For $5 per month, I have a CPU running continuously near 100% utilization, training and retraining L1/L2/L3-CPU-cache-resident transformers, looking for patterns in futures and options markets.
This kind of extreme resource utilization is becoming more common, and these businesses have to adapt to stay profitable.
I expect Linode to change the price on me, eventually.
I’m immediately saving money with the server I built out of mostly used parts and threw in my closet compared to VPS solutions.
The only reason it’s near 100% utilization is because $5 VPS instances have barely any computing power assigned to them.
For the same price as one game server I’m running something like 5-8 VMs at once. I can utilize 128GB of RAM and 6/12 real CPU cores (Ryzen 3600).
I probably should have been a little more clear that I don’t think VPS systems are bad or anything, it’s just that they aren’t well-suited to game servers and hardware in my closet is well-suited to it.
I was spending almost 20 euros a month for a single Hetzner cloud instance that performed worse than all my gaming VMs on my closet computer.
But if I was serving a public website or app I would probably not want it going through my home internet.
Doesn't seem to pass the "it'll pay for itself in a couple months" claim.
The fact a usage is common doesn't mean it is profitable or that it needs to be supported for a hosting service to be profitable.
Mining crypto used to become quite common as well a decade ago and tall hosting services banned this exactly for because there was no way they could be profitable and offer decent QoS.
Servers are worthless to a hosting company without utilization. It’s in their best interest to have them pegged 100%. Like airplanes - they don’t make money when they are empty.
Why do so many in this thread think “I am using 100% of what I pay for! They are bound to change it soon!” That’s not how it works. If I offer you service for a fee, I’m going to allow you to use 100% of that service for that fee.
On the other hand, a flat out rack takes more power than an idle one. So this isn't the same thing at all.
It's not nefarious: you pay a bit more than the compute you use would cost on a fractional basis, and in exchange the cost of entry is dramatically reduced, spikes in usage get absorbed, etc.
It's a win for everyone involved unless usage patterns shift and suddenly there's never a surplus to go around. At that point prices will quickly climb to roughly what dedicated resources cost.
(*and frankly it's not just VPS, a lot of cloud services rely on everyone not trying to max out their quota at the same time to even function, let alone profit.)
You want to maximize it, the hosting definitely prefers someone who pays and doesn't use, so they can double-book that server.
Hosting companies count on a certain <100% average CPU usage, and this factors in to their business model in the shared CPU plans. That's literally why those plans exist, because they are getting more users on a machine by counting on less than 100% usage. The users get a lower price and the risk of getting throttled in certain situations. Nowhere in their product description do they promise you can use 100% all the time. If you want that, you go to their dedicated plans.
Don't get so emotional, but if you do, at least make sure you aren't wrong first.
Also that linode CPU is virtualized (i.e. at least some of that cache is shared).