What's the lowest amount of RAM for a VPS?
#41
Labrocca, did you read the thread? I'm not looking for a VPS, I'm trying to give away VPSs. Wink I think a 64MB VPS is worth $0.00/month. Wink
-Joe
AFreeCloud - Free Cloud-Based Web Hosting!
Reply
#42
Well I was just replying to OP.

Quote:So what do you think the lowest amount of RAM a VPS can have and still be considered usable? I'm thinking 64MB but just maybe 32MB...

Sorry if it burst your sales bubble. Maybe post a thread in Services forum so that it's obvious you're advertising.
Reply
#43
Well I thank you for replying but I was looking for what other's thought was the lowest usable amount. Most said 128MB like yourself but I've found 64MB is quite usable. Wink As for the sales bubble, no bubble to burst since I'm not selling anything so it's all good. Big Grin And no, this is not an advertisement because I have nothing to offer. Wink
-Joe
AFreeCloud - Free Cloud-Based Web Hosting!
Reply
#44
(2009-08-30, 01:55 AM)labrocca Wrote: I would agree that anything under 128MB is a waste and you would be better off with a shared hosting environment. People want VPS's normally don't need them. Shared hosts are pretty good nowadays and very cost effective.
Custom applications (ie not a website).
Can include being used as a personal proxy server for example.

For a website though, in general, I'd probably agree. Getting a server running means nothing if a flood of incoming requests can take it down.
Reply
#45
Quote:Custom applications (ie not a website).

Why wouldn't you run it from your local computer then if it's not a website? Just curious in what situation would an application require a VPS and the app wasn't a website in some form. Even Google Apps are technically websites frontends.

Quote:Can include being used as a personal proxy server for example.

Now that's actually a very good use. Probably the only time a VPS would be nice when it's actually used as a VPN.
Reply
#46
(2009-08-30, 07:22 AM)labrocca Wrote:
Quote:Custom applications (ie not a website).

Why wouldn't you run it from your local computer then if it's not a website? Just curious in what situation would an application require a VPS and the app wasn't a website in some form. Even Google Apps are technically websites frontends.
Not all ISPs allow users to run servers (though you could probably set it up nonetheless).
Also issues such as us Australians with horrible upload speeds - it can be more effective to use a cheap US server. Also saves you from keeping the machine on all the time.

There are other uses of course, such as a server for storing backups. You could use shared hosting too, but could be problematic if you can't find a provider which doesn't mind you hosting large files (assuming backups are large), or you want to have shell access to perform some manipulation on the backups.
Reply
#47
I've stated earlier that the point of these VPSs I'm trying to design aren't meant for users who just want a VPS to host a normal website. Yes, shared hosting is a better option for 90% of the users but some users cannot get by on shared hosting even for a single website because of many factors.

Dedicated resources is a big factor along with accessibility and control. Even a 64MB VPS offers more dedicated resources than a shared hosting environment since the user is not restricted to the host's php.ini limits and have root access to adjust the modules and security.

I have plenty of users who would be perfect candidates for a 64MB VPS because they do developement work and Host2x's security settings are to strict to properly test their scripts. In my experience, CPU is one of the biggest benefits of getting a VPS because the amount of CPU isn't restricted by the host.

I'm not expecting people to run the next Google or MySpace on a 64MB VPS, but I won't discount the idea of it being developed on one. Wink
-Joe
AFreeCloud - Free Cloud-Based Web Hosting!
Reply
#48
Actually, root access is one of the biggest advantages of a VPS. If you want CPU, a dedicated server is the way to go. And CPU can be restricted by the host, and if it isn't, overheads in virtualisation will affect it anyway.
Reply
#49
Well as an example my shared hosting accounts are limited to 8 processes at a time and after 15 minutes the process is killed. With a VPS you can use the same amount of CPU (well, not really, shared hosting has priority access to all cores while I have the VPSs restricted to 2 cores) as on shared hosting, but you are not limited by the amount or length the processes may run. Wink

And yes, root access is a major factor and probably the only reason I ever ended up getting a VPS. Big Grin
-Joe
AFreeCloud - Free Cloud-Based Web Hosting!
Reply
#50
(2009-08-31, 01:24 PM)KuJoe Wrote: Well as an example my shared hosting accounts are limited to 8 processes at a time and after 15 minutes the process is killed.
In general, you don't run processes on shared hosting, rather, you use the installed Apache, MySQL etc.
Besides, you could theoretically easily get around time restriction by spawning new processes.

(2009-08-31, 01:24 PM)KuJoe Wrote: With a VPS you can use the same amount of CPU (well, not really, shared hosting has priority access to all cores while I have the VPSs restricted to 2 cores) as on shared hosting, but you are not limited by the amount or length the processes may run. Wink
Even if so, the CPU processing time is still restricted. I've seen some VPSes with absolutely horrible CPU allocation. Possible with shared hosting too, but, as I said, if you want CPU, you need to go dedicated.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)