[freshwire]

Its 100% necessary. RAID arrays are NOT a form of backup, and don't ever forget that. If you get an error, the RAID array replicates that error. A backup doesn't. Never ever rely on a RAID array as a backup, that is not its function. Its function is to make sure you don't lose data, not to ensure its not corrupted or free from accidental deletions etc.

Hence the heavy underlining of so

[rickyday]

An RPS is a lot more than just for a website, you can quite happily run IRC/SHOUTCAST servers and multitude of other goodies on one quite happily.

Performance is very good as is the price

[Andy]

With RPS case it isnt so nessecary.

Its 100% necessary. RAID arrays are NOT a form of backup, and don't ever forget that. If you get an error, the RAID array replicates that error. A backup doesn't. Never ever rely on a RAID array as a backup, that is not its function. Its function is to make sure you don't lose data, not to ensure its not corrupted or free from accidental deletions etc.

[freshwire]

RPS is for those wanting a website without much hassle I think...

Or for those who want to test before buying a server.

In both cases not much storage is required. The first case certainly if its for a website redundancy is better than extra space. Those with dedicated servers take appropriate action to backup. With RPS case it isnt so nessecary.

[Andy]

Fair points, Andy. I hadn't thought about the redundancy of the storage.

But I'll play devil's advocate for a minute...

The pricing of the RPS1 suggests it is marketed as a low-cost alternative to a full-on dedicated server, not a fully redundant file storage solution. The fact that almost nothing in the way of an SLA exists for the RPS range also kind of suggests that it's not aimed at a very affluent customer base. (Myself included )

Hard disk space is getting cheaper and cheaper each year. I could buy two 1TB hard drives and mirror them for under £150 (Inc. VAT) and keep them forever. For the same price (Ex. VAT!) I get 60GB of NAS for 12 months on my RPS.

With a hard disk, my read/write speeds aren't limited to the ~11MB/s of the network and my NIC isn't tied up when reading or writing large chunks of data to/from RAM.

Just remember how far that £9.99 has to go...

Electricity
Hardware
Connection
Paying the technicians wages
Profit of some sort

Now you should see why you don't get much storage. Also remember RPS's were designed for small but popular websites or those who wanted to "tinker".

[unclebob]

Fair points, Andy. I hadn't thought about the redundancy of the storage.

But I'll play devil's advocate for a minute...

The pricing of the RPS1 suggests it is marketed as a low-cost alternative to a full-on dedicated server, not a fully redundant file storage solution. The fact that almost nothing in the way of an SLA exists for the RPS range also kind of suggests that it's not aimed at a very affluent customer base. (Myself included )

Hard disk space is getting cheaper and cheaper each year. I could buy two 1TB hard drives and mirror them for under £150 (Inc. VAT) and keep them forever. For the same price (Ex. VAT!) I get 60GB of NAS for 12 months on my RPS.

With a hard disk, my read/write speeds aren't limited to the ~11MB/s of the network and my NIC isn't tied up when reading or writing large chunks of data to/from RAM.

[Andy]

Its expensive because its on a managed RAID array spanning to a fair number of Terabytes of storage, which is 100% fully redundant meaning no loss of data can occur. If they run out of space, they have to expand the RAID array, and thats no easy feat believe me. Thats why its so expensive.

You don't get this level of redundancy with a Kimsufi

[unclebob]

Does anyone else think that the extra disk space pricing is expensive?

I can either have:
60GB NAS space, 512MB RAM on RPS1 for 19.99 /month (9.99 + 2*5)

or:
250GB Hard disk, 1024MB RAM on Kimsufi L for 19.99 /month

At the current pricing, why would anyone expand their RPS1 over 50GB rather than switching to a Kimsufi L? Is it too cheeky to ask for lower prices?


Unclebob