KVM/LXC NAT IPv4 VPS, Dedicated Ryzen CPU?

Abdullah

Hi,

Thinking if people will be interested in KVM/LXC NAT VPS. Most people already know what is NAT

NAT VPS basically an IPv6-primary VPS with additional shared IPv4 for compatibility.
You can achieve almost all tasks on a NAT'ed IPv4 + you get dedicated IPv6 too.

These KVM/LXC NAT VPS will have included 99.9% uptime guarantee, ddos protection & support etc.

---

In United Kingdom or Netherlands : -

1 vCPU E3 - 12xx v3 @3.4+Ghz
1GB ram
20GB Ent. SSD disk RAID-1
750GB Bandwidth@1Gbps
1 NAT IPv4 + Ipv6 + http/s on port 80/443
for about £14/year. stackable

.
.

4 vCPU E3 - 12xx v3 @3.4+Ghz
5GB ram
100GB Ent. SSD disk RAID-1
3TB Bandwidth@1Gbps
1 dedicated IPv4 + Ipv6 + http/s on port 80/443
About £70/yr. or £7.5/mo.

---

The Ryzen ones,
In Finland : -

1 vCPU Ryzen 3xxx @3.5+GHz
1GB ECC RAM
10GB NVMe SSD or 40GB HDD in RAID-1
1-2TB Bandwidth@1Gbps
1 NAT IPv4 + IPv6 + http/s on port 80/443
For about £12/year, stackable

.
.

4 vCPU Ryzen 3xxx @3.5+GHz
6GB ECC RAM
60GB NVMe SSD or 160GB HDD in RAID-1
Unlimited transfer@1Gbps
1 NAT IPv4 + IPv6 + http/s on port 80/443
For about £65/yr or £6.8/month

All vcores on & above 2GB ram plan are 25% dedicated &100% burstable.

4 vcores can be traded for 1 dedicated core


Similar to @AnthonySmith 's littlehappycloud earlier, except considering LXC for the performance advantages. (you do get 25% dedicated, 100% burstable vcores with LXC too)

What do you think? have you tried LXC yet,
Will you give this LXC VM a try.. or do we strictly need a KVM?

Will will have a separate NAT KVM line with dedicated cores for Windows machines.

Please feel free to participate with any ideas/demands/questions/suggestions or if you just want to say hi ?️

Regards,
Abdullah

chimichurri

Sorry, I'm probably not going to rent any of these, so I guess I'm just saying hi But concerning price/performance (Ryzen!):

On the topic of KVM vs. LXC: the other day I asked one provider selling both KVM and LXC (with the former costing more than the latter for the same specs, both options also had dedicated CPU cores) a question about the differences between these two, this was their (really brief lol) answer:

LXC is an container Service you cant install own Kernel Modules and Kernels.

So is this the only tradeoff in exchange for a lower price compared to KVM, or is there anything else we should bear in mind before ditching KVM in favor of LXC for good?

Abdullah

@chimichurri hi ☺️

I really appreciate the participation.

On the topic of KVM vs. LXC: the other day I asked one provider selling both KVM and LXC (with the former costing more than the latter for the same specs, both options also had dedicated CPU cores) a question about the differences between these two, this was their (really brief lol) answer:

LXC is an container Service you cant install own Kernel Modules and Kernels.

So is this the only tradeoff in exchange for a lower price compared to KVM, or is there anything else we should bear in mind before ditching KVM in favor of LXC for good?

Tbh that is one point, hence you cannot run Windows on an LXC.
Another thing is Isolation, KVM is isolated, KVM can be encrypted (though it is still possible for host to decrypt it, if someone intends to do that)

we provision unpriveleged LXC's, meaning bad neighbors can't ever gain access & disturb any other VM.

If the price difference is large, may mean that host you mention is overselling lxc, but you also mention dedicated cores so I doubt it. Or maybe just taking advantage of fact that KVM r comparatively expensive, so why not sell the same resources for higher monies.

Also KVM virtualizes hardware, which might add considerable overhead, while LXC directly uses the host, this gives much better performance as if the application is directly running on bare-metal dedicated server.
Once you are running your application on LXC it will provide a much more lightweight and efficient system.

Thanks!

nullnothere

Hi @Abdullah - adding my thoughts here (note that these are "me centric" notes, so may not be too relevant to generalize on but I still think it is useful in part).

I have a bunch of NAT instances from all the good providers here (Mikho/Ant/Cam - not tagging intentionally avoid needlessly notifying them). Mostly they are for network probes/tests/speed testing/route checks and things like that. I'm more interested in location diversity for these kinds of VPSs rather than any serious uptime/constant use (not even VPN type usage). Mostly they are cheap enough to setup once and leave running through the year for immediate-need-based MTRs and the like (as opposed to spinning up a cloud instance on demand even via a snapshot/image). Plus I get to ping them from other sources regularly to test out other network quirks.

