OVH Community, your new community space.

Vps


dansgalaxy
10-12-2009, 23:20
I would argue yes for the flexibility.

You can move to the higher level of VPS without having to buy a bigger server, pay a large setup fee, set everything up again, move IP's over etc etc

IainK
10-12-2009, 19:12
I haven't looked through this post in full but I have to say that you cannot compare Cloud VPS to normal VPS. A simple VPS setup is only powered by one host server, but with a Cloud this can be dynamically allocated amongst many many servers.

I run Xen 3.4.2 VMs on my server in OVH for clients. It performs well and generally the VMs performance is great. Compare one of my 512MB VPS to a Celeron 1.2GHz and I think you are getting better CPU performance. But I charge 20/month for such a VPS so...would it be worth it? I leave that for the customer to decide.

Razakel
10-12-2009, 18:47
I could never get email to work under Webmin. :/

dansgalaxy
10-12-2009, 17:27
I used Webmin on RPS, can't touch cPanel though :/ lol

elvis1
10-12-2009, 17:15
Quote Originally Posted by dansgalaxy
I would be very surprised if there isn't people with VPS nodes on OVH lol, i was going to set my own up but cost of licenses kills it at moment.

I could get an external license and save a couple of quid, but cheapest external dedi cpanel license is $38 VPS and Dedi licenses for cpanel have totally different cost, which was my point, VPS is more attainable because license is much cheaper
http://www.webmin.com



I would buy a VPS ( from a know user who knows how to handle the server and has reasonable prices)

dansgalaxy
08-12-2009, 12:43
Quote Originally Posted by HandsomeChap
Surely you can bypass the cost of purchasing a cpanel license from ovh and just get one from elsewhere, I pay $15 for an external cpanel vps license.

I guess theres probably a fair few VPS companies with nodes on ovh?
I would be very surprised if there isn't people with VPS nodes on OVH lol, i was going to set my own up but cost of licenses kills it at moment.

I could get an external license and save a couple of quid, but cheapest external dedi cpanel license is $38 VPS and Dedi licenses for cpanel have totally different cost, which was my point, VPS is more attainable because license is much cheaper

HandsomeChap
08-12-2009, 11:20
Quote Originally Posted by dansgalaxy
For a start because I would be required to have a dedi cPanel license for 25 + VAT! on VPS i pay 5 inc VAT...
Surely you can bypass the cost of purchasing a cpanel license from ovh and just get one from elsewhere, I pay $15 for an external cpanel vps license.

I guess theres probably a fair few VPS companies with nodes on ovh?

elvis1
08-12-2009, 00:58
Quote Originally Posted by Razakel
traceroute to delimiter.us (188.40.99.72), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets
1 p19-8-m1.routers.ovh.net (213.186.61.253) 0.828 ms 0.912 ms 1.033 ms
2 p19-2-6k.routers.ovh.net (213.186.32.20) 0.652 ms * *
3 80g.th2-1-6k.routers.chtix.eu (213.186.32.149) 0.649 ms * *
4 20g.fra-1-6k.routers.chtix.eu (213.251.130.14) 13.145 ms * *
5 decix-gw.hetzner.de (80.81.192.164) 14.010 ms 14.004 ms 13.973 ms
6 hos-bb1.juniper2.rz10.hetzner.de (213.239.240.243) 18.647 ms 18.435 ms 18.387 ms
7 hos-tr3.ex3k7.rz10.hetzner.de (213.239.227.200) 19.186 ms 19.151 ms 18.884 ms
8 svr99-72.fkft02.de.ltt.net (188.40.99.72) 18.470 ms 19.159 ms 19.149 ms

--2009-12-08 01:25:39-- http://delimiter.us/testfile.zip
Resolving delimiter.us... 188.40.99.72
Connecting to delimiter.us|188.40.99.72|:80... connected.
HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK
Length: 52428800 (50M) [application/zip]
Saving to: `testfile.zip'

