Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!


NAT Storage?
New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.

All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.

NAT Storage?

randvegetarandvegeta Member, Host Rep

If people are looking for large amounts of storage, I'm wondering if a dedicated IPv4 address is strictly necessary? What exactly do people use remote storage for that cannot function perfectly well over NAT IPv4 + Native IPv6?

Of course there are always some applications that need direct access, and of course the cost of an IPv4 address may technically be negligible if you're renting Terabytes of disk space. But as IPv4 addresses become more scarce, they will inevitably become more and more expensive. The savings of running over NAT may not be so insignificant in the not too distant future. And for providers, it may also make things a little easier in terms of resource allocation and management.

So do people with large remote storage needs really need a dedicated IPv4? Or can NAT + IPv6 be a viable alternative?

Comments

  • @randvegeta Seriously? You didn't just read about 10 pages back when everyone was begging @Cam, @Mikho, @harisp, and others for the cheapest storage possible for BF/CM?

    Depending on how you connect to your device, stuff like SMB won't work over IPv4, but sshfs/fuse/etc should still be fine, as you are aware.

    The main reason people need a dedicated IP for storage is no different than needing a dedicated IP for anything else- it's yours/not shared; you aren't limited to a handful of ports on what is still the most popular transit, and the list goes on.

    I wouldn't want to share a single IPv4 IP for storage; having a /112 or so to go with it is fine by me, because I have two ways to access my content. In no way would I be interested in NAT only.

  • randvegetarandvegeta Member, Host Rep
    edited December 2017

    WSS said: I wouldn't want to share a single IPv4 IP for storage; having a /112 or so to go with it is fine by me, because I have two ways to access my content. In no way would I be interested in NAT only.

    Perhaps it would sound better as an IPv6 storage server, rather than NAT :-). Service for modern times ;-)

  • Definitely interested.

    As long as the server has ipv6, of course. But thats your plan already.

    Thanked by 1vimalware
  • randvegetarandvegeta Member, Host Rep

    @MagicalTrain said:
    Definitely interested.

    As long as the server has ipv6, of course. But thats your plan already.

    How would you use the storage server exactly?

  • @randvegeta said:

    WSS said: BF/CM?

    Big fucking cum monster?

    WSS said: I wouldn't want to share a single IPv4 IP for storage; having a /112 or so to go with it is fine by me, because I have two ways to access my content. In no way would I be interested in NAT only.

    Perhaps it would sound better as an IPv6 storage server, rather than NAT :-). Service for modern times ;-)

    There are still many countries where their ISP doesn't provide IPv6 connectivity.

  • @randvegeta said:

    @MagicalTrain said:
    Definitely interested.

    As long as the server has ipv6, of course. But thats your plan already.

    How would you use the storage server exactly?

    Currently Im looking for an offsite backup server to replace my zxhost server. But finding a 5TB+ server in notexpensive isnt easy :D

  • @randvegeta said:

    WSS said: BF/CM?

    Big fucking cum monster?

    Don't sign your posts.

    Black Friday/Cyber Monday

  • randvegetarandvegeta Member, Host Rep

    @WSS said:

    @randvegeta said:

    WSS said: BF/CM?

    Big fucking cum monster?

    Don't sign your posts.

    Black Friday/Cyber Monday

    LOL.

  • v3ngv3ng Member, Patron Provider

    NAT/ Native IPv6 would be fine for me, since all my servers have IPv6 and my ISP at home as well.

  • KuJoeKuJoe Member, Host Rep

    Speaking from experience, our non-NAT storage VPSs sell better than our NAT storage VPSs that are a fraction of the price. This is just one data point though so it might just be that people are paying extra for 2 CPU cores instead of just 1 that comes with the NAT plans.

  • @KuJoe said:
    Speaking from experience, our non-NAT storage VPSs sell better than our NAT storage VPSs that are a fraction of the price. This is just one data point though so it might just be that people are paying extra for 2 CPU cores instead of just 1 that comes with the NAT plans.

    I cant even find your nat storage offer on your website, maybe thats why.

  • KuJoeKuJoe Member, Host Rep

    @MagicalTrain said:

    @KuJoe said:
    Speaking from experience, our non-NAT storage VPSs sell better than our NAT storage VPSs that are a fraction of the price. This is just one data point though so it might just be that people are paying extra for 2 CPU cores instead of just 1 that comes with the NAT plans.

    I cant even find your nat storage offer on your website, maybe thats why.

    It's a promo we posted here because this is where people were asking for it. I guess posting it on the website might have a slight impact, but considering 99% of the orders would come from this site I don't think it would have much at all.