One of the main reasons for having multiple instances is that they are cheap enough to run 24/7 (assuming well secured). The occasional DDoS or null route doesn't bother me. And they are incredibly lean resource wise.

Switching to KVM makes them more resource hungry because of the kernel in which case, they are not small (or cheap) any more and I'd rather have a full fledged resource-heavy KVM (with a full IPv4+IPv6 stack) instead of a shared NAT (where one is at the mercy of others for IPv4).

When I look at your pricing, you are approaching the border line between high-end NAT (resource + cost wise) vs roughly low end or deal-type KVM (with dedicated IPv4) and for me personally the use case is not really great.

As for LXC, I have a couple and they are NOT nice from a manageability and security standpoint that I strongly avoid them unless there's a very compelling reason to get one. They also leak a lot of stuff and are (IMHO) worse than OpenVZ 7 which seems to provide better isolation at least in terms of kernel messages and the like.

All in all, I feel there's a good use case for cheap-reasonably resourced NAT instances (OpenVZ or LXC) but if you go in to KVM land, I'd rather have a dependable VM with my own IPv4 for a (smallish) markup.

Wishing you the best and hope whatever you try works out for you and your customers!

WilkyDilky

I am looking for 10-12 USD per year machines for very simple tasks like private proxy etc, so would be nice to see something good from you.

WilkyDilky

@Abdullah said:

Another thing is Isolation, KVM is isolated, KVM can be encrypted (though it is still possible for host to decrypt it, if someone intends to do that)

This encryption is useless pretty much since the host can easily decrypt it as you said. However, it may be useful if the hardware will be stolen, for example.

rattlecattle

LXD 4.0 and above support running virtual machines. So you can have your own kernel. Incredibly useful feature. And yes it does support Windows with some effort.

However it uses Qemu underneath and requires hypervisor support (vt-x/amd-v).

rommelr

nat lxc with 512MB ram ?

Neoon

@rattlecattle said:
LXD 4.0 and above support running virtual machines. So you can have your own kernel. Incredibly useful feature. And yes it does support Windows with some effort.

However it uses Qemu underneath and requires hypervisor support (vt-x/amd-v).

LXD with VM's is dogshit, it eats up disk space like google chrome memory.
However LXC is fine.

seriesn

@Neoon said:

@rattlecattle said:
LXD 4.0 and above support running virtual machines. So you can have your own kernel. Incredibly useful feature. And yes it does support Windows with some effort.

However it uses Qemu underneath and requires hypervisor support (vt-x/amd-v).

LXD with VM's is dogshit, it eats up disk space like google chrome memory.
However LXC is fine.

LSD is better.

vyas

@WilkyDilky said:

This encryption is useless pretty much since the host can easily decrypt it as you said. However, it may be useful if the hardware will be stolen, for example.

Or disks get pulled out of the data center by cops?

Abdullah

Glad to see all input, keep them coming!

atomi

I think ppl are looking a bit cheaper prices for NATted servers since they are mostly used to private VPN/proxy and of course idling so that £12/year sounds too much. I would try to push specs down to get it cheaper and try to keep bandwidth but limit it to 100mbps

Brueggus

I've had various issues with LXC containers from different providers:

• Seeing logs from other containers in my logs (for example dmesg)
• Processes get OOM-killed although there's plenty of memory available
• Container gets shut down after 7-8 days of uptime, probably because of cached memory piling up for no apparent reason
• IPv6 connectivity drops randomly

These are most likely configuration issues on the provider's or even my side, but I've never had such issues with OpenVZ or KVM, and therefore I'm sticking to those and don't by LXC anymore.

Neoon

@Brueggus said:
I've had various issues with LXC containers from different providers:

• Processes get OOM-killed although there's plenty of memory available

I had the same issue with one Provider, although they used Proxmox with LXC.
People have/had problems with running LXC/LXD on non ubuntu systems, like Debian, where some stuff just breaks sometimes.

So far running it native with Ubuntu, on an Ubuntu Kernel, not had these problems with microLXC.
Do you know the Provider?

codelock

Low storage low cost email hosting plans?

Abdullah

@nullnothere said:
Hi @Abdullah - adding my thoughts here (note that these are "me centric" notes, so may not be too relevant to generalize on but I still think it is useful in part).

I have a bunch of NAT instances from all the good providers here (Mikho/Ant/Cam - not tagging intentionally avoid needlessly notifying them). Mostly they are for network probes/tests/speed testing/route checks and things like that. I'm more interested in location diversity for these kinds of VPSs rather than any serious uptime/constant use (not even VPN type usage). Mostly they are cheap enough to setup once and leave running through the year for immediate-need-based MTRs and the like (as opposed to spinning up a cloud instance on demand even via a snapshot/image). Plus I get to ping them from other sources regularly to test out other network quirks.

