After the whole SolusVM hack and a number of hosts experiencing downtime because of it, I started to see posts essentially claiming "if you wanted something reliable, you shouldn't have gone with a low end host." That got me thinking. Could you use a combination of hosts in different data centres to host something that's "mission critical" or "highly available" and not break the bank? How would that compare in cost and features to a more expensive host that has a strict SLA? I'm definitely not the most experienced in this kind of thing, but I potentially have a (relatively small) project coming up that I'd like to be highly available and at least somewhat fault-tolerant. I'm thinking something along the lines of: Get 6 VPSs from the more reliable low-cost hosts 2 128 MB VPSs for load balance servers (haproxy or similar) 2 256 MB VPSs running a LEMP stack or similar for web servers 2 512+ MB VPSs running a galera MySQL cluster [*]Rage4 for DNS w/ failover from uptime robot Have half the servers above in one geographic area, and the others in another Use geographic zones from Rage4 to point to each load balancer as the primary in a region Use failover protection pointing to opposite load balancer [*]Load balancers would be used for both web traffic and MySQL requests Each load balancer would favour their own geographic area Would prefer other geographic servers only if the preferred server is under heavy load or unavailable If this works, I figure it would only cost ~$20/month. Is this feasible? Am I missing something here? What would you do?