KVM - 512MB RAM - 100GB DISK - €12.00 p/year [UK/USA]

InceptionHosting

For this weekend only, the 512mb storage plan has been reduced.

Use coupon code: LESstoragedec2019

UK: https://clients.inceptionhosting.com/cart.php?a=add&pid=204
USA: https://clients.inceptionhosting.com/cart.php?a=add&pid=206

• 1 CPU Core (fair share none dedicated)
• 512 MB Ram
• 100 GB Disk space - Raid 5
• 500 GB Bandwidth @ 1 gbit (shared - unmetered inbound)
• 1 IPv4 address
• /64 IPv6 (UK Only)

This is an LES Exclusive deal.

Offer expired, regular pricing is €13.00 p/year.

Adam

What's the host nodes like on these?

They must be beasts.

InceptionHosting

Not really, older gen CPU's L5649's, H710 raid card + bbu and big spinner disks, I believe they mostly run on R410's

Adam

I was referring to them as beasts -Storage Wise-

For something that is just for storage them CPU'S are perfectly fine!

Anyhoo €12/y is a great price!

InceptionHosting

To be honest it just made me sad not to see anything under exclusive deals

tetech

What's a reasonable iops limit while being a good neighbor on these servers? I've got a database that needs around 40-50 tps. Best to ask first...

jqr

Dang it @AnthonySmith! I thought I was done shopping. I planned on using the ServaRICA storage deal for my nextcloud, but now I worried about all the places where I might go that don't have IPv6 enabled yet. This is very tempting...

uptime

@AnthonySmith said:
This is an LES Exclusive deal.

Adam said: €12/y is a great price

@AnthonySmith said:
To be honest it just made me sad not to see anything under exclusive deals

And it does indeed look pretty sharp there

elliotc

I throught blackfriday ended already

InceptionHosting

@tetech said:
What's a reasonable iops limit while being a good neighbor on these servers? I've got a database that needs around 40-50 tps. Best to ask first...

Well, I think it would be a bad idea to run a database on a box on spinners specifically made for storage but you are welcome to do it anyway if performance is no t important to you, I don’t know what IOPS 50tps will generate so I can’t really answer that, ideally under 300 avg would be my best guess.

Neoon

Well, If the Doctor, the real DOCTOR, had not offered me a 150GB VM for 10$/y, I may snagged.

InceptionHosting

@Neoon said:
Well, If the Doctor, the real DOCTOR, had not offered me a 150GB VM for 10$/y, I may snagged.

Nice, feel free to link to that deal also if it is an ongoing one?

tetech

@AnthonySmith said:

@tetech said:
What's a reasonable iops limit while being a good neighbor on these servers? I've got a database that needs around 40-50 tps. Best to ask first...

Well, I think it would be a bad idea to run a database on a box on spinners specifically made for storage but you are welcome to do it anyway if performance is no t important to you, I don’t know what IOPS 50tps will generate so I can’t really answer that, ideally under 300 avg would be my best guess.

Thanks for the guidance. It would be running it as a slave for backup, so latency isn't important. I've always treated tps and iops the same per this page:

IOPS, or I/O per second, is measured as the sum of ( r/s + w/s ). If using iostat without the -x option, the iops value is under the tps (transactions per second) column.

For my DB master this number is 48 averaged over the past 30 days. Not intending to hijack the thread, but if you're measuring iops differently, could you say how?

InceptionHosting

@tetech said:

@AnthonySmith said:

@tetech said:
What's a reasonable iops limit while being a good neighbor on these servers? I've got a database that needs around 40-50 tps. Best to ask first...

Well, I think it would be a bad idea to run a database on a box on spinners specifically made for storage but you are welcome to do it anyway if performance is no t important to you, I don’t know what IOPS 50tps will generate so I can’t really answer that, ideally under 300 avg would be my best guess.

Thanks for the guidance. It would be running it as a slave for backup, so latency isn't important. I've always treated tps and iops the same per this page:

IOPS, or I/O per second, is measured as the sum of ( r/s + w/s ). If using iostat without the -x option, the iops value is under the tps (transactions per second) column.