One of the main reasons for having multiple instances is that they are cheap enough to run 24/7 (assuming well secured). The occasional DDoS or null route doesn't bother me. And they are incredibly lean resource wise.

Switching to KVM makes them more resource hungry because of the kernel in which case, they are not small (or cheap) any more and I'd rather have a full fledged resource-heavy KVM (with a full IPv4+IPv6 stack) instead of a shared NAT (where one is at the mercy of others for IPv4).

When I look at your pricing, you are approaching the border line between high-end NAT (resource + cost wise) vs roughly low end or deal-type KVM (with dedicated IPv4) and for me personally the use case is not really great.

As for LXC, I have a couple and they are NOT nice from a manageability and security standpoint that I strongly avoid them unless there's a very compelling reason to get one. They also leak a lot of stuff and are (IMHO) worse than OpenVZ 7 which seems to provide better isolation at least in terms of kernel messages and the like.

All in all, I feel there's a good use case for cheap-reasonably resourced NAT instances (OpenVZ or LXC) but if you go in to KVM land, I'd rather have a dependable VM with my own IPv4 for a (smallish) markup.

Wishing you the best and hope whatever you try works out for you and your customers!

Thanks for your views & suggestions.
I agree with the IPv4 for a small markup fee part, let's hope for the best.!

Abdullah

@WilkyDilky said:
I am looking for 10-12 USD per year machines for very simple tasks like private proxy etc, so would be nice to see something good from you.

Sure! we'll have something this BF, looking forward to your business.!

Abdullah

@rattlecattle said:
LXD 4.0 and above support running virtual machines. So you can have your own kernel. Incredibly useful feature. And yes it does support Windows with some effort.

However it uses Qemu underneath and requires hypervisor support (vt-x/amd-v).

Interesting..thanks for sharing, will try that on a demo machine later.

Abdullah

@codelock said:
Low storage low cost email hosting plans?

Like 1-2GB storage plans? I doubt people maybe interested, will try doing some this bf.

Abdullah

@rommelr said:
nat lxc with 512MB ram ?

Sure, something this bf.

ehab

brother @Abdullah .... i am waiting for something 4GB Finland Ryzen .. so BF can be a good day

codelock

@Abdullah said:

@codelock said:
Low storage low cost email hosting plans?

Like 1-2GB storage plans? I doubt people maybe interested, will try doing some this bf.

Yes atleast i am interested . 1-2 gb is perfect size ... MX route bf friday small sadly has limits to email account....
I will wait for your offer ...

WilkyDilky

@vyas said:

@WilkyDilky said:

This encryption is useless pretty much since the host can easily decrypt it as you said. However, it may be useful if the hardware will be stolen, for example.

Or disks get pulled out of the data center by cops?

Yes, this counts as well

elliotc

I would go for a dedicated ipv4 if the box is bigger than 1gb. The reduced ip cost is not that obvious when the vps is "bigger"

Abdullah

@WilkyDilky said:

@vyas said:

@WilkyDilky said:

This encryption is useless pretty much since the host can easily decrypt it as you said. However, it may be useful if the hardware will be stolen, for example.

Or disks get pulled out of the data center by cops?

Yes, this counts as well

haha, I better not get such customers guess les ppl are sober

@elliotc said:
I would go for a dedicated ipv4 if the box is bigger than 1gb. The reduced ip cost is not that obvious when the vps is "bigger"

agree, specially for asian community which mostly does not have native IPv6 at home, including me.

Abdullah

@ehab

if one has the choice, would you prefer 60GB NVMe or 200GB HDD disk with these ryzens...

I would prefer doing NVMe though less capacity.

ehab

If i had a choice of having both in same vm:

• 20GB NVMe
• 120GB or more HDD

would be wonderful, but in my use case when i don't have a choice for an k8s cluster then i would go for only 200GB HDD.

CamoYoshi

For the use case of a KVM NAT Windows VPS one can secure (through the host) RDP access using a web client like Guacamole or something and not expose RDP directly to the internet. That's a huge thing I see, at least. Would be great for just having a cloud desktop of sorts for those cases where you just need Windows. Just my two cents though.

foxone

I would really really use this for haproxy balancing The 443 passthrough is really nice

Neoon

@foxone said:
I would really really use this for haproxy balancing The 443 passthrough is really nice

Yea until now, TLS 1.3 works also fine, but since people pushing for encrypted SNI, that method will stop working 4eva.
Since HAProxy routes traffic using SNI, in the end we need to decrypt shit on HAProxy again to keep it working.