36% [=============> ] 19,272,587 10.2M/s

Many thanks my friend! very useful

Razakel
08-12-2009, 00:20
Quote Originally Posted by elvis1
off topic:
guys can someone please ping , tracert and wget this :

http://delimiter.us/testfile.zip

thanks

its germany located
traceroute to delimiter.us (188.40.99.72), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets
1 p19-8-m1.routers.ovh.net (213.186.61.253) 0.828 ms 0.912 ms 1.033 ms
2 p19-2-6k.routers.ovh.net (213.186.32.20) 0.652 ms * *
3 80g.th2-1-6k.routers.chtix.eu (213.186.32.149) 0.649 ms * *
4 20g.fra-1-6k.routers.chtix.eu (213.251.130.14) 13.145 ms * *
5 decix-gw.hetzner.de (80.81.192.164) 14.010 ms 14.004 ms 13.973 ms
6 hos-bb1.juniper2.rz10.hetzner.de (213.239.240.243) 18.647 ms 18.435 ms 18.387 ms
7 hos-tr3.ex3k7.rz10.hetzner.de (213.239.227.200) 19.186 ms 19.151 ms 18.884 ms
8 svr99-72.fkft02.de.ltt.net (188.40.99.72) 18.470 ms 19.159 ms 19.149 ms

--2009-12-08 01:25:39-- http://delimiter.us/testfile.zip
Resolving delimiter.us... 188.40.99.72
Connecting to delimiter.us|188.40.99.72|:80... connected.
HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK
Length: 52428800 (50M) [application/zip]
Saving to: `testfile.zip'

36% [=============> ] 19,272,587 10.2M/s

elvis1
08-12-2009, 00:19
Quote Originally Posted by dansgalaxy
I would definitely love to see OVH doing VPS servers, so long as they can provide the support for them.

And I have to say, I have had a fairly large VPS with another supplier, and its been fantastic for me, the RPS I have with OVH while having higher specs has been a pain in the backside.

I am currently paying 30 for a VPS with cPanel, Virtuozzo, Fantastico and about 670MB ram with about 700GB bandwidth and 30GB disk.

Its a lot more bandwidth than i use and the disk isnt too bad at the moment for me.

But for me to get anything similar with OVH its damn near impossible. For a start because I would be required to have a dedi cPanel license for 25 + VAT! on VPS i pay 5 inc VAT...
off topic:
guys can someone please ping , tracert and wget this :

http://delimiter.us/testfile.zip

thanks

its germany located

dansgalaxy
07-12-2009, 15:13
I would definitely love to see OVH doing VPS servers, so long as they can provide the support for them.

And I have to say, I have had a fairly large VPS with another supplier, and its been fantastic for me, the RPS I have with OVH while having higher specs has been a pain in the backside.

I am currently paying 30 for a VPS with cPanel, Virtuozzo, Fantastico and about 670MB ram with about 700GB bandwidth and 30GB disk.

Its a lot more bandwidth than i use and the disk isnt too bad at the moment for me.

But for me to get anything similar with OVH its damn near impossible. For a start because I would be required to have a dedi cPanel license for 25 + VAT! on VPS i pay 5 inc VAT...

elvis1
22-11-2009, 19:49
@myatu: my friend: burst.net (according to them, I cant really say if its true or not) are using supermicro gear and 3ware raid controllers for vps nodes. I cant tell if they are in bakers shelves or in proper cabinets. apart from room temperature why would a baker's shelf server be bad? Im just asking.


for example (Ive already quoted them many times before not because I am an employee of them, just because they come to my mind):

http://www.fdcservers.net/Services/C...eredColocation

http://www.10tb.com/dedicated-hosting/

ovh can make something similar to that + virtualize and manage those puppies and you could have the product we would love to have

elvis1
17-11-2009, 23:36
Quote Originally Posted by Iray
I want to see oles wise opinion on this :P

My previous VPS was much powerful then the RPS i have now. The only thing that it lacked was good bandwidth.

