4 ms·
If you can tolerate risk of data loss, VPS or even physical hosts are likely to be far cheaper than any cloud. Look at OVH, Hetzner, Linode, DigitalOcean.
by stu2010 7y ago
If you can tolerate risk of data loss, VPS or even physical hosts are likely to be far cheaper than any cloud. Look at OVH, Hetzner, Linode, DigitalOcean.
- derrick_jensen 7y agoDigitalOcean Spaces has the same API as AWS S3, and the download bandwidth costs a lot less. I would recommend it
- webmobdev 7y agoLinode, Pair and Rackspace are established players in this field. (Pair.com is the oldest I know of).
- rumanator 7y agoAccording to Wikipédia, OVH is the third largest hosting company in the world based on physical services and the largest hosting company in Europe. They are not a fly by night operation. And IMHO Hetzner is by far the best service provider there is for bare metal and plain old VM services.
- webmobdev 7y agoDidn't know about OVH, thanks. A long time ago, I was advised to always first look at the age of the company when choosing a web host. (And then their financials and client base). I've found this advise to be a solid one. A lot of web hosting companies fold up ...
- codegeek 7y ago"Risk of data loss". Is there anything that guarantees no data loss or zero risk ?
- FlyingAvatar 7y agoThe risk profile of storing something in S3, where your data is stored in at least three different Availability Zones is completely different than a Managed Server or VPS where, if you so chose, it might be stored without any redundancy at all.