  • @KuJoe said:

    @MagicalTrain said:

    @KuJoe said:
    Speaking from experience, our non-NAT storage VPSs sell better than our NAT storage VPSs that are a fraction of the price. This is just one data point though so it might just be that people are paying extra for 2 CPU cores instead of just 1 that comes with the NAT plans.

    I cant even find your nat storage offer on your website, maybe thats why.

    It's a promo we posted here because this is where people were asking for it. I guess posting it on the website might have a slight impact, but considering 99% of the orders would come from this site I don't think it would have much at all.

    Are you talking about the 100GB NAT plan for $15/year you posted? It was interesting, but too small disk-wise for many of us. When talking about storage, most(?) of us are looking for a minimum of 500GB. 250GB is attractive if the price is good, though it does mean additional splitting up of data is required, which is less convenient. For example, I'll continue (indefinitely) renewing my 250GB NAT VPS from i-83, since it costs me under $15/year and I get great speeds to my other servers and to work. While I don't expect that price to be routinely replicated, I think it was a great deal and I'm appreciative of it. Based on my experience with that server, I do also consider them for my other VPS needs.

    There are multiple reputable providers offering IPv4 KVM (and OpenVZ) VPS at ~$5/TB/month (with 1-2.6GB RAM) on annual payment terms or $3.40-$4/TB/month with longer (2-year) term payment. Currently, I'm looking for a 500GB -2TB VPS for ~$4/TB/mo with annual payment (there are some reputable providers who offer that for 2-year prepayment and). So, I am trying to decide between buying one or two of @Abdullah's 1.5TB VPS specials (which works out to $3.33/TB/month), though the 1GB RAM is holding me back a little, since I'm tempted to run Windows on it. To be honest, everything I do with Linux is self-taught and I haven't had much time to learn/try stuff in the past couple years, so even much of what I learned has been forgotten. So, I don't know how to set up a secured/hardened VPS with Linux and keep it updated without breaking stuff, anymore. Additionally, the if something breaks, I'm SOL because I don't know how to fix it and recover my data - that is not a good thing when it comes to storage! At least with Windows, I know enough to mess around, recover my data, and potentially fix stuff. [The stuff about price and reliability being attractive holds true, thought these last parts about Linux vs Windows were just my own thoughts that probably don't apply to many others on LET].

    tl;dr great price + great provider = sales.

    Thanked by 2KuJoe MagicalTrain
  • @randvegeta said:
    So do people with large remote storage needs really need a dedicated IPv4? Or can NAT + IPv6 be a viable alternative?

    I could settle for a NAT IP, not like I ned that many ports for sshfs or CIFS.

  • KuJoeKuJoe Member, Host Rep

    @user123 Thank you for taking the time to type that! It's the first real feedback I've seen for NAT Storage VPSs and I'm sure it's extremely helpful for me and @randvegeta

    Thanked by 1randvegeta
  • @user123
    Damn, I somehow missed that HostHatch deal. Guess I found what I needed after all. Thanks dude!

    Sorry for the hijack.

  • @Cam always has some great deals.

    Thanked by 1Cam
  • @KuJoe said:
    @user123 Thank you for taking the time to type that! It's the first real feedback I've seen for NAT Storage VPSs and I'm sure it's extremely helpful for me and @randvegeta

    I'm happy to help :). The tl;dr is common sense, but I thought that it might be worthwhile to lay out the logic behind it ("show your work") from a customer's perspective. As you know, something appearing to be good in theory/on paper doesn't necessarily guarantee that it will be a good/optimal solution IRL. At the end of the day, most of us just want a cheap, but reliable, place to store our extra files (or extra backups). With the larger plans, as you (and every other LET provider) know, most of us will never use our plan's full disk/resources...but, having that flexibility is freeing.

    Thanked by 1Tom
  • @MagicalTrain said:
    @user123
    Damn, I somehow missed that HostHatch deal. Guess I found what I needed after all. Thanks dude!

    Sorry for the hijack.

    I know how frustrating it is to find out about a great deal after the fact, so I'm glad you found what you were looking for and that @Abdullah got another sale!. From what I've heard, he's a reasonable guy and HostHatch is pretty solid. Like I said, I just haven't yet pulled the trigger because I'd like a tiny bit more RAM on my VPS so that I can comfortably run Windows. But, I'm working on talking myself into it! xD

  • Nobody mentions wishosting? They've had NAT storage plans for a while. They work great. My one reservation about NAT is if someone ddos's the public ipv4 port, it affects all the users. This is a significant issue in the LES world, though I didn't notice it with my Wishosting storage plan when I had it.

  • Any update on this? Would definitely grab one if based in HK :p

  • randvegetarandvegeta Member, Host Rep

    lifehome said: Any update on this? Would definitely grab one if based in HK :p

    It will come, but not setup yet. Too many other things to do :D

    Thanked by 1lifehome
Sign In or Register to comment.