4 ms·

I'm with Rimuhosting since forever. Their support is unbeatable. Many times they helped me(I'm a dev. not a sys. admin.) for free where other companies would h

by olihb 17y ago

I'm with Rimuhosting since forever. Their support is unbeatable. Many times they helped me(I'm a dev. not a sys. admin.) for free where other companies would have charged me. I agree that adding their key on the VPS without talking to you sucks but having a 100% utilisation of your CPU is a bit egoist. That means that nobody on the host machine can burst their share for a quick high-cpu job. If you want total control over your machine, get a dedicated box. Even then, some hosters demand root access on your box.

tdavis 17y ago
nobody on the host machine can burst their share for a quick high-cpu job That only makes sense if there is only one other VM on the machine. Which is basically never the case. EDIT: Or they use a pedestrian virtualization layer.
- olihb 17y ago
  I'm not sure I understand. If there are 8 VPS on a machine and I'm always using 1/8 of CPU time, nobody else can't have access to this 1/8 share. I know that 1/8 of the CPU share "belongs" to me but it's a shared box and it's just being a good neighbour. I appreciate it when I need to run a quick high-cpu on my VPS and I can use more than my 1/8 share of CPU.
  - jonknee 17y ago
    You'd need seven "bad" neighbors for this to be the case.
    - olihb 17y ago
      You're right but in this case the user is a freeloader. He can use more than his 1/8 share of CPU time but others can't use his 1/8 share.
      - tdavis 17y ago
        Who cares? He should only be using the other 7/8s when nobody else is; that's the entire point. If their virtualization isn't setup to keep people from bogarting resources on a "first come, first keep" basis, that is their poor decision to live with; they shouldn't be taking it out on customers by killing processes and so on. A VPS host shouldn't be asking or telling customers to manage their own CPU resources, period; that's the point of a VPS in the first place. It's a virtual private server. It should be isolated in a fashion such that even if I'm using 100% CPU 24/7, it doesn't affect anybody else. If a host told me to "use less CPU" I'd tell them to "acquire better virtualization" and find a better host. Ridiculous.
        olihb 17y ago
        I agree but you should not be using a VPS if you are a high CPU user. You use a dedicated server for that. Most shared providers will charge you more if you use more CPU or require that you upgrade to a dedicated server. I'm pretty sure that any hosting company will be happy to lose you as a customer if your usage degrades the other users performance.
        jonknee 17y ago
        Being able to use up to your share of a VPS is why you pay for a VPS and not shared hosting. If you pay for 1/8th of a server you are entitled to use 100% of that quota 24/7/365. Using your resources doesn't "degrade" other customers' performance unless the server is set up incorrectly. As long as they can access their 1/8th everyone should be happy.
  - californiaguy 17y ago
    > If there are 8 VPS on a machine There's probably 64 or 128 VPS on one machine. > and I'm always using 1/8 of CPU time There's your problem right there. You're believing what you're told by someone selling shared access to a finite resource.
    - olihb 17y ago
      My perception is that VPS aren't for high-CPU, high-IO or high-memory servers. If one user is using too much CPU, he should be using a dedicated server. It's not like servers are expensive. You can get an entry level box on a fat pipe for 67$ with iweb.ca. I think rimu was right to limit his CPU share. It was unprofessional of them to root his box and shutdown apache, but it seems he was a user with an history of high CPU utilization.
      - pyre 17y ago
        Wouldn't it have just made more sense to just further limit his CPU share? Even if he was abusing the service, I don't feel their actions were justified. Especially since they state in their email to him that if they cap the CPU then they don't care how much of his CPU share that he uses.
dschobel 17y ago
but having a 100% utilisation of your CPU is a bit egoist I thought selling access to a shared resource without the ability to moderate consumption was the ridiculous bit.
pyre 17y ago
But Rimuhosting states in their email to him that they can give him a fixed CPU share, and then they don't care what he does with that. And they already had given him a fixed CPU share. If it was too large they could have further limited the size of his share, and then called him to notify him.

by olihb 17y ago

tdavis 17y ago

nobody on the host machine can burst their share for a quick high-cpu job That only makes sense if there is only one other VM on the machine. Which is basically never the case. EDIT: Or they use a pedestrian virtualization layer.

olihb 17y ago
I'm not sure I understand. If there are 8 VPS on a machine and I'm always using 1/8 of CPU time, nobody else can't have access to this 1/8 share. I know that 1/8 of the CPU share "belongs" to me but it's a shared box and it's just being a good neighbour. I appreciate it when I need to run a quick high-cpu on my VPS and I can use more than my 1/8 share of CPU.
- jonknee 17y ago
  You'd need seven "bad" neighbors for this to be the case.
  - olihb 17y ago
    You're right but in this case the user is a freeloader. He can use more than his 1/8 share of CPU time but others can't use his 1/8 share.
    - tdavis 17y ago
      Who cares? He should only be using the other 7/8s when nobody else is; that's the entire point. If their virtualization isn't setup to keep people from bogarting resources on a "first come, first keep" basis, that is their poor decision to live with; they shouldn't be taking it out on customers by killing processes and so on. A VPS host shouldn't be asking or telling customers to manage their own CPU resources, period; that's the point of a VPS in the first place. It's a virtual private server. It should be isolated in a fashion such that even if I'm using 100% CPU 24/7, it doesn't affect anybody else. If a host told me to "use less CPU" I'd tell them to "acquire better virtualization" and find a better host. Ridiculous.
      - olihb 17y ago
        I agree but you should not be using a VPS if you are a high CPU user. You use a dedicated server for that. Most shared providers will charge you more if you use more CPU or require that you upgrade to a dedicated server. I'm pretty sure that any hosting company will be happy to lose you as a customer if your usage degrades the other users performance.
        jonknee 17y ago
        Being able to use up to your share of a VPS is why you pay for a VPS and not shared hosting. If you pay for 1/8th of a server you are entitled to use 100% of that quota 24/7/365. Using your resources doesn't "degrade" other customers' performance unless the server is set up incorrectly. As long as they can access their 1/8th everyone should be happy.
- californiaguy 17y ago
  > If there are 8 VPS on a machine There's probably 64 or 128 VPS on one machine. > and I'm always using 1/8 of CPU time There's your problem right there. You're believing what you're told by someone selling shared access to a finite resource.
  - olihb 17y ago
    My perception is that VPS aren't for high-CPU, high-IO or high-memory servers. If one user is using too much CPU, he should be using a dedicated server. It's not like servers are expensive. You can get an entry level box on a fat pipe for 67$ with iweb.ca. I think rimu was right to limit his CPU share. It was unprofessional of them to root his box and shutdown apache, but it seems he was a user with an history of high CPU utilization.
    - pyre 17y ago
      Wouldn't it have just made more sense to just further limit his CPU share? Even if he was abusing the service, I don't feel their actions were justified. Especially since they state in their email to him that if they cap the CPU then they don't care how much of his CPU share that he uses.

dschobel 17y ago

but having a 100% utilisation of your CPU is a bit egoist I thought selling access to a shared resource without the ability to moderate consumption was the ridiculous bit.

pyre 17y ago

But Rimuhosting states in their email to him that they can give him a fixed CPU share, and then they don't care what he does with that. And they already had given him a fixed CPU share. If it was too large they could have further limited the size of his share, and then called him to notify him.