Howdy, Stranger!

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

Advertise on LowEndTalk.com

Latest LowEndBox Offers

    Looking for a 100 GB or 500 GB or 1TB Storage VPS - OpenVZ 7 - Ubuntu 18
    New on LowEndTalk? Please read our 'Community Rules' by clicking on it in the right menu!

    Looking for a 100 GB or 500 GB or 1TB Storage VPS - OpenVZ 7 - Ubuntu 18

    Disk: 100 GB or 500 GB

    RAM: At least 2GB+ or more...

    Network: 1 Gbps

    Bandwidth: 3TB+ min

    Location: ANY

    Ideally allow private VPN, Webserver, etc.

    OpenVZ 7 ( Latest version)

    Ubuntu 18 or higher is supported.

    Budget: From ~$3/mo to ~ $4/mo
    I can pay monthly or yearly if it's worth it.

    Can anyone offer this or something similar?

    Thanks and regards

    Comments

    • seriesnseriesn Member, Provider

      @MohamadSY said:
      @seriesn have nice deals

      Thanks for the mention Brother:)

      Seeing OP’s budget and requirements, I will strongly recommend @cociu

      Thanked by 1cociu
    • Another attractive female on LET -- who would have thought!

      "Linux will run happily with only 4 MB of RAM, including all of the bells and whistles such as the X Window System, Emacs, and so on." (M. Welsh & L. Kaufman, Running Linux, 2e, 1996, p. 32)

    • seriesnseriesn Member, Provider

      @angstrom said:
      Another attractive female on LET -- who would have thought!

      Enjoy the view.

      Thanked by 1angstrom
    • vyas11vyas11 Member
      edited February 7

      @angstrom said:
      Another attractive female on LET -- who would have thought!

      Congratulations on your keen observation

      Thanked by 1angstrom
    • Isn't it bad to have VM's run 500GB + storage?

    • @bsdfire said:
      Isn't it bad to have VM's run 500GB + storage?

      May I know the basis for this comment?
      Asking because I am considering a 2TB storage vps.

    • Go4MartGo4Mart Member
      edited February 9

      @MohamadSY said:
      @seriesn have nice deals

      Thanks for the recommendation.

      @seriesn said:

      @MohamadSY said:
      @seriesn have nice deals

      Thanks for the mention Brother:)

      Seeing OP’s budget and requirements, I will strongly recommend @cociu

      Thanks for letting me know, well, I am actually looking for specific VPS to go with, you do not have Ubuntu 18, 100 GB, 3GB Ram?

      @angstrom said:
      Another attractive female on LET -- who would have thought!

      Thanks

      @seriesn said:

      @angstrom said:
      Another attractive female on LET -- who would have thought!

      Enjoy the view.

      I do not look like this now, old photo.

      @vyas11 said:

      @angstrom said:
      Another attractive female on LET -- who would have thought!

      Congratulations on your keen observation

      oh, yeah.

      @bsdfire said:
      Isn't it bad to have VM's run 500GB + storage?

      Yeah, it's not but not with this budget.

      @vyas11 said:

      @bsdfire said:
      Isn't it bad to have VM's run 500GB + storage?

      May I know the basis for this comment?
      Asking because I am considering a 2TB storage VPS.

      But not with this budget, I guess it's not possible.

      Thanks and regards

    • cociucociu Member, Provider
      edited February 9

      hello, you can visit https://hostsolutions.ro/eng/hosting/kvm-storage , and using the cupon code "FRE85XOP86" will do 50% off recurring for life .

      Edit : this is kvm not ovz7 , sorry i just see your requirements

    • Why do you need 2gb RAM for storage? Just curious.

    • james50ajames50a Member
      edited February 9

      If you want high storage decent ram probably watch for offers from letbox. currently closest to your budget would be yearly (5$/month) @ 1tb storage w 2gb ram https://letbox.com/page/promo

      Thanked by 1key900
    • Yes, there are certain limitations when connecting large storage on the backend of a VM. Plus keeping in mind the 1GB RAM to 100GB Storage ratio. So looking at the performance this is what I would keep in mind.

    • Yes, there are certain limitation when connecting large storage on the backend of a VM. > @vyas11 said:

      @bsdfire said:
      Isn't it bad to have VM's run 500GB + storage?

      May I know the basis for this comment?
      Asking because I am considering a 2TB storage vps.

      Yes, there are certain limitations when connecting large storage on the backend of a VM. Plus keeping in mind the 1GB RAM to 100GB Storage ratio. So looking at the performance this is what I would keep in mind. Plus once you start looking at the cost per RAM/Storage you should just look at a dedicated server (In my opinion).

    • seriesnseriesn Member, Provider

      @bsdfire said:
      Plus keeping in mind the 1GB RAM to 100GB Storage ratio.

      Huh?

    • https://securedragon.net/ - Storage VPS tab

      A bit short on ram for your budget, but a good OVZ7 option if that's what you're after

      🐴 $2/mo 512MB KVM - Unmetered bandwidth. $1.25 for 256GB Block Storage - from BuyVM (aff)

    • @seriesn said:

      @bsdfire said:
      Plus keeping in mind the 1GB RAM to 100GB Storage ratio.

      Huh