Feedback on prices for backups/snapshots
- Thread starter Francisco
- Start date
rupe
New Member
Just to clarify, would a snapshots only have a "life expectancy" of two (2) weeks maximum? Or would they be like the AWS/Digital Ocean Snapshots, where they would be available until deleted by the user. If it is the latter, I assume there would be a limit on the amount of snapshots/snapshot size one could have before having to either pay more, or delete old snapshots?
I agree with the rest, that 15% is very reasonable
I agree with the rest, that 15% is very reasonable
It's in the worksWhile I've got your attention
The_Hatta asked for that awhile back, I've just not had a chance to test it.
Francisco
wolfpackmars2
New Member
I'm not really interested in backups, mainly because my VPS is a storage VPS that I use as a backup server anyways. Since "I'm not interested in backups" was an option on the questionnaire that's how I responded. I would hate for you to go into this expecting X number of customers and you only get 0.5X real customers. However, I think 20% would be fair for those who do use the service (which someday I may). I bounced around between 15 and 20%. At 20% you realize that's 1/5th of the cost of getting a whole VPS. Or you could get a storage VPS and maintain your own backups. buuuuuttttttt.... there is something to be said for the convenience of automated snapshots. Plus, this could be a sort of simple way to set up a "base" image and rolling it out to multiple servers easily, which is worth it's weight in gold.
Also, what's so special about SSD? In a shared VPS environment, I would think the bottlenecks would be system load and network bandwidth before HDD speed would ever play a factor? Maybe for some really heavy database servers, SSD could be useful? Do people feel they're not "cool" unless they have an SSD, or is there real value with having a Solid State Drive?
EDIT: Just as I post this, dclardy says he is "really looking forward to the SSD based plans". I should point out, I'm not a "real" sysadmin, just a hobbyist - so don't be too harsh on me. Obviously some people find value in SSD, and I'm not saying I don't think it's valuable - I'm just naive and don't know what the value is.
Also, what's so special about SSD? In a shared VPS environment, I would think the bottlenecks would be system load and network bandwidth before HDD speed would ever play a factor? Maybe for some really heavy database servers, SSD could be useful? Do people feel they're not "cool" unless they have an SSD, or is there real value with having a Solid State Drive?
EDIT: Just as I post this, dclardy says he is "really looking forward to the SSD based plans". I should point out, I'm not a "real" sysadmin, just a hobbyist - so don't be too harsh on me. Obviously some people find value in SSD, and I'm not saying I don't think it's valuable - I'm just naive and don't know what the value is.
Last edited by a moderator:
Snapshots would allow the base image idea you have Once billing 2 rolls out we'll likely allow 'snapshots only' support and bill it by the GB.
With boxes getting to 24+ cores the disk becomes an issue. A single user can burn at max the cores they're allocated but a really really really poorly indexed database/etc can tank a whole node if the database gets wrecked enough. We can throw a lot of SSD caching at everything but at some point we may as well just do pure SSD nodes.
Francisco
Once billing 2 rolls out we'll likely allow 'snapshots only' support and bill it by the GB.With boxes getting to 24+ cores the disk becomes an issue. A single user can burn at max the cores they're allocated but a really really really poorly indexed database/etc can tank a whole node if the database gets wrecked enough. We can throw a lot of SSD caching at everything but at some point we may as well just do pure SSD nodes.
Francisco
I like the slight performance boost without needing so much disk space.
For the backups, I can get rid of my backup vps and save some cash. I might trust BuyVM a little too much, but they are good people.
wolfpackmars2
New Member
Thanks Francisco - makes perfect sense. I wasn't thinking outside my own VPS. Servers are essentially split up according to CPU and RAM, but I've not seen anything mentioned about limiting HDD reads/writes. It's understandable that a potential problem with an unrelated user's vps could affect others, when large amounts of data are involved.
My use is fairly light as far as system resources. I use another provider for private websites, and I use my BuyVM Storage server for private backups, so nothing critical. However, if I ever did build a public facing web service, resources and speed would be critical. I've submitted my questionnaire based on what I would be interested in right this minute. Just because I'm not interested in either feature right this minute, I do believe that what you are suggesting is a great value.
Thanks - and I am very happy with my storage vps
My use is fairly light as far as system resources. I use another provider for private websites, and I use my BuyVM Storage server for private backups, so nothing critical. However, if I ever did build a public facing web service, resources and speed would be critical. I've submitted my questionnaire based on what I would be interested in right this minute. Just because I'm not interested in either feature right this minute, I do believe that what you are suggesting is a great value.
Thanks - and I am very happy with my storage vps
wolfpackmars2
New Member
A base image should easily be doable within 1GB. If using something like SaltStack (or Chef or Puppet), then all you need is a base image set up as a Salt Minion. You could blow servers away all day long and get them back up with little effort.Snapshots would allow the base image idea you have
Not that I'm suggesting anyone should make a sport of "blowing servers away"
It depends.A base image should easily be doable within 1GB. If using something like SaltStack (or Chef or Puppet), then all you need is a base image set up as a Salt Minion. You could blow servers away all day long and get them back up with little effort.
Not that I'm suggesting anyone should make a sport of "blowing servers away"
If someone packs up a custom Windows 2008/2012, that'll take up 10GB
Francisco