4 ms·

Show HN: Your dedicated server provider is ripping you off. Here's how

8 points by lnguyen 15y ago

numair 15y ago
If enough people start to use this, it could really change the dynamics of the dedicated server market. For example, I never knew I could get a dual core server with a 40GB SSD for $75/mo -- something tells me that box would be tremendously faster than an EC2-based box for database activity.
- lnguyen 15y ago
  EC2/cloud has much more buzz and perceived* transparency compared to dedicated servers that the latter tends to get written off. But at the end of the day, you're still just dealing with servers in a data center. If there's better performance at a better price, wouldn't you want to know and be able to take advantage of it? *Because of the nature of virtual, you really don't know what kind of actual performance you'll get for your money. Depends on the physical system it's running on, how many other instances are also on that server, what their load is like, etc.
ollybee 15y ago
Few customers compare dedicated server providers purely on server spec and price. If that was genuinely all you were looking at then colocation would almost certainly be a better option. They also want extra services like backups, firewalls, ddos protection,control panel software, extra ip's and so on. Most people want support beyond the minimum which would be hardware replacement and network connectivity only. In an ideal world hosting companies would sell a server and then the customer would take complete control of the server and hate the idea of the host logging on to their box. In reality most dedicated server customers are people who have busy sites that have outgrown traditional shared hosting but are not sever administrators. They want a host they can call up to do small jobs for them and pay for more involved work. Were the lines are drawn on this extra support varies dramatically between providers but will make most real world difference to the majority of customers.
- lnguyen 15y ago
  You have to start somewhere. And right now the amount of transparency in the dedicated server market is pretty atrocious. How do you begin to compare one plan from another, one provider from the next? Server spec and price gives a hard number that you can use. It's certainly not the only number you should. But if someone is ripping you off on a commodity part or feature, you're going to be inclined to think that they're doing that to you in other places. FYI I do expect people will want and factor in those extra services in their decision. Those services should be made available with their costs, SLAs and exact support spelled out (aka an explicit managed hosting plan). I'll eventually work this all into the analysis of provider plans.
  - ollybee 15y ago
    I agree it's a start and having a comparison site for dedicated servers seems like it could be a good idea , your right pricing is not at all transparent. I would look to the financial comparison sites (a big thing in the UK) at how they present data on products that are not like for like, for example home insurance polices differ hugely in detail. that should give you insperation on how to build to something useful. As an immediate change it would nice to have a tickbox to search only for hosts using branded hardware.
true_religion 15y ago
This is a great solution, but you ought to add some more server providers to the list like Choompa, Equinox, LiquidWeb, MediaTemple, StormOnDemand, LeaseWeb, Hetzner.de Those at least are server companies that I'm intimately familiar with.
- lnguyen 15y ago
  I'm planning on adding more providers. I've been focused on coding and should be getting back to collecting provider data shortly.

8 points by lnguyen 15y ago

If enough people start to use this, it could really change the dynamics of the dedicated server market. For example, I never knew I could get a dual core server with a 40GB SSD for $75/mo -- something tells me that box would be tremendously faster than an EC2-based box for database activity.

lnguyen 15y ago
EC2/cloud has much more buzz and perceived* transparency compared to dedicated servers that the latter tends to get written off. But at the end of the day, you're still just dealing with servers in a data center. If there's better performance at a better price, wouldn't you want to know and be able to take advantage of it? *Because of the nature of virtual, you really don't know what kind of actual performance you'll get for your money. Depends on the physical system it's running on, how many other instances are also on that server, what their load is like, etc.

ollybee 15y ago

Few customers compare dedicated server providers purely on server spec and price. If that was genuinely all you were looking at then colocation would almost certainly be a better option. They also want extra services like backups, firewalls, ddos protection,control panel software, extra ip's and so on. Most people want support beyond the minimum which would be hardware replacement and network connectivity only. In an ideal world hosting companies would sell a server and then the customer would take complete control of the server and hate the idea of the host logging on to their box. In reality most dedicated server customers are people who have busy sites that have outgrown traditional shared hosting but are not sever administrators. They want a host they can call up to do small jobs for them and pay for more involved work. Were the lines are drawn on this extra support varies dramatically between providers but will make most real world difference to the majority of customers.

lnguyen 15y ago
You have to start somewhere. And right now the amount of transparency in the dedicated server market is pretty atrocious. How do you begin to compare one plan from another, one provider from the next? Server spec and price gives a hard number that you can use. It's certainly not the only number you should. But if someone is ripping you off on a commodity part or feature, you're going to be inclined to think that they're doing that to you in other places. FYI I do expect people will want and factor in those extra services in their decision. Those services should be made available with their costs, SLAs and exact support spelled out (aka an explicit managed hosting plan). I'll eventually work this all into the analysis of provider plans.
- ollybee 15y ago
  I agree it's a start and having a comparison site for dedicated servers seems like it could be a good idea , your right pricing is not at all transparent. I would look to the financial comparison sites (a big thing in the UK) at how they present data on products that are not like for like, for example home insurance polices differ hugely in detail. that should give you insperation on how to build to something useful. As an immediate change it would nice to have a tickbox to search only for hosts using branded hardware.

true_religion 15y ago

This is a great solution, but you ought to add some more server providers to the list like Choompa, Equinox, LiquidWeb, MediaTemple, StormOnDemand, LeaseWeb, Hetzner.de Those at least are server companies that I'm intimately familiar with.

lnguyen 15y ago
I'm planning on adding more providers. I've been focused on coding and should be getting back to collecting provider data shortly.