For my DB master this number is 48 averaged over the past 30 days. Not intending to hijack the thread, but if you're measuring iops differently, could you say how?

If you have done the research I am happy to yeild to your knowledge, I have literally never even considered how many IOPS an sql transaction is, I assumed it would be more than 1 but for no reason.

If it turns out to be problematic and you don't care about performance I will just limit it for you so no one looses.

tetech

@AnthonySmith said:

@tetech said:

@AnthonySmith said:

@tetech said:
What's a reasonable iops limit while being a good neighbor on these servers? I've got a database that needs around 40-50 tps. Best to ask first...

Well, I think it would be a bad idea to run a database on a box on spinners specifically made for storage but you are welcome to do it anyway if performance is no t important to you, I don’t know what IOPS 50tps will generate so I can’t really answer that, ideally under 300 avg would be my best guess.

Thanks for the guidance. It would be running it as a slave for backup, so latency isn't important. I've always treated tps and iops the same per this page:

IOPS, or I/O per second, is measured as the sum of ( r/s + w/s ). If using iostat without the -x option, the iops value is under the tps (transactions per second) column.

For my DB master this number is 48 averaged over the past 30 days. Not intending to hijack the thread, but if you're measuring iops differently, could you say how?

If you have done the research I am happy to yeild to your knowledge, I have literally never even considered how many IOPS an sql transaction is, I assumed it would be more than 1 but for no reason.

If it turns out to be problematic and you don't care about performance I will just limit it for you so no one looses.

Ahh I was talking about a "disk transaction" not a "SQL transaction", so maybe we are actually speaking the same language. In that case maybe I am well inside your parameters, but if it does end up problematic I'd be happy for you to limit it. Thank you.

Neoon

@AnthonySmith said:

@Neoon said:
Well, If the Doctor, the real DOCTOR, had not offered me a 150GB VM for 10$/y, I may snagged.

Nice, feel free to link to that deal also if it is an ongoing one?

Its a old deal, from a few years ago.

havoc

Yeha will def grab one. Looking for a mirror as backup. And both my others are same provider so that doesn't work

jqr

At first I was upset because I was away for the weekend and missed out, but then I realized, it's only €1, and @AnthonySmith is already doing a great service by running this place. In for one at the (still unbeatable) regular price.

fred

This servers runs on colocrossing?

Solaire

@fred said:
This servers runs on colocrossing?

I think @AnthonySmith is with IOFlood in Phoenix, US. He's with @Clouvider in the UK.

vimalware

@Solaire said:

@fred said:
This servers runs on colocrossing?

I think @AnthonySmith is with IOFlood in Phoenix, US. He's with @Clouvider in the UK.

Yes. These are the locations for the storage offers.

InceptionHosting

@fred said:
This servers runs on colocrossing?

No, never.

Asim

I missed the offer but the regular pricing is not a lot as well

Rahul

@fred said:
This servers runs on colocrossing?

If you trust your gut, you won't use coloncrossing.

greensysadmin

Just sounding out some opinions here...

I have an Inception London NAT LES VZ7 box with @AnthonySmith on the old 128MB RAM, 350GB bandwidth plan that's been phased out, but recently I've been using more bandwidth and am looking to bump from 350GB to 500GB. All I host on it is OpenVPN and Wireguard.

I could either get one of the new 256MB RAM, 500GB bandwidth OV7 LES boxes that are €5 a year (which have the same 3GB disk allocation as my current box), or bump up to this €13 KVM which bumps the RAM again and gets me loads more disk space, as well as the benefits of KVM.

Which is the better choice? Is this KVM Big Storage running on SSD cached or just spinning disks? I would probably look to take advantage of the extra space to make it a Borg backup server or Nextcloud in addition to the OpenVPN and Wireguard setup.

InceptionHosting

Just spinners in raid 5 I don’t think it will really matter for a vpn either way though