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.
Damn Bro!-DixHost Are you Serious!
If this is not overselling than tell me what is
http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?t=1169832
Comments
15 posts... Seems legit...
What can I say, Summer time.
They've been posting offers for a while now. All unbelievable, literally. Kimsufi?
Highly Doubt it is Kimsufi.
yaaa dude really?
It is really cheap that i want it ......
ya sure
epic bad
Assuming (at minimum) all their customers are using their basic plan (VPS Premium 1) and they are NOT on Raid 1.
Hard Drive: 2x2TB HDD (4TB TOTAL)
VPS Premium 1 offers 150GB/user (at a rate of $10/month ($7.5/month prices analysis will be put in parentheses))
(Assuming no overselling), 4000GB/150GB = 26.67 Clients (rounding it down to 26 clients) per node.
150GB/price = 15GB/dollar (20GB/dollar)
Bottom Line: Max of 26 clients at $260/month ($195/month) income.
RAM: 24 GB of RAM on the server
2GB/client (assuming no burst or swap) means only 12 clients can be on that node.
Bottom Line: Max of 12 clients at $120/month ($90/month) income.
Because RAM has less clients we're going go with that lower number.
CPU Cores:
I'm not really going to focus too much on this part because... well... It kinda varies from customer to customer (the usage I mean). But...
We're going to assume its using Intel Xeon E5-2690 (I didn't really google much but they say that's the specs of their minimum server... or maybe they just have 4 dual cores?) where the core itself is like 2000 dollars (rough estimate, don't quote me on that).
Analysis:
Yeah they're definitely overselling, but just looking at the CPU price lets see how much they need to sell in order to break even.
$2000/$monthly rate = 200 clients/month (266.66 clients/month (lets up that to 267 clients))
Welp, they're not going to pay for the server within a month, but that's ok. Lets look at it in a yearly fashion then.
Lets just say they sell out an entire minimum server for a year. Lets calculate their minimum clients.
$2000/(monthly rate * 12 months/year) = yearly rate
16.666 = 17 clients (22.222 = 23 clients)
Well, 23 clients is more than the not-oversold value of 12 clients (almost double that). But that's just to pay for the CPU. If I continue to factor in other stuff like power (colocation?), motherboard, HDD, etc. I'd say they'd have to stick a ton of clients onto one server.
Bottom Line: I should really do something productive.
@HalfEatenPie - Haha XD
@HalfEatenPie Lmfao! BTW-> What if they are on Raid 1? That is 2000 GB ( At most) Or I would say around 1900Gb available for usage? Time to do your math again.
This has to be a deadpool.
A mexican host! where's @netomx haha.
At least they're not using a private WHOIS. They're at OVH (or at least the website is), does kimsufi allow you to SWIP their ip's?
@NinjaHawk I guess if they want maximum profit and saying fudge all to their customers, I'd say we can probably assume they're not in Raid 1.
But if they are, just double everything (or divide everything) by two (assuming its a full 2000GB HDD instead of 1900GB available)
@HalfEatenPie It is not straight 2000=2TB Plus you need to leave space for /boot, Os, Kernel ETC.
@NinjaHawk lol which is why I basically just covered it as "assuming". I was "assuming" that everything was just 1000 GB = 1 TB (although I believe the correct value is 1024 GB = 1TB) and yes I did leave out the space used up by boot, OS, and the other stuff to maintain everything. It was just to make the calculation simpler to present/quickly do.
I do apologize though for assuming 1000 GB = 1 TB. I should have known better
@HalfEatenPie Just Pulling your pants a bit S:
@NinjaHawk I have pants on? I'm a pie dammit! I wear a tin sheet (or a plate for those classier functions)!
@HalfEatenPie 1TB = 1000GB, 1TiB = 1024GiB
The numbers the software gives you are most often in kiB/MiB/GiB/TiB, while the numbers that HDD manufacturers give are in kB/MB/GB/TB
@Kuro thanks for clearing that up. What does the i stand for then? What does that change?
@HalfEatenPie http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_prefix
One can say... "using the first month because is free"
But the company was registered in 2009... hmmm.
Is ok. Whatever
At the end is just some quick math to figure this.
Just another way of referring to *bit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kibibyte
Disk isn't the only important thing, most people don't use their disk space but they do use I/O - I/O is much more of a concern than space used.
Also @HalfEatenPie your calculations for RAM are way wrong. RAM is the most underused resource in LEBs after Disk (although sometimes even lower than DISK) from my experience in the industry and friends that I know that also run a few hosts, I've seen 96GB of RAM being sold on a node with 24GB RAM for example, and the usage for the entire node being only 12GB.
Taking into account the need for overselling, the only real bottleneck they need to worry about in the short term is disk, and then CPU, and then maybe bandwidth.
@PAD I don't run a VPS company so personally, I don't know. Although thanks for the information (I didn't know I/O was the biggest concern). The "calculations" were mostly as a joke (if you realized, I took HUGE assumptions).
Yeah. I found it funny, just thought I might as well give some legit input too
In reality it doesn't matter how much they oversell... what matters is quality. If the weed out the heavy users and keep the lighter ones they could oversell quite a bit and no one would really notice. Of course I'm not siding with them, I highly doubt they'll make a profit or if they do it won't be very much.
http://dixhost.com/web-hosting/servidores-dedicados.html
Mix of S4Y and KimSufi, as S4Y are the only people I know who sell dedi's with AMD that cheap.
Server4You only allow 4 IPs.
I will say this though. VolumeDrive's plans were ridiculous when they started. Over time the same plan at the same price starts to look more like a viable plan. If you can hold out for several years and your replacement hardware costs get cheaper over the course of a few years, I suppose you can pull through and make a profit in the next decade...so long as your clients don't demand that you keep up the value of the deal by increasing resource allotments.
What a gamble.
@jarland doesn't mean their service isn't shitty, its just a perfect example of what people sacrifice for the price, if they can afford to sacrifice it that is. I can't think of any legitimate business that needs high availability, good support, strong network, sustainable service.. going with a company like VolumeDrive, however.. kids with Minecraft servers, Chinese spammers (check out the spamhaus etc), small development servers (if you can handle an unreachable website during packetloss)..
Most VD customers are probably newbies in comparison to alot of other people in the industry, which is why VD can survive with its terrible service (the standard for dedicated servers is much much much higher so don't try and defend it with the whole price point) as for packetloss.. it takes its biggest toll on any layer7 application, web servers, game servers, voice communications...otherwise known as the end-user apps that are generally being ran, some apps can handle a bit of packetloss, some apps can't handle even 3% (like for example reverse proxies where the entire system comes crumbling down)..
VD is the god of overselling, crappy service, throwing all funds earned into a continued stream of overselling without improving the service or support provided, the hosting industry's ponzi scheme.
/volumedrivehateover
@PAD A bit mad there?
Our first dedicated for shared hosting was actually with VolumeDrive (now with LiquidWeb). I don't have the numbers around anymore but we sat around 98% uptime. That wasn't enough for me, because I'm obsessed with uptime, but it wasn't bad at all. As far as their VPS goes, it's fine for even a few static sites with a requirement of about 90% or slightly above uptime. Maybe that fits a need for somebody.