Vultr & abusive neighbors
-
@scottalanmiller Check out OVH. Largest hosting provider in EMEA. BareMetal and you run your own whatever or dedicated vCenter/ESXi private cloud stuff.
-
@John-Nicholson said in Vultr & abusive neighbors:
@scottalanmiller Check out OVH. Largest hosting provider in EMEA. BareMetal and you run your own whatever or dedicated vCenter/ESXi private cloud stuff.
Someone here tested them and had problems I thought.
-
@scottalanmiller I was actually looking at the $60 and $120 versions.
Was just thinking... click - click and I am up and running vs ordering and shipping to colo and using all the tools to install my software remotely.
At the $240 price point I agree with you though.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Vultr & abusive neighbors:
@John-Nicholson said in Vultr & abusive neighbors:
@scottalanmiller Check out OVH. Largest hosting provider in EMEA. BareMetal and you run your own whatever or dedicated vCenter/ESXi private cloud stuff.
Someone here tested them and had problems I thought.
I'm using OVH. I'm not having any problems at all except for the ones I cause myself, ha ha ha.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Vultr & abusive neighbors:
@bigbear said in Vultr & abusive neighbors:
Kicking this thread back up because I am looking at RDSH on Vultr vs Azure. Are dedicated instances bare metal?
No one would use bare metal. It would make them a laughingstock and no one could ever talk about them as a business class vendor again. And it would be unnecessarily costly and weird. It's just dedicated.
Yeah I was actually hoping it was not bare-metal and that it was at least a dedicated VM running on its own blade with some redundancy etc.
But I see what you are seeing, the resources are dedicated to that VM in KVM I suppose?
Anyway with the RDSH server I am deploying I don't want to risk any "noisy neighbors" so that caught my I. Incredible value in cost vs Azure, which I initially completely miscalculated.
And I am curious to see if Vultr has less latency than Azure at this point.
-
@bigbear said in Vultr & abusive neighbors:
@scottalanmiller I was actually looking at the $60 and $120 versions.
Was just thinking... click - click and I am up and running vs ordering and shipping to colo and using all the tools to install my software remotely.
At the $240 price point I agree with you though.
Right, but those lower prices are just shared on the hardware. So the total always comes out to $240/mo/server for Vultr. So sure, if you just 1/4th of a server for $60/mo. But you get so little for that. When would that be worth it?
-
@bigbear said in Vultr & abusive neighbors:
Yeah I was actually hoping it was not bare-metal and that it was at least a dedicated VM running on its own blade with some redundancy etc.
But I see what you are seeing, the resources are dedicated to that VM in KVM I suppose?
Yes, that's what it is. And no, you would never want a blade, ever. Not as the buyer, not as a customer. Blade = costly, risky and slow. Blades have a few use cases where they make sense, but as the customer you'd never wish for a blade. Blades are just "corners cut" on good servers.
-
@bigbear said in Vultr & abusive neighbors:
Anyway with the RDSH server I am deploying I don't want to risk any "noisy neighbors" so that caught my I. Incredible value in cost vs Azure, which I initially completely miscalculated.
Generally you do want to risk noisy neighbours. That's how you get better performance. Like many things in IT, the cost of guaranteeing performance is generally so high that only in very rare circumstances would you want it. For example, do you want guaranteed low performance all the time? Or be really fast 99% of the time but fluctuate?
-
@scottalanmiller said in Vultr & abusive neighbors:
@bigbear said in Vultr & abusive neighbors:
Anyway with the RDSH server I am deploying I don't want to risk any "noisy neighbors" so that caught my I. Incredible value in cost vs Azure, which I initially completely miscalculated.
Generally you do want to risk noisy neighbours. That's how you get better performance. Like many things in IT, the cost of guaranteeing performance is generally so high that only in very rare circumstances would you want it. For example, do you want guaranteed low performance all the time? Or be really fast 99% of the time but fluctuate?
Looking at specs for RDSH and the dedicated instances vs Virtual.. I only need so much RAM and so many CPU cores.
So the cost of going dedicated vs virtual is about the same. Would it make the most sense in that case for me to go dedicated for this instance?
-
Alsoc @scottalanmiller you had mentioned NY/NJ is the "good data center" lol. If I'm 10 hours for NYC and 5 Hours from Chicago should I still go to NYC/Jersey? There is BLOB storage there...
The only advantage I can think of for virtual over dedicated is the snapshots. I feel like going dedicated would eliminate performance risks.
Head spinning...
Still not as confusing as Azure though...
-
@bigbear said in Vultr & abusive neighbors:
Alsoc @scottalanmiller you had mentioned NY/NJ is the "good data center" lol. If I'm 10 hours for NYC and 5 Hours from Chicago should I still go to NYC/Jersey? There is BLOB storage there...
Yes, definitely. It has what you need.
-
Magolassi needs a beer money feature, truly.. thanks!
-
@bigbear said in Vultr & abusive neighbors:
@scottalanmiller said in Vultr & abusive neighbors:
@bigbear said in Vultr & abusive neighbors:
Anyway with the RDSH server I am deploying I don't want to risk any "noisy neighbors" so that caught my I. Incredible value in cost vs Azure, which I initially completely miscalculated.
Generally you do want to risk noisy neighbours. That's how you get better performance. Like many things in IT, the cost of guaranteeing performance is generally so high that only in very rare circumstances would you want it. For example, do you want guaranteed low performance all the time? Or be really fast 99% of the time but fluctuate?
Looking at specs for RDSH and the dedicated instances vs Virtual.. I only need so much RAM and so many CPU cores.
So the cost of going dedicated vs virtual is about the same. Would it make the most sense in that case for me to go dedicated for this instance?
The cost of both shouldn't be close. How are you figuring that? A 4 vCPU system shared with 8GB RAM is $40, and a dedicated is 2vCPU with 8GB RAM for $60. That's 50% more expensive by RAM and 300% more by CPU.
-
I am going by RAM looking at the $80 Virtual vs $120 dedicated for about 10 users. The CPU power would be wasted according to Microsoft documentation on our small 10 person deployment.
I am figuring the $40 extra is worth it for consistency for an RDSH environment. On a web app or anything else that wouldn't bother me. The loss of snapshots has me on the fence but there are plenty of options for full fidelity backup.
Now if the bigger virtual machines were somehow less likely to have "noisy neighbors" I would reconsider.
-
@bigbear said in Vultr & abusive neighbors:
I am going by RAM looking at the $80 Virtual vs $120 dedicated for about 10 users. The CPU power would be wasted according to Microsoft documentation on our small 10 person deployment.
Wasted seems a bit much. Not valuable perhaps. But the noisy neighbour issue is about CPU. So saving 33% of the cost to get noisy neighbour protection and loads of extra power most of the time seems like a pretty good option. CPU gets used if anyone does anything. Remember it's having extra CPU that protects against your own internal noisy neighbour problem.
-
@bigbear said in Vultr & abusive neighbors:
I am figuring the $40 extra is worth it for consistency for an RDSH environment. On a web app or anything else that wouldn't bother me.
That's what I'm saying. Any time you are paying for "consistency" in IT, you should stop and really, really evaluate that. Consistency sounds good but is almost always a negative. It's like drifting in racing. It's not consistent, but it is how you get the best performance. Consistency is the enemy of performance.
