5 ms·
Something is wrong with their pricing, since a server with twice the RAM, bandwidth, and disk is $5/mo. It's too bad you can't combine two or more of these $1
by jewel 12y ago
Something is wrong with their pricing, since a server with twice the RAM, bandwidth, and disk is $5/mo. It's too bad you can't combine two or more of these $1 servers in order to get just the right amount of VPS.
This low price makes me wish that RAM and CPU could be added to cloud servers on an as-needed basis, i.e. hot-swappable RAM. That would be much more useful than autoscaling since it could react to traffic very quickly. You'd need live-migration behind the scenes to make it work, of course.
- albertoleal 12y agoFelt the same way. I'm wondering what the catch is.
- akie 12y agoLock-in, that's what the catch is. It's supposed to act as a gateway to more expensive plans.
- dspillett 12y agoYou often see plans like this on LEB, the catch is usually very oversold on CPU and memory resources, more so then more expensive plans. This might be less apparent with a bigger name provider who can swallow a bit more on there loss-leader plans so YMMV here. Of course to many light uses that overselling isn't going to matter particularly particularly when SSD backed as that reduces the effect of rampant I/O contention. In fact for things that need a small burst of CPU umpf every now and then, an oversold VM on a beefy host will outperform a cheap dedicated box (with an atom chip for instance) costing much more per month.
- pervycreeper 12y agoI would imagine that they are betting that most users will use this to host small static sites with negligible traffic, allowing them to benefit from payed for, but unused resources.
- Someone1234 12y agoIf that's the case then people could just use Amazon's S3. You can get a LOT of static site for 10c/month. More likely scenario is a tiny PHP site with the database hosted elsewhere?
- Karunamon 12y agoS3's the storage - you still have to run an httpd daemon somewhere, and even the smallest, cheapest EC2 instance will run you no less than $14 a month. (Notwithstanding the one-year-only free tier) (Wow, I didn't know you could just serve content straight off the storage. I need to re-examine AWS.. thanks :D)
- derefr 12y agoHeroku? I'm unsure what could fit into one of these VPSes but not a free-tier Heroku instance. (Which you get as many of as you like, mind you.)
- pivo 12y agoLooks like you can host a static web site just using S3: http://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonS3/latest/dev/WebsiteHosting.html http://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonS3/latest/dev/WebsiteHostin...
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- thinkmassive 12y agoYou can host static sites entirely on S3: http://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonS3/latest/dev/WebsiteHosting.html http://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonS3/latest/dev/WebsiteHostin...
- hrjet 12y agoNice to know this. One major disadvantage is no https.