4 ms·

Is there a SKU for more disk-heavy workloads like a box running Postgres? I'd love to be able to get more disk space (especially since you guys have SSDs, this

Is there a SKU for more disk-heavy workloads like a box running Postgres? I'd love to be able to get more disk space (especially since you guys have SSDs, this will make PG very happy) without the extra CPU and memory. Is that currently possible with Digital Ocean?

dorfsmay 13y ago
No. I have spent hours searching for a cloud provider with decent disk space at a "decent" price, and it basically does not exist. The only thing I have been able to find are physical hosts, with all the issues associated with them (40$ for 2 x 1 TB disk at http://ovh.com http://ovh.com).
- akurilin 13y ago
  Argh, that's too bad, thanks for letting me know. Perhaps something along the lines of Heroku's Postgres hosting would be good?
  - dorfsmay 13y ago
    Heroku is good because they take sysadmin/DBA headaches away from you, but I wouldn't call them cheap. My take on this is that if you want or need to run your own database with a large amount of storage, there are three solutions: - run it in house, which means you now need a redundant link to the internet, server class machines (redundant power supply), etc, etc, etc... Unlikely unless you already have your own data centre - use a VM to which you can add storage (EC2, google, etc...). That is expensive (0.1$/GiB) but typically very reliable (they use redundant physical storage), and flexible (you can move your storage around, rebuild VMs etc...). - use a colo site, or a rent a cheap physical. You get a lot of space for a very reasonable price, but have all the headaches of a physical (storage is only as redundant as you make it, no hardware mirroring/raid'ing, if the storage fails, you've lost your OS as well, and now have to restore from backup, changing OS means renting a second physical, install, transfer data, etc...).
    - akurilin 13y ago
      Fair enough, thanks for explaining that. Seems like the EC2-like route makes the most sense if you're most budget and manpower constrained, even though the performance will be comparatively pretty abysmal.

dorfsmay 13y ago

No. I have spent hours searching for a cloud provider with decent disk space at a "decent" price, and it basically does not exist. The only thing I have been able to find are physical hosts, with all the issues associated with them (40$ for 2 x 1 TB disk at http://ovh.com http://ovh.com).

akurilin 13y ago
Argh, that's too bad, thanks for letting me know. Perhaps something along the lines of Heroku's Postgres hosting would be good?
- dorfsmay 13y ago
  Heroku is good because they take sysadmin/DBA headaches away from you, but I wouldn't call them cheap. My take on this is that if you want or need to run your own database with a large amount of storage, there are three solutions: - run it in house, which means you now need a redundant link to the internet, server class machines (redundant power supply), etc, etc, etc... Unlikely unless you already have your own data centre - use a VM to which you can add storage (EC2, google, etc...). That is expensive (0.1$/GiB) but typically very reliable (they use redundant physical storage), and flexible (you can move your storage around, rebuild VMs etc...). - use a colo site, or a rent a cheap physical. You get a lot of space for a very reasonable price, but have all the headaches of a physical (storage is only as redundant as you make it, no hardware mirroring/raid'ing, if the storage fails, you've lost your OS as well, and now have to restore from backup, changing OS means renting a second physical, install, transfer data, etc...).
  - akurilin 13y ago
    Fair enough, thanks for explaining that. Seems like the EC2-like route makes the most sense if you're most budget and manpower constrained, even though the performance will be comparatively pretty abysmal.