I want to see OVH-VPS soon! Great bandwidth and performance.

same here

even though OVH has VPS's, they are not what we are looking for

http://www.ovh.co.uk/products/compare_vps.xml

Iray
17-11-2009, 22:35
I want to see oles wise opinion on this :P

My previous VPS was much powerful then the RPS i have now. The only thing that it lacked was good bandwidth.

I want to see OVH-VPS soon! Great bandwidth and performance.

elvis1
17-11-2009, 22:04
Quote Originally Posted by Myatu
I appreciate that. I think I may have taken it a bit out of context, but relating to the "killer prices" comment I wanted to emphasize that BurstNET uses cheap equipment not really suitable for building VPS systems / dedicated servers. Like riding a bicycle down the highway, if you will -- possible, but unwise.

OVH on the other hand, takes things a little more serious. And having worked on some backends of scalable VPS systems, I can tell you it isn't a simple matter of taking a dedicated server, attaching it to a RAID-10 SAN and slapping some visualization software on it. Again, it's possible, but unwise.

So if OVH starts to include VPS (not RPS) services -- and I'd sent Oles an e-mail about two months ago about this as well, so I welcome a VPS service -- then it should be fair to assume that they will not attempt to match the prices of BurstNET, not just because of a profit margin, but because of the quality of service provided to us.

The RPSes are indeed a bit of a lacklusters with the (rather large) bottleneck in data storage, but this is in my opinion the only drawback that you either get around or simply not use the RPS for disk-intensive applications.

Anyway, like said, I may have taken it a bit too much out of context
As usual I read your posts and take note. I wasnt aware of the quality of hardware burst.net was using and I know that EU prices are higher in general, but as one of the biggest price tagger's is BWidth my assumption was that this.

I know lots of tech networking should be involved as well as programmers for the front end ( GUI) and backend for scaling products ( in case of cloud like VPS)

Myatu
17-11-2009, 21:28
Quote Originally Posted by elvis1
Dude, you are one of the guys I respect most on the internetS
I appreciate that. I think I may have taken it a bit out of context, but relating to the "killer prices" comment I wanted to emphasize that BurstNET uses cheap equipment not really suitable for building VPS systems / dedicated servers. Like riding a bicycle down the highway, if you will -- possible, but unwise.

OVH on the other hand, takes things a little more serious. And having worked on some backends of scalable VPS systems, I can tell you it isn't a simple matter of taking a dedicated server, attaching it to a RAID-10 SAN and slapping some visualization software on it. Again, it's possible, but unwise.

So if OVH starts to include VPS (not RPS) services -- and I'd sent Oles an e-mail about two months ago about this as well, so I welcome a VPS service -- then it should be fair to assume that they will not attempt to match the prices of BurstNET, not just because of a profit margin, but because of the quality of service provided to us.

The RPSes are indeed a bit of a lacklusters with the (rather large) bottleneck in data storage, but this is in my opinion the only drawback that you either get around or simply not use the RPS for disk-intensive applications.

Anyway, like said, I may have taken it a bit too much out of context

elvis1
17-11-2009, 21:23
cloud like environments and VPS have stuff in common but they are not the same.

VPS for instance asks for a fixed price per month. Cloud provides you scalability (but could end up being not THAT cheap if you use it extensively)

elvis1
17-11-2009, 21:17
Quote Originally Posted by lukus001
Not to sure what you mean by that^ 'You' as in the provider i presume you mean?

A VPS can be very stable as many people use VPS' sucessfully, there is no argument against that, but VPS inherit additional problems that unshared hardware does not inhert.

OVH RPS therefore inhert problems with their networked storage that would not be experinced had it been unshared.

I would argue a VPS can only match the performance of a RPS rather than 'wipe RPS performance clearly'.

