All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
Why do hosts avoid stacking their LET-offered packages?
I myself rarely use a really big VPS, so I am not affected by this, but I see it on a regular basis. Why do so many hosts avoid stacking their offered packages?
Is it because of the manual work involved? Or maybe because people who require this actually use their resources? What's the reason?
From where I stand, this could often actually be profitable for a host, since stacked VPSes usually don't include IPs. IPs are often one of the main fixed costs, and if a host can save some by stacking VPSes but charge the same price... what's not to like for the host?
I understand it with exclusive, super limited offers, but for everything else… what's the reason for not doing this - merging the resources of two VPSes into one, but with only one IP, at the same price as two VPSes?
From what I see, people who ask if hosts allow VPS stacking are usually interested in merged resources but are willing to take only one IP.
Genuinely curious. Maybe some hosts can chime in?
Comments
You can migrate and balance smaller VMs more easily than with a few big VMs. Usually you don’t expect every customer to use the resources 100% all the time, with smaller VMs you can react better if someone does.
I guess because the profit is low and they want to attract more new users
Hi,
most offers are economically not sustainable if really used. If a customer would use too much, the hoster would actually loose money, not make money. Keyword here is: Overselling
So the strategy with those small packages is, that you usually can not really do something serious with them. They are good for a VPN / Proxy maybe some lightweight file/web/what ever server. But nothing real where applications which requires CPU/RAM are able to run.
Thats the reason why you see them for 1-2 EUR and even less.
Now if a hoster would allow stacking, he would actually contradict this whole system that enables this small prices. If you can combine multiple small servers for 1-2 EUR or even less ( there are 70 cent servers out there ^^; i think ) you can actually create one big server with multiple cores/ram/disk that is actually ready to run something real on it ( CPU/RAM/Networkwise ). But thats exactly what the hoster does NOT want. He/she wants you to pay money, but not use it -> Idle for the win!
Otherwise this is simply not working. I know some customers do not do any math if an offer can actually work out or is doomed to be deadpooled while the question is just "when" and not "if". But checkout what hardware cost. Colocation cost. Traffic cost. Then take the selling price of the hoster and math how much instances the hoster would have to install on this hardware just to cover this cost ( no profit ). You will fastly see that this is not working at all ( if a majority is not mostly idling ).
This can work as long as the instances are just non sense enough. ( Big disks, no traffic = not suitable for real fileservers, small CPU/RAM/disk, very small CPU OR RAM OR Disk like 256 MB RAM or so ). This way the hoster raise the chance that its just idling ( as you can anyway not do something real with it ).
But if the hoster allows stacking for the same price... he will actually just make sure to deadpool earlier.
i get what you mean if i do simple Calculation 8GR-4VC 120 nvme Amd
in layer 7 with 6€ but if try to double resources pricing are going to be 14,19 EUR
layer7 still layer7
So the hosts are purposefully gatekeeping me from not idling my servers?
Makes sense now, I started to think it was on me for idling them so hard
oliver reveals secrets
This is a good for a banner
Bigger VPSs lead to much higher contention than smaller VPSs and, from experience, increase CPU steal a lot faster; that's when complaints start coming in.
We do bigger VPSs, but you will never see them on LET; they're expensive for this reason.
For computation above works fine.
But how it works for storage server?
For example, let's say I bought 5 TB promo. You oversold it. So in theory, there may be a probability that when I want to save some large file, the disk might be full.
So the provider just adds another disk and add as per requirement?
Most people only host small websites and don't need large VPSs
The LET thing is possible because I’m idling hundred GB of ram and dozens of cpu cores
so say thank you.
Makes just sense
Please elaborate, be useful!
Reasons are posted above. Bigger VPS = cause more overhead.
At deals that are already hard to provide
I mean its not worth it sometimes.
Im sure some providers here are barely just paying their invoices. I have or have had clients from here i wont name. And not just one, i provided VPS Nodes to. Some advertise here regularely is almost 1 month overdue on invoices bellow even 1k€. which is not very much in this business.... while announcing expansion on LET. - And i see this, waiting for my money.
And speaking for myself, whenver i provided deals, its just moving money. Brings nothing. So you are basically asking the provider to give you more for this deal which is hard to provide for them already. To say, its barely working out. Adding that lowend is just loud and dramatic.
I hope this doesnt sound unfriendly but its just what it is
Nah, it's okay. I'm all for discussion.
So IP price isn't a decisive cost factor anymore, as we used to talk about years ago here?
I mean if you buy the IPv4 instead of leasing, the price went down from 13k to 5-6k per /24 again.
@ComputeBox and @bingobangobongo did nice stacking deals for me in the last couple of months.
Let's hope they will have good experiences with those (I won't be the prob, but maybe others) so they will do this in 2026 again. Be nice to new hosts on the hosting market.
Hi,
thats correct. If the provider is unlucky enough that an oversold product is used (too) much, then yes, he will have to extend the resource that is too short ( no matter if its CPU/RAM/Disk/Network ). Otherwise customers will suffer. In the special case of missing diskspace, the customer's VPS filesystem will just damage, maybe even beyond repair. So from all bad things to happen... having a full disk is the worst.
its still. While its true, it got a bit better. Currently its 5-6k for 256 IPs just like @NotFoundException mentioned it. Thats ~ 20 EUR per IP.
Obviously nonsense to make 10 or even 20 EUR / year deals with that. Just ending up that you have to wait 2 years before you make the first profit. You will usually not do something like that.
Hosts that have already responded, I'm curious where the line is between a 1c2gb10gb $10 per year deal that gets posted here and the front line prices posted on hosts' websites. If I'm buying a 16c VPS, even if it's on a LET deal, there must be some expectation that it's going to get used. Maybe not hammered at max utilization 24/7, but actually used and not idled. Generally speaking, I'm looking to lock in some amount of resources, ensure that I can get good performance for my requirements without bothering neighbors and without neighbors bothering me. I generally don't look at any of the smaller deals that get posted here. I'm just interested in some insight since some things I've always assumed have been made plain in this thread.
Well prices went down that much fairly recently, at least as I know. I wouldn‘t be that surprised if even on the low end, some buy. If you can afford buy it and even have it pay off in 2 years, you still have your own /24 then and that’s valuable. Sure if you live from month to month, that’s nonsense, but if you have like > 10k in the bank, some would definitely do it, I suppose.
Hi,
thats mostly a pure pricing question.
If you paid for your 16 cores VPS a price of 5 EUR per month, you can assume that you will receive less "real" performance compared to if you paid 10 EUR per month.
Again: Check what hardware is actually used. You can math yourself how many cores this hardware has physically, how much purchase/lease cost/colocation cost this ~ will have and you can just math how much $$$ the hoster has to make to just cover the cost.
If the hoster is hiding the CPU behind some emulation, then you will have to judge this emulation and maybe assume worst to be safe.
But at the end of the day, you can just ask the hoster to get the information you search for. If the price is actually too cheap to be real, just ask. We are writing exactly the CPU model and exactly how much CPU usage we calculate to be used maximum in average when having a VPS in difference to a VDS. Most other providers do not do that, most customers anyway do not read it. But, make it simply depending on the price you pay. The more you pay, the more you should have the "right" to actually use what you paid for and not just have some nice blinky numbers that only shine as long as the hostmachine might be still empty.
Thanks for confirming what I've assumed for awhile.