4 ms·

scaleway seems even lower and is pretty popular.

dx034 9y ago
Not if you factor in that much of the storage is not local, generally lower speed and processing power often appears relatively low per core. Never tested them myself though.
nirv 9y ago
I'm Scaleway customer and it's for sure cheaper since it offers dual cores, unmetered bandwidth and more SSD storage for the same 3 EUR/m. But these are ARM or Atom x86 CPUs, both are significantly less efficient[1] than Xeons. It's worth noting that Scaleway has introduced "Workload Intensive" instances with a sweet price point starting from 25 EUR/m for 6-cores Xeon D-1531/15GB RAM/200GB SSD. [1] https://github.com/joedicastro/vps-comparison https://github.com/joedicastro/vps-comparison
jmngomes 9y ago
Scaleway's "customer support" forums will give you a good grasp of what you're in for if you buy their service. I'll quote a different customer's opinion (on those forums) that summarizes my experience using their service: "Whenever I've tried to use Scaleway for something serious, I regretted bitterly". My experience was essentially this: Scaleway advertises that you can have virtual servers with up to 10 150GB SSD volumes, so I signed up and created a virtual server with two 150GB volumes. After several attempts over three days, the server wouldn't start at all; it never actually started. Scaleway's support told me that "it's because there are no available nodes matching your configuration." and "If our stock is low then there is more chance that the only free nodes are "default" ones, with 200GB available only". The solution, according to their support, would be to "keep trying to start the server until it works". To add to this, Scaleway started billing me for the (unused) volumes attached to a server that cannot be started because, according to their support, they didn't have the resources to provide it. So, I certainly didn't feel assured that they are able to provide what is advertised on their website (virtual servers with up to 10 ssd volumes). My key takeaway from this experience was that if you have a platform on Scaleway and you need to add servers to cope with growth/features, they may not have the capacity/stock to provide it. Even if you have only 1 server, which was my case, they may be unable to say when you'll be able to start the server on a physical instance.

Not if you factor in that much of the storage is not local, generally lower speed and processing power often appears relatively low per core. Never tested them myself though.

nirv 9y ago

I'm Scaleway customer and it's for sure cheaper since it offers dual cores, unmetered bandwidth and more SSD storage for the same 3 EUR/m. But these are ARM or Atom x86 CPUs, both are significantly less efficient[1] than Xeons. It's worth noting that Scaleway has introduced "Workload Intensive" instances with a sweet price point starting from 25 EUR/m for 6-cores Xeon D-1531/15GB RAM/200GB SSD. [1] https://github.com/joedicastro/vps-comparison https://github.com/joedicastro/vps-comparison

jmngomes 9y ago

Scaleway's "customer support" forums will give you a good grasp of what you're in for if you buy their service. I'll quote a different customer's opinion (on those forums) that summarizes my experience using their service: "Whenever I've tried to use Scaleway for something serious, I regretted bitterly". My experience was essentially this: Scaleway advertises that you can have virtual servers with up to 10 150GB SSD volumes, so I signed up and created a virtual server with two 150GB volumes. After several attempts over three days, the server wouldn't start at all; it never actually started. Scaleway's support told me that "it's because there are no available nodes matching your configuration." and "If our stock is low then there is more chance that the only free nodes are "default" ones, with 200GB available only". The solution, according to their support, would be to "keep trying to start the server until it works". To add to this, Scaleway started billing me for the (unused) volumes attached to a server that cannot be started because, according to their support, they didn't have the resources to provide it. So, I certainly didn't feel assured that they are able to provide what is advertised on their website (virtual servers with up to 10 ssd volumes). My key takeaway from this experience was that if you have a platform on Scaleway and you need to add servers to cope with growth/features, they may not have the capacity/stock to provide it. Even if you have only 1 server, which was my case, they may be unable to say when you'll be able to start the server on a physical instance.