself when I once had a 64MB VPS. It does indeed work like a charm.
That sounds right, 512 MB is the new standard and I have the same issue myself with idle RAM. I prefer some of my VPSes on OpenVZ so my idle ram can be of use to someone else.
You are a good netizen, some people are thinking of ways to waste the resources so they cannot be used by someone else...
Or oversells it...
:whistles dixie:
It's a waste of time trying to squeeze your stuff into such a low memory, when you can buy a higher plan at small price difference.
At times larger plans are cheaper than smaller ones.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but there is no real way to measure disk IO on openvz containers (can you do this with ploop now?). You can measure disk IO per process but processes are spawned and despawned so quickly it would be hell to measure the actual IO of a single container using vzpid. That's probably why you don't see IO graphs on your openvz containers.
Why not also run something else there? What about a website/blog, proxy, mail, DNS, XMPP, IRC bouncer. If those are running elsewhere, then just cancel some VPSes, consolidate to this larger one, and you'll have both a good resource utilization and some cost savings as well.
Sorry but that's not altruism or anything of sorts, that's just being plain retarded. It is not "rude" to use the RAM you paid for, and if your provider is not doing any funny business, you make zero difference by leaving RAM unused "for someone else". Now, of course don't kid yourself thinking you also "paid for" a CPU core or two. That's an entirely different matter and with that, yes, you are using a shared resource and can be "nice" by using it sparingly.
Nobody said that. It is rude to use it without any benefit, on the contrary, losing time to devise ways of keeping it busy so it cannot be allocated to someone who actually needs to do something with it.
I do not say overselling is ok, but overprovisioning is, it saves money and power, everyone benefits by sharing the idle resources, including the environment. Wasting resources and energy only to force a price increase is not only counterproductive, it is nuts, especially if you also lose time of your life devising ways to do that "most efficiently and on a large scale".
While true, web hosting as an industry has (and probably will continue to be) less than honest on overselling, though. Which leads to crazy limits on resources, that doesn't solve any problems -- as profit in itself is the motivation that caused the overselling and continues it -- not a better means for clients to share resources itself.
I should be able to use the RAM I paid for, but my applications don't use that much RAM. Hosts don't sell what I need but significantly more since LEB "standards" are 512 MB now. I have no issues with this, but I'd rather the "unused ram" not go to waste.
So, this is also working as guilty by association. If some people in the industry are doing it, then everyone is guilty and anything goes to "punish" them.
While we have no limits on memory and not on cpu as you can use 100% load and much more on Biz and non-budget plans, the simple idea of wasting something just because we can is appalling to me.
I read the "web hosting" part as being more about shared hosting, and there indeed, you see "crazy limits on resources" and insane overselling. But in the VPS market even here on LEB/LET among the top-rated hosts you won't see anything of that kind.
It's the same in the web hosting industry overall.
Just because whatever platform guarantees resources by design via dividing it into containers, it doesn't mean a web host can't still pack too many clients on a server.
It shows with zealous I/O handling with hard limits, to the point that shared hosting can be a better deal performance wise instead of VPS (as that's a true "democracy" hosting environment where "sharing is caring").
My snark came because that response is terrific to see in the shared hosting environment ... but in a walled garden environment ... no, as clients are paying to wall themselves in from the next guy taking their I/O.
The over zealous I/O monitoring (and it's consequence, limiting) is what people fear in "Smartpower" monitoring from the power company.
I wonder where have you seen hard I/O limits on a VPS? And to the point of it being slower than shared hosting? Certainly not at one of the LEB/LET's Top-10 voted providers, or heck even Top 20-30. In fact the only known case recently is OVH, but "a VPS provider" is hardly the first thing that comes to mind when mentioning them, let alone a "top" one around here. Maybe you come from places like WHT and other similar cesspools, but what you describe is not the common or accepted practice here whatsoever.
And a big basket containing all the eggs
My preference is to host dns, web, email all separately and independently.
Maybe you come from places like WHT and other similar cesspools, but what you describe is not the common or accepted practice here whatsoever.
I come from the internet (since 1985) and seen about all the internet can bring.
No site or listing can guarantee anything. They can claim XYZ is "top" something, but in the end it's only good as the host claims to be (which can change overnight in some situations, and has), and who is satisfied with it.
The other side is promoters trying to sale via commission, too. Which is how such host referral sites operate -- A recommends B, as A gets a cut (free hosting or other promos) for "hey, guys I had a great experience with..." reviews and/or suggestions.
Secondly, you'll get hard I/O simply by the nature of VPS due to guaranteed resources. But some hosts go beyond even hard I/O caps and will shut down client apps, despite it working within their resource limits. That happens when the host will allow even server services like backups to count against your resource limits (not personal backups within their container, the host's weekly backups).
That's fighting talk right there.
I come from a deep forest
Probably, but it's the truth.
When low end was r-e-a-l-l-y low end with a $$$ attached to even posting anything, too!
You don't really gain any resilience by doing this. In general, two VPSes should be about enough:
Make that three if you're fancy. Point is, you can have what is pretty much copies of that "big basket", ready to stand in each other's place if one fails; and not just pieces of individual services scattered around across single-use boxes, which gains you nothing redundancy-wise.
You seem to be stuck in your 1985, and certainly you lack experience around here, so I'd suggest that you lurk around more, and learn before talking big.
The "top" lists I was referring to are these: http://lowendbox.com/tag/top-providers/
Voted by the community in an open transparent manner, with no-b/s rules preventing any shilling or pumping. Any perceived problems with that process are quickly spotted an eradicated by the same community (one such case happened recently and was resolved to everyone's satisfaction).
I get "hard I/O" what?... You don't make any sense. We were talking about limits, not guarantees. And I doubt any host guarantees you any I/O metric. But you still failed to provide any example of a host that'd be well-regarded on LET/LEB, and would have I/O limits.
OK, if you say so
Were you born after 1985 by chance, and claiming now experience on one site on the internet is more important than almost 30 years of firsthand experience?
Yep, fighting words...
XD
BTW...
My reply is still...
Sorry, but age is not something to be proud of -- unless, perhaps, you have nothing else but that?
In your case, your "years of firsthand experience" seem to cause you to be unable to adapt to the quickly-changing situation in this market.
Moreover, most people I met online who prominently positioned themselves as being "older" and "wiser" than everyone else, instead primarily tended to be stubborn and narrow-minded, unable or unwilling to admit it when they were wrong; and you do not seem to be an exception. Combined with your inability to participate in a proper discussion, instead constantly dodging questions and resorting to ad-hominem attacks, I'd say you are a pretty sad person to observe, all things considered. Let's just end this discussion; if you're happier that way, you may freely conclude that I have been "wrong" about whatever you've been trying to prove, and gave up on arguing.