To properly evaluate such claims one must insure hardware is the same, therefore the only difference is the VPS software and RPS running networked storage. A VPS would then have some resources eaten by VPS management which means an RPS would always out perform a VPS?. RPS would get problems with possible disk access but is subject to peak times incomparison to a definate loss of performance

Additionally since a VPS usually set up with the main intention of having something that mimics a dedicated server but at a cheaper price since you do not require all the resources that a dedicated server can provide, disk access requirements are usually much less needed so a 10Mbps minimum would probabily be sufficient.

A VPS is not always about Cost:Resources ratios and I would argue those that need a VPS for example to test programs on several operating systems would probabily require a dedicated server running VPS themself than to buy 4 packages.

Additional a VPS hard disk is also shared and, while I can't speculate the quality of hard disks used it is possible speeds during peak times are not much better than RPS's.

Networking is required regardless what type of hosting you apply for, providing you need servers to be linked up together. Networks always have a level a redundancy and back-ups for failures especially those providing their network as a commercial service.

Since I work a fibre optic engineer and have isntalled fibre in data centers such as global switch, they always have backup lines and their fibres are never fully utilised.. So such problems are often minor.

Human error is human error, regardles of VPS or RPS.

Again, these problems and errors are mostly abstract from the actuall servers. Problems will always appear, the power to the data center might even get cut off, we can speculate a lot of points of failures however performance and reliability are important factors, therefore a VPS may be an additonal point of failure that may be avoided or deemed unecessary.
1- Asus is for home computers ( and for newbies). Supermicro is intended to provide server grade gear and they have heavy duty and reliable stuff. There is a phrase (some friends in another forum say it as a proof) that says: a friend does not allow another friend buy Asus. Asus has marketing but they dont build rock solid stuff.


2 The problems it might inherit are the same of sharing. For instance you share OVH's network. If this could not be controlled, a client using the colocation service could hog the network and use 10gbits 24/7 despite paying for the 99euro/ 3 U product. I doubt that happens really.

It does not happen as they have parameters for products. If client pays X amount he gets: Y speed of OVH to OVH, Z from OVH to Internet and so on. The same would be with a virtual environment

elvis1
17-11-2009, 21:12
Quote Originally Posted by unclebob
My $10.95 /mo Rackspace Cloud VPS puts my 9.99 RPS to shame.

Go to The Rackspace Cloud right now and test out their virtualised servers for an hour for < $0.02. In terms of performance for the money, virtual private servers offer so much more. I can benefit from gigabit internet, RAID 10 storage and unused CPU cycles (on a quad core Xeon) as well as being able to instantly scale my resources to meet demand.

Now imagine what Rackspace offers, but with OVH's bandwidth, European location and pricing. I've always wanted a VPS at OVH, but never fully trusted resellers. I'd kill for an OVH-supplied VPS.

Elvis1 has hit the nail on the head here.
Thats what I am talking about. I am not saying it would be easy to implement, hassle free or anything related. The fact is that OVH has the key: a VERY strong network.

lukus001
17-11-2009, 21:09
Quote Originally Posted by unclebob
My $10.95 /mo Rackspace Cloud VPS puts my 9.99 RPS to shame.

Go to The Rackspace Cloud right now and test out their virtualised servers for an hour for < $0.02. In terms of performance for the money, virtual private servers offer so much more. I can benefit from gigabit internet, RAID 10 storage and unused CPU cycles (on a quad core Xeon) as well as being able to instantly scale my resources to meet demand.
RackSpace Cloud is a good example but:

The $10 plan is for 256mb - if this beats your RPS1 that has 512Mb of memory then the likely hood is you're using rather memory lite services.

The $20 is a better comparison since it is also 512MB of memory.

see RAM, but what amount of CPU do I get? What type of processors are used?
Each cloud server has 2 quad core processors that are at least 2Ghz+. The 256MB plan will get 1/64 of the CPU allocation, the 512MB plan will get 1/32 of the CPU allocation, and the 1GB plan will get 1/16 of the CPU allocation. The 2GB plan will get 1/ 8 CPU, the 4GB plan will get 1/4, the 8GB plan will get 1/2, and the 15.5GB plan will get all CPU allocation in the server.
2Ghz * 4 * 2 = 16Ghz.

