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 just picked one up from @Fliphost a few days ago. Fast connection for me, and yes you definitely can't beat that price.
@jbxl
Glad to hear you are enjoying your server
@jcaleb
Don't hold yourself back
The only reason my eyes are ignoring your offer post is I get confused of fliphost and flipperhost.
@jcaleb
No dolphins here
I can see how it could get confusing
you might want to look at amazon s3, as you only pay for what you use, and you'll get better reliability and probably better performance; the system is managed by a bunch of really smart people instead of you (no offense)
you'll probably end up paying less
@fly ouch?
Eh? You'll probably end up paying a LOT more.
$7/month buys you 2500GB of bandwidth and 250GB of storage at buyvm.
$7/month at Amazon S3 would buy you about 74GB of storage (.095 cents/GB). Even with reduced redundancy (.076/GB) you'd only get 92GB.
Bandwidth to S3 is free...bandwidth out...free for the first GB, 12 cents/GB after that. So if you wanted to get that 92GB out again, it'd be 91 * .12 = $1092.
Put it another way...if you wanted to store 250GB at AWS and get it out again, the cost would be:
250 * .095 = $23.75 to store
249 * .12 = $29.88 network out
Total: $53.63
There are lots of good thing about S3, but cheap isn't one of them.
@alterarch - BuyVM was in stock as of this afternoon.
Hey @Francisco - I fell off the BuyVM storage wagon but just signed up again. When KVM Storage was in Cali, weren't they unmetered bandwidth plans? Now I see there's a cap. Not that I'm likely to use 2500GB on the lowest plan anyway...
I'm not familiar how to compute with s3. I don't know how much 30gb + 50GB bw cost
We used to but people wanted things move a TB plan so they could burst when needed
Francisco
Disk is either 9.5 cents/GB or 7.6 cents/GB. 50GB bandwidth is 1st GB free, 49 @ 12 cents/GB. Inbound is free.
So...$2.85 (if normal redundancy) + $5.88 = $8.73
For whoever that said it's cheaper, that's expensive! (compared to LEB pricing).
Thanks man.
Sounds complicated
In fairness, if you had only a gigabyte or two to store (backing up just your personal docs or something), it would be cheaper.
And too, S3 has lots of features a storage VPS couldn't touch.
But if you just want cheap bulk storage, S3 is probably not the place.
Yes but the port was capped at 10mb/s up
It never was actually.
The limits were guidelines for people to follow but at no time did I bother writing the TC controls into stallion. I wasn't going to sit and spend a day trying to figure out why TC is so annoyingly stupid to bother trying to debug it.
But, that's all in the past and the new model seems to work well.
Francisco
Ordered the VPS from BuyVM. Still having trouble installing a working OS template though -.- . Might sleep on it and try again tomorrow.
Will be posting a special soon for storage VPS in LA
If you're having an issue just ticket us and we'll handle the install
Francisco
KVM?
Currently have OpenVZ Storage, but hm it's on the cards if it's preferred. Makes no difference to me as I'm not overselling storage space.
It's just about uptake and usability. A lot of users find KVM scary (serious note).
Once my Juniper switches get shipped we'll decide. Going to be making a lot of changes/improvements.
Wish you success
@Francisco Getting some problematic pings going on here:
PING 209.141.xxx.xxx: 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 209.141.xxx.xxx: icmp_seq=0 ttl=50 time=597.303 ms
64 bytes from 209.141.xxx.xxx: icmp_seq=1 ttl=50 time=645.200 ms
64 bytes from 209.141.xxx.xxx: icmp_seq=2 ttl=50 time=746.636 ms
64 bytes from 209.141.xxx.xxx: icmp_seq=3 ttl=50 time=551.480 ms
64 bytes from 209.141.xxx.xxx: icmp_seq=4 ttl=50 time=555.158 ms
64 bytes from 209.141.xxx.xxx: icmp_seq=5 ttl=50 time=537.219 ms
64 bytes from 209.141.xxx.xxx: icmp_seq=6 ttl=50 time=637.488 ms
64 bytes from 209.141.xxx.xxx: icmp_seq=7 ttl=50 time=624.612 ms
64 bytes from 209.141.xxx.xxx: icmp_seq=8 ttl=50 time=597.916 ms
64 bytes from 209.141.xxx.xxx: icmp_seq=9 ttl=50 time=703.036 ms
64 bytes from 209.141.xxx.xxx: icmp_seq=10 ttl=50 time=620.185 ms
64 bytes from 209.141.xxx.xxx: icmp_seq=11 ttl=50 time=749.070 ms
^C
--- 209.141.xxx.xxx ping statistics ---
13 packets transmitted, 12 packets received, 7.7% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 537.219/630.442/749.070/68.313 ms
I sensored out the IP of the server. Do you want me to PM you the server IP and a traceroute?
Try pinging your gateway? Should be .1
Francisco
@Francisco It seems to be intermittent high points. It just settled back to ~300ms.
What driver are you using?
I've seen cases where virtio decides it doesn't want to be loved and starts being silly. These days I always just recommend e1000 for networking and VIRTIO for IO when possible.
Francisco
Ahh let me check...
For NIC card I am using: Intel Pro/1000
For the IDE I am using: IDE
I kinda feel bad asking for support on a non-managed service, so I really appreciate you helping me.
For the IDE I am using: IDE
Log a ticket and PM me your IP. Don't worry about it, I'm working towards getting closer to a semi-managed product.
If you ticket us with permission to login (and the creds to do it) we'll check into it for you
It could a config deal or it could just be aussy being silly.
Then again, It may be possible that you just have a bad route to that /19.
Throw a ping at 199.19.224.1 and 205.185.112.1.
Francisco
Just to let everyone know, the issue was one on my end and not with @Francisco 's servers in LV. The hop from my router to my ISP seemed to be causing the issue. I would like to thank Francisco for helping me figure that out.
@alterarch Glad to hear it worked out.