[kd1221]

Can anyone else comment on experiences with Linode (and equivalent alternatives)? I'm considering moving a group of servers off expensive dedicated hosting ($400/server) to a VPS service. I've looked at Amazon EC2 but they don't seem to have a sweet spot for my needs.

[dangrossman]

Are you sure that's the right move to make? Do you no longer need the resources of even a single dedicated server? At even 2-4GB RAM requirement, you would not be saving money buying a VPS over renting a server.

A Linode 4096, where you're sharing CPU and disk IO with all the other users on the physical server, is $159.95/mo.

For $159/mo you could rent a Xeon 3230 quad core, 4GB RAM, 2x250GB HD server from Softlayer with more than 4x the bandwidth allotment and a better data center with a larger support staff.

[kd1221]

We deliver video content. We have a CDN that properly encodes and serves our content. All I need is to handle the HTTP requests for the "directory" of videos. A shared environment would probably be fine. All the 4GB servers seem to have most of their RAM dedicated to caching when I check what free -m gives me. Our physical disk space requirements are low. As I shift more of our content to the CDN, our bandwidth needs are decreasing as well (from 12TB/mo to 7TB/mo since I started optimizing).

I inherited this setup, so to me it looks like the servers are overpowered. Also, the customer service is terrible, which is the primary reason for wanting to leave them. I want a service where I can easily requisition and kit out new servers quickly in an "a la carte" fashion.

I have 3 servers running on EC2 already using micro instances. They're mostly to handle minor services (email list subscription/requeuing for all the web properties, payment processing postback handling, etc.) They've been up for nearly a year without any problem.

I've been leaning toward EC2, but I wanted to hear what else is out there.

[dotBen]

All I need is to handle the HTTP requests for the "directory" of videos.

Have you considered just using Amazon S3, especially now they offer full 'httpd'-like functionality (no more bucket XML listings if you try to visit the root of the domain).

http://aws.typepad.com/aws/2011/02/host-your-static-website-...

If you are running a CDN in front to stream the content, this sounds like the best solution to me. You could probably get away with Reduced Redundancy Storage too if you have backups.

[pwaring]

I've run all my personal services (email, web sites, screen sessions etc.) off two Bytemark[1] virtual machines with 500MB of RAM each and the only problems I've experienced have been one or two 'high up' problems such as two core routers going down at the same time - i.e. nothing to do with contention. If you need more RAM, you just pay the extra monthly/annual fee for the next plan up and reboot the machine.

I pay £15/month per VM, which is probably $15-30/month each depending on where the exchange rate is.

[1] http://www.bytemark.co.uk/

[pyre]

  > I've run all my personal services (email

I've been considering getting off of Google for my email hosting, but I remember there being a number of issues with virtual hosts getting their entire IP blocks blacklisted. Is this an issue anymore?

[pwaring]

I've never had a problem, and I suspect it's more likely to be shared hosting which ends up getting blacklisted due to people installing insecure scripts.

If you use a half-decent provider who quickly investigates any unusual traffic on their network then I can't see it being a problem.

[pyre]

Thanks. Maybe I'll take the plunge then.

On a side note, it was AWS getting blacklisted that I was remembering hearing about (though it was at least a couple of years ago).

[maratd]

It depends on your application. Every provider has their own stack running in the back, their own policies, and a unique set of existing users. This translates to unique environments that are more or less suitable for certain needs.

My experience with EC2 is that you get more RAM for the buck when compared to Rackspace and others, but IO to disk and CPU is sub-par. As a result, I tend to prefer Rackspace who are also big players in the open source space.

Keep in mind, regardless of any advertising, there is no such thing as guaranteed performance in the cloud. Ever. Every provider oversubscribes ... they do not expect and cannot handle 100% utilization by their subscriber base. Behind the scene, a VPS is sharing all of its resources, always. If your provider does its job right, you'll never experience a drop in performance. Everything will be consistent. But there is no way for that provider to guarantee that. They can experience an unexpected jump in resource usage at any time.

With dedicated hosting, that's not a possibility. It's your hardware. You're the only one using it.

[nckbz]

>> My experience with EC2 is that you get more RAM for the buck when compared to Rackspace and others, but IO to disk and CPU is sub-par. As a result, I tend to prefer Rackspace who are also big players in the open source space.

Seconding this. And I'd recommend a hybrid solution if it's possible. Dedicated db server with some cloud webheads for your front end. I really think that's the best bang for your buck. Has anyone tried the Amazon RDS or the RackSpace R2 servers? I'd really like to know if they provide any advantages over just straight up hosting your database on another cloud instance.

[dotBen]

The ultimate hybrid is to find a budget VPS (or premium VPS) provider who is based in the same datacenter as your 'bare metal' servers. Granted VPS != cloud, but depending on your requirements you might get the same benefits.

The benefit here is that you can exchange data between servers/VPS's via the private LAN - low latency and potentially no bandwidth costs.

If you go with an Amazon based solution then you don't have this benefit due to the NAT-like way Amazon works and the fact they either own their own datacenters or at least don't allow any private routes between other servers in the same DC.

(I don't know whether every Amazon availability zone is in a wholly operated Amazon datacenter)

[Hrundi]

I'm enjoying it. No downtime since I started with them. I'm at the Atlanta datacenter, with the low plan (20 usd or something).

   root@linode:~# uptime
   13:50:03 up 118 days,  5:10,  1 user,  load average: 0.09, 0.10, 0.13

I'm very happy with them, but I cannot confirm with a 100% certainty that the experience will be the same for you.

May I ask what you are running in those servers? Are your services bound to CPU, bandwidth or memory? All three?

I've had good times with 100tb.com, but the price is prohibitive for me (The dollar is not my "native" currency and I have to work my day job very hard to reach the 200usd it costs)

[kd1221]

Currently they're bandwidth bound, but I'm dissolving that. In the next year I imagine that it'll move to being more memory bound. Then that will turn into being bound by I/O, but that can be solved with memory and more clever caching schemes. CPU should never be an issue unless I move the video encoding back in house, but I don't see that happening soon, and I would separate that into a its own server farm.

[gmac]

I've found Linode fantastic: fast connection, reliable service, reasonable disk speed (for a VPS), responsive support (rarely needed), decent control panel, and continually improving value. My servers are mainly in their London data centre.

[cheald]

I've been using Linode for a couple of years now and I love 'em.