I'll take the $20 plan since that is a more fair comparison, so 16 / 32 = 500Mhz of processor speed. your $10 plan is on the otherhand running at 256Mhz.

I think you'll find your performance comes from 'sharing' other user's resources and that the higher you go up the less of a performance boost you will see. My very first PC is probabily faster that your server running @256Mhz (providing your not using shared resources of course). To properly compare you must buy their 16GB package and run it at full performance against OVH's Bi Xeon Quad dedicated server hooked up to their networked drives.

Additionally, the server you are currently on might still be under populated or fortunately for you, is on a server with 64 people who hardly use it.

unclebob
17-11-2009, 20:33
My $10.95 /mo Rackspace Cloud VPS puts my 9.99 RPS to shame.

Go to The Rackspace Cloud right now and test out their virtualised servers for an hour for < $0.02. In terms of performance for the money, virtual private servers offer so much more. I can benefit from gigabit internet, RAID 10 storage and unused CPU cycles (on a quad core Xeon) as well as being able to instantly scale my resources to meet demand.

Now imagine what Rackspace offers, but with OVH's bandwidth, European location and pricing. I've always wanted a VPS at OVH, but never fully trusted resellers. I'd kill for an OVH-supplied VPS.

Elvis1 has hit the nail on the head here.

lukus001
17-11-2009, 20:05
Quote Originally Posted by elvis1
Its not the same to use supermicro boards than asus for instance. adaptec raid controllers than cheap on board ( and so on)
Not to sure what you mean by that^
that is already contemplated, no power hogging. you determine power resources.
'You' as in the provider i presume you mean?

A VPS can be very stable as many people use VPS' sucessfully, there is no argument against that, but VPS inherit additional problems that unshared hardware does not inhert.

OVH RPS therefore inhert problems with their networked storage that would not be experinced had it been unshared.

VPSs if handled correctly would wipe RPS perfomance clearly. In fact I can tell you that Ive used a GUI in a 10 bucks ( dollars) VPS running smoothly. when the VPS software fails you say. My question is :

what happens when network fails? what happens when router or networking gear fail? what happen when routing due to human errors fail?

of course it can fail. google fails, but not that much . there are no 100% uptimes, at least in a long term run, lets say >15 years .
I would argue a VPS can only match the performance of a RPS rather than 'wipe RPS performance clearly'.

To properly evaluate such claims one must insure hardware is the same, therefore the only difference is the VPS software and RPS running networked storage. A VPS would then have some resources eaten by VPS management which means an RPS would always out perform a VPS?. RPS would get problems with possible disk access but is subject to peak times incomparison to a definate loss of performance

Additionally since a VPS usually set up with the main intention of having something that mimics a dedicated server but at a cheaper price since you do not require all the resources that a dedicated server can provide, disk access requirements are usually much less needed so a 10Mbps minimum would probabily be sufficient.

A VPS is not always about Cost:Resources ratios and I would argue those that need a VPS for example to test programs on several operating systems would probabily require a dedicated server running VPS themself than to buy 4 packages.

Additional a VPS hard disk is also shared and, while I can't speculate the quality of hard disks used it is possible speeds during peak times are not much better than RPS's.

Networking is required regardless what type of hosting you apply for, providing you need servers to be linked up together. Networks always have a level a redundancy and back-ups for failures especially those providing their network as a commercial service.

Since I work a fibre optic engineer and have isntalled fibre in data centers such as global switch, they always have backup lines and their fibres are never fully utilised.. So such problems are often minor.

Human error is human error, regardles of VPS or RPS.

