5 ms·

The 200Mb/s unmetered pricing is really incredible. I have a server moving 20+TiB up and 20+TiB down per month for 2.99€. If I'm reading this right with EC2 pr

by tux3 10y ago

The 200Mb/s unmetered pricing is really incredible. I have a server moving 20+TiB up and 20+TiB down per month for 2.99€. If I'm reading this right with EC2 pricing I'd be paying 1,750€/month just for the bandwith!

logicallee 10y ago
Well, you're obviously costing them money. (I will say that I personally think it's a bit abusive of you - I mean 20 GB would be one thing, but "20+ TiB"... I mean it's like going to an all you can eat buffet and eating 70 whole lobsters. 7 is one thing - but 70?) At least you're giving them free press here. :) On that note - how are latency and CPU access? Can you run a fast, performant site on it? (If you have actual numbers it would be great, such as ms to serve first page, for example, on an actual install.) Maybe some people here can help subsidize your excesses by hosting their tiny web apps on it... ;) (And knowing that if their site ever does blow up - suddenly spike in traffic - they'll be covered without huge bills.)
- tux3 10y ago
  I would hope it's not abusive of me, I think I'm using around 136Mb/s of the promised 200. It's a Tor relay so it happily takes all the bandwidth it can get. And I sure am happy to give them free press, it is pretty incredible :) The CPU on the other hand isn't the beefiest (there are comparative benchmarks floating around), the advantage is probably going to be the predictable latency since it (almost) all runs on bare metal.
  - logicallee 10y ago
    I don't understand your numbers. 1 month in seconds is 2,629,743 seconds [1] and at 136 MB/s that is 357 TiB [2] - almost 10 times what you quoted. Are you really averaging 136 Mb/s day-in, day-out? Also, I'd like to understand this: >the advantage is probably going to be the predictable latency since it (almost) all runs on bare metal. Surely you get a VM don't you? How can it run on bare metal while giving you full access to your image? What did you mean by this bare metal remark . . . Thanks! [1] https://www.google.com/search?q=1+month+in+seconds https://www.google.com/search?q=1+month+in+seconds [2] https://www.google.com/search?q=136+mb%2Fsecond+*+1+month https://www.google.com/search?q=136+mb%2Fsecond+*+1+month
    - tux3 10y ago
      >I don't understand your numbers. 1 month in seconds is 2,629,743 seconds [1] and at 136 MB/s that is 357 TiB [2] - almost 10 times what you quoted Almost exactly 8 times, as a matter of fact :) I use Mb/s for megabits/s and not megabytes, so that comes out to a bit more than 40TiB, 20 up and 20 down. (The 136Mb/s I estimated was a big too high, actually. Here is my bandwidth chart if you're interested: https://i.imgur.com/l1rCeHC.png https://i.imgur.com/l1rCeHC.png) >Surely you get a VM don't you? How can it run on bare metal while giving you full access to your image? What did you mean by this bare metal remark . . . Thanks! I believe they have their own custom hardware that they manage directly, they spin one up and you run bare metal on one of these with some local SSDs attached. With the exception of, I think, the VPS which is KVM.
      - logicallee 10y ago
        Thanks. Right, I just let Google do the conversion (per my footnotes) and didn't think about the bit/byte thing - ooops. Do you run a web server on yours? Can you check locally what your actual latency is for curl-ing (or wgeting) a page? I mean the actual timestamp difference from your local machine, such as your laptop or desktop. I don't intend to have a lot of traffic but I really, really hate latency. thanks for all this info btw.
        tux3 10y ago
        No problem! I checked with an apache2 instance on a VC1S in Paris, my ping to it is 25ms and curl from my laptop takes about 90ms. Hope that helps.
        logicallee 10y ago
        Yes! This is useful. Thank you :)
- kyledrake 10y ago
  > Well, you're obviously costing them money. AWS and Google Cloud want people to think that, so that they can keep selling people McDonalds and charging Michelin prices for it. Market-rate quality bandwidth is closer to $0.005-$0.015/GB. That's with peering to eyeball ISPs like Comcast and everything. Don't believe me, go to Voxility and crunch the numbers yourself. Their marketing guys say about it what they're going to say. But under the hood, you tell me if you're getting something different: http://bgp.he.net/AS20473#_asinfo http://bgp.he.net/AS20473#_asinfo http://bgp.he.net/AS16509#_asinfo http://bgp.he.net/AS16509#_asinfo http://bgp.he.net/AS63949#_asinfo http://bgp.he.net/AS63949#_asinfo Oh BTW, DigitalOcean's site just resolves to a Cloudflare controlled IP. If they can't successfully run their own servers on their own network, I won't either. You can have a different opinion here, but that's mine. I like to see my ISPs eating their own dog food.
  - simplehuman 10y ago
    DO DNS is also powered by cloudflare
    - tbrowbdidnso 10y ago
      If I remember right cloudflare outsources theit DNS to someone else as well, can't remember who
      - homero 10y ago
        No they take outsourcing
      - manigandham 10y ago
        Cloudflare's entire business is running their own edge network which combines DNS + CDN + WAF + DDOS protection. They don't outsource this.
  - hyperpape 10y ago
    At $.005/GB, 20TB is still $100. That said, they are a business, and it's their job to make their bandwidth policies clear and enforce them. Either they're ok with a few users using tons of bandwidth or they can't be bothered to put in place a clear policy. Either way, it's not the user's problem.
jameskegel 10y ago
This comment actually got me to check them out, so right now I'm deploying 2 bare metal servers and benchmarking them against my DO boxen with interesting results. The SW boxen are outperforming the DO ones at times over 8x in disk IO, and connection to remote servers using vpsbench

