1GB Ram & SSD Cloud Hosting for $6
ubiquityservers.com
Since there were high amount of interest on Digital Ocean, ( $10 for 1GB Ram and SSD Cloud ), this may be of interest to some.
ubiquityservers.com
You have no idea how many neighbors you have on that vps.
And that "vcpu" is likely a hyperthreaded core, not physical, so it's a "half core" in reality.
Monthly vCPU Memory SSD Transfer
$6 1 1GB 10GB 1TB
$12 1 2GB 20GB 1TB
$18 1 3GB 30GB 2TB
$24 2 4GB 40GB 3TB
$48 2 8GB 60GB 4TB
$96 4 16GB 100GB 5TB
$192 8 32GB 200GB 6TB
The $6 pricepoint is likely to just get you in the door for an upsell.
Why would you subject yourself to unknown neighbors with unknown abusive habits on the server resources when you can just get a dedicated with SSD for less money and co-host your own projects with known behaviors (and without the overhead of a vps hypervisor).
Note: These free tiers are only available to new AWS customers, and are available for 12 months following your AWS sign-up date
Now, I did make pretty good use of AWS myself for that first year... and then it ran out, and suddenly AWS was much more expensive than Linode (and more recently, DigitalOcean.)
When all you want is "a thing to keep your Rails app running for its measly 10K hits a day" AWS loses hands-down. It's just not their use-case.
Which sounds cheap to me.
More importantly, though: you're assuming Micro instances. Micro instances are tolerable, but not really comparable to anything offered to paying customers at even the most downmarket VPS. The moment you want to burst the CPU of a Micro for any extended period (say, starting up Unicorn workers), your instance will become a chugging morass.
When I was on AWS, I had to go in and reboot my instance every other time I deployed an update to it, because the update process ran just long enough to prompt a 99%-CPU-throttle. At that point my server was basically wedged, since new HTTP requests were still trickling into the old app servers and queuing up (with the throttling, it now was too slow to handle them before more arrived), leaving the CPU unable to "relax" enough to get out of the throttled state even after the deploy was over.
> if you want an always on connection for 1+ years you can get discounts
With a down payment. You have to calculate the NPV of the cashflow, not just the aggregate sum; $10/mo is a lot easier to manage than $100 + $8/mo.
But disregaring that: even with a three-year term--costing $257 up-front, and committing you to payments in a similar way to a cell-phone contract--it looks like an Small will still cost $15.80/mo. Why put yourself in such a bind just for a not-that-good slice? (Network throughput is one of the few acceptable answers to that.)
This does all assume that your app that will live comfortably on any consumer workstation machine for the foreseeable future (its growth has already plateaued, in other words.) If there's any possibility of hockey-stick growth in your app's future, AWS becomes a lot more attractive.
As to Cost it's $100 for 3 years at .5cents an hour or 63$ for 1 year at .5cents an hour. I used the 63$ for 4 years vs 3 for 100 plus one at 63. If you really care about the time value of money your first year is free so it's better than than paying up front for that first year any way you do the numbers.
PS: I don't actually use AWS I was just defending them from the old 'there vary expensive' which I found to generally be false. Most of the time your time is worth far more than hosting costs especially when dealing with such small servers.
I run what amounts to a fancy real-time chat service. Are my users guaranteed a slice of the pipe? Do you have the resources to make sure they won't lag horribly if my neighbor is getting DDoSed?
Keep in mind that there is a difference between "we actively make sure you'll have a good experience" and "you happened to get provisioned on a machine with good neighbors", even though the anecdotes will be identical.
This is a great question. Something I've been thinking about a lot is also the benchmarking of redundancy and the protection of one's data.
It's easy to benchmark performance, but as Pirelli stated in their advertising: speed is nothing without control. I feel the same about online hosting providers.
Naturally I have no knowledge of US redundancy solutions, but it's one of the most critical yet toughest things to compare when choosing a new hosting provider.
Best of luck to US though!
Bottom line: You get what you pay for. End of story.
I can think of almost no application which requires lots of all of these. Why isn't there a host which allows you to scale your own requirements? Is it a technical thing, or just another form of "oversell and underprovision because most people won't use their plan"?
So I wouldn't call it a technical thing, but more of a strategic decision in how you want to position your company + offering.
Is that billed by usage, or billed by throughput? I'd love to get a cheap rate on something like "guaranteed 10Gbps port; 100GB monthly transfer cap."
Plus, in a virtual setup, optimizing allocations with custom requirements is a far trickier algorithmic problem.
> Ubiquity offers a 100% uptime SLA on our entire Cloud infrastructure
> In the unlikely event that one of the solid state hard disks fails on the Ubiquity Cloud there will be no data loss and no impact on the cloud instance's performance
The second can be interpreted two ways... Do we start at any state or a perfect state? If you start will all good drives and one fails, it shouldn't affect anything assuming they're using raid. With raid mirroring there shouldn't be an impact on the performance either. However if you start with some number of disks already failing, of course there will be data loss. They could probably say that they're doing N+X redundancy instead to be clear.
I guess it depends on what you want for your fiver (5-6$). Ubiquity's deal has twice the RAM.
I'm suspicious regarding dependability, which I assume one should be in this price range irregardless.
I had a Linode 512 and switched to a 2x512 Dropplet setup and put my Database on one 512 and my Rails app server on the other.
My stuff runs as quickly if not quicker and I spend $10/mo less. In addition to this I also have a clear scaling path (e.g. If my DB grows I can up it to a 1gb. If my traffic grows I can either move the app server to a 1gb or maybe get a few more 512's and setup a load balancer.)
I was dubious about switching back to DigitalOcean as I was worried about how cheap they were offering packages. I bought a DigitalOcean VPS that had slightly better specs than my Linode and ran some tests. Just a few like response time on the site they were both holding, I/O and a Redis stress test and Linode seemed to come out marginally on top.
It took me a fairly long time to setup the dev environment so I was a bit pissed.
I do this with Linode stackscripts, and I couldn't live without it. Unfortunately DigitalOcean don't support stackscripts as of yet. And their support didn't want to tell me if they will ever support it.
RAM is the only thing that I feel Linode is lacking as of late.
If you want to compare to digital ocean they are having a coupon code on Twitter - Includes 512MB RAM, 20GB SSD Disk, & 1TB Transfer for $5/mo.! Use promo code "SSDTWEET" for a $10 credit.
Also I lost all my data and backups.