Again, these problems and errors are mostly abstract from the actuall servers. Problems will always appear, the power to the data center might even get cut off, we can speculate a lot of points of failures however performance and reliability are important factors, therefore a VPS may be an additonal point of failure that may be avoided or deemed unecessary.

elvis1
17-11-2009, 18:41
Quote Originally Posted by Myatu
The difference is that OVH has it's own network and uses purpose built network servers. BurstNET on the other hand does not have its own network and uses consumer desktop PCs as servers in a baker's rack (see https://www.burst.net/network.shtml).

This means that OVH can dictate the traffic flow on its own terms, whereas BurstNET relies on third parties. And I shudder at the thought of having my "server" in fact be a consumer PC sitting in some baker's rack. These things aren't optimized for heat dissipation and electricity usage (so defeating your "eco friendly" comment), neither for longevity nor optimized use of space.

Besides, I don't like Scranton...

Dude, you are one of the guys I respect most on the internetS ( your experience and being humble as well as sharing thoughts and experiences makes me )

I am not comparing by any means the 2 companies . What I am saying is that OVH has the nice network as we all know. OVH has its own datacenter plus all the HVAC (heating vaccum air conditioning ) and all the extras you mentioned.

I also state that they offer the so called RPS that are ''revolutionary" , but that placing some dual gulftowns ( when they become available :P )

My question is: why the hell make information ''travel'' slower at some point ( and this point is in the internal network due to the iscsi congestion!!) and not make independent servers.

Of course if one array crashes it might wipe users accounts ( depending of the type of failure, the type of controller, if off site backup is provided, etc) but you ( clients really : ) ) dont have slower speeds when they can avoid it.

Myatu, all this I am asking about is to place it in Roubaix , not Scranton. I already have a full year paid in different boxes in different U.S. states for extra points of failure.

I would love to see this offered by OVH. Of course I am not asking to have the raids to be made with SSD's. SATA disks in raid 10 with real ram ( no swapagge wanted :P). Even capped traffic or ''low'' speed would cut it. Low speed would be 10Mbps.

Of course setup fees should not be place ( at least for those who pay upfront lets say at least 6 months or a considerable amount of time to show they wont fly away after a month).

With a 775 ( quad core with 8 gigs) 20 clients was a pretty acceptable number. With a dual i9 what would this number be? ( considering the controller and disks can cope with the high I/O).

Myatu
17-11-2009, 14:35
The difference is that OVH has it's own network and uses purpose built network servers. BurstNET on the other hand does not have its own network and uses consumer desktop PCs as servers in a baker's rack (see https://www.burst.net/network.shtml).

This means that OVH can dictate the traffic flow on its own terms, whereas BurstNET relies on third parties. And I shudder at the thought of having my "server" in fact be a consumer PC sitting in some baker's rack. These things aren't optimized for heat dissipation and electricity usage (so defeating your "eco friendly" comment), neither for longevity nor optimized use of space.

Besides, I don't like Scranton...

elvis1
17-11-2009, 04:29
you know ovh talking about being eco friendly and having a pile of inefficient celeron and cpus with 90 nm? with a dual Dual Xeon Gainestown for example they would make a real difference

elvis1
17-11-2009, 04:11
Quote Originally Posted by lukus001
You say don't mention RPS, but in comparison to a VPS they would be better (in theory alone).

VPS divides resources 'virtually' as I am sure you are more than aware of - with memory that isn't too bad but with the CPU thats another story. VPS packages offer CPU in frequency (Mhz) which isn't something you can split so easily, it therefore requires software to manage multi-tasking on a user /account basis.

Since you're adding an extra level of software managing multi-tasking, resources are therefore reduced as this software naturally uses some itself, there's also an increased risk of failure and when the VPS software fails it'll have a tendency to take out not just one person but everyone.
Yep and there are risks ( for both provider and client that need to be assumed). of course it also varies from the quality of product (provider ) uses. Its not the same to use supermicro boards than asus for instance. adaptec raid controllers than cheap on board ( and so on)


Quote Originally Posted by lukus001
Everynow and then someone manages to hog resources bringing down the performance of a shared server - 'burstable' CPU is often offered on VPS which implies you 1Ghz of performance probabily isn't guranteed 100% and that resources dispite having set levels are shared among the box and is calculated as an average only.
that is already contemplated, no power hogging. you determine power resources.