by tux3 10y ago

logicallee 10y ago

Well, you're obviously costing them money. (I will say that I personally think it's a bit abusive of you - I mean 20 GB would be one thing, but "20+ TiB"... I mean it's like going to an all you can eat buffet and eating 70 whole lobsters. 7 is one thing - but 70?) At least you're giving them free press here. :) On that note - how are latency and CPU access? Can you run a fast, performant site on it? (If you have actual numbers it would be great, such as ms to serve first page, for example, on an actual install.) Maybe some people here can help subsidize your excesses by hosting their tiny web apps on it... ;) (And knowing that if their site ever does blow up - suddenly spike in traffic - they'll be covered without huge bills.)

tux3 10y ago
I would hope it's not abusive of me, I think I'm using around 136Mb/s of the promised 200. It's a Tor relay so it happily takes all the bandwidth it can get. And I sure am happy to give them free press, it is pretty incredible :) The CPU on the other hand isn't the beefiest (there are comparative benchmarks floating around), the advantage is probably going to be the predictable latency since it (almost) all runs on bare metal.
- logicallee 10y ago
  I don't understand your numbers. 1 month in seconds is 2,629,743 seconds [1] and at 136 MB/s that is 357 TiB [2] - almost 10 times what you quoted. Are you really averaging 136 Mb/s day-in, day-out? Also, I'd like to understand this: >the advantage is probably going to be the predictable latency since it (almost) all runs on bare metal. Surely you get a VM don't you? How can it run on bare metal while giving you full access to your image? What did you mean by this bare metal remark . . . Thanks! [1] https://www.google.com/search?q=1+month+in+seconds https://www.google.com/search?q=1+month+in+seconds [2] https://www.google.com/search?q=136+mb%2Fsecond+*+1+month https://www.google.com/search?q=136+mb%2Fsecond+*+1+month
  - tux3 10y ago
    >I don't understand your numbers. 1 month in seconds is 2,629,743 seconds [1] and at 136 MB/s that is 357 TiB [2] - almost 10 times what you quoted Almost exactly 8 times, as a matter of fact :) I use Mb/s for megabits/s and not megabytes, so that comes out to a bit more than 40TiB, 20 up and 20 down. (The 136Mb/s I estimated was a big too high, actually. Here is my bandwidth chart if you're interested: https://i.imgur.com/l1rCeHC.png https://i.imgur.com/l1rCeHC.png) >Surely you get a VM don't you? How can it run on bare metal while giving you full access to your image? What did you mean by this bare metal remark . . . Thanks! I believe they have their own custom hardware that they manage directly, they spin one up and you run bare metal on one of these with some local SSDs attached. With the exception of, I think, the VPS which is KVM.
    - logicallee 10y ago
      Thanks. Right, I just let Google do the conversion (per my footnotes) and didn't think about the bit/byte thing - ooops. Do you run a web server on yours? Can you check locally what your actual latency is for curl-ing (or wgeting) a page? I mean the actual timestamp difference from your local machine, such as your laptop or desktop. I don't intend to have a lot of traffic but I really, really hate latency. thanks for all this info btw.
      - tux3 10y ago
        No problem! I checked with an apache2 instance on a VC1S in Paris, my ping to it is 25ms and curl from my laptop takes about 90ms. Hope that helps.
        logicallee 10y ago
        Yes! This is useful. Thank you :)
kyledrake 10y ago
> Well, you're obviously costing them money. AWS and Google Cloud want people to think that, so that they can keep selling people McDonalds and charging Michelin prices for it. Market-rate quality bandwidth is closer to $0.005-$0.015/GB. That's with peering to eyeball ISPs like Comcast and everything. Don't believe me, go to Voxility and crunch the numbers yourself. Their marketing guys say about it what they're going to say. But under the hood, you tell me if you're getting something different: http://bgp.he.net/AS20473#_asinfo http://bgp.he.net/AS20473#_asinfo http://bgp.he.net/AS16509#_asinfo http://bgp.he.net/AS16509#_asinfo http://bgp.he.net/AS63949#_asinfo http://bgp.he.net/AS63949#_asinfo Oh BTW, DigitalOcean's site just resolves to a Cloudflare controlled IP. If they can't successfully run their own servers on their own network, I won't either. You can have a different opinion here, but that's mine. I like to see my ISPs eating their own dog food.
- simplehuman 10y ago
  DO DNS is also powered by cloudflare
  - tbrowbdidnso 10y ago
    If I remember right cloudflare outsources theit DNS to someone else as well, can't remember who
    - homero 10y ago
      No they take outsourcing
    - manigandham 10y ago
      Cloudflare's entire business is running their own edge network which combines DNS + CDN + WAF + DDOS protection. They don't outsource this.
- hyperpape 10y ago
  At $.005/GB, 20TB is still $100. That said, they are a business, and it's their job to make their bandwidth policies clear and enforce them. Either they're ok with a few users using tons of bandwidth or they can't be bothered to put in place a clear policy. Either way, it's not the user's problem.

jameskegel 10y ago

This comment actually got me to check them out, so right now I'm deploying 2 bare metal servers and benchmarking them against my DO boxen with interesting results. The SW boxen are outperforming the DO ones at times over 8x in disk IO, and connection to remote servers using vpsbench