Quote Originally Posted by lukus001
Also, VPS doesn't allow a CPU to be fully utilised to their max potential, the frequency is only part of the package that dictates the speed of a processors and so there will be a level of redudancy.

Compare this to RPS of identical specs, you're actually getting better performance. You argue about the drives not being suitable, but how does that compare to a VPS? the VPS would either have the same setup or have their own hardrives, in the case of having their own harddrives then you might aswell buy a dedicated server havn't you?

1Mbps is only guranteed as a minimum for the networked drives and can be upgraded to 10Mbps from what I've seen. 10Mb might not be up to your standards but a VPS is to what benifit, about 10 cost savings and a lot less performance /stability?
VPSs if handled correctly would wipe RPS perfomance clearly. In fact I can tell you that Ive used a GUI in a 10 bucks ( dollars) VPS running smoothly. when the VPS software fails you say. My question is :

what happens when network fails? what happens when router or networking gear fail? what happen when routing due to human errors fail?

of course it can fail. google fails, but not that much . there are no 100% uptimes, at least in a long term run, lets say >15 years .

lukus001
16-11-2009, 07:13
You say don't mention RPS, but in comparison to a VPS they would be better (in theory alone).

VPS divides resources 'virtually' as I am sure you are more than aware of - with memory that isn't too bad but with the CPU thats another story. VPS packages offer CPU in frequency (Mhz) which isn't something you can split so easily, it therefore requires software to manage multi-tasking on a user /account basis.

Since you're adding an extra level of software managing multi-tasking, resources are therefore reduced as this software naturally uses some itself, there's also an increased risk of failure and when the VPS software fails it'll have a tendency to take out not just one person but everyone.

Everynow and then someone manages to hog resources bringing down the performance of a shared server - 'burstable' CPU is often offered on VPS which implies you 1Ghz of performance probabily isn't guranteed 100% and that resources dispite having set levels are shared among the box and is calculated as an average only.

Also, VPS doesn't allow a CPU to be fully utilised to their max potential, the frequency is only part of the package that dictates the speed of a processors and so there will be a level of redudancy.

Compare this to RPS of identical specs, you're actually getting better performance. You argue about the drives not being suitable, but how does that compare to a VPS? the VPS would either have the same setup or have their own hardrives, in the case of having their own harddrives then you might aswell buy a dedicated server havn't you?

1Mbps is only guranteed as a minimum for the networked drives and can be upgraded to 10Mbps from what I've seen. 10Mb might not be up to your standards but a VPS is to what benifit, about 10 cost savings and a lot less performance /stability?

elvis1
16-11-2009, 02:54
if OVh has such a network, why doesnt it offer vps Boxes at killer prices as burst.net?

take a look at ths

https://service.burst.net/cart.php?gid=18

you could toss a handful of i7 ( or even a better single socket cpu related to it but that has better properties at a very reasonable price) make a raid 10 array plunge some ram and you could easily accommodate ( easily 20 clients per node). heavy investments? the adaptec raid controller and RAM ( which I guess you can buy em for pretty cheap as bulk)

of course setup fees should be wiped to those paying a whole year up
front and an extra rebate and add ons to bi anual payments.

you could even offer extra add ons like unmetered 10 mbps for 'X' amount of money.

Please dont even mention RPS. The iscsi should need to be rebuilt with ssd 's and 10gbit NICs to be of any use. 1Mb/sec guaranteed of iscsi and 100mbit of network speed is something like chuck norris in a wheel chair ( nothing to do one characteristic with the other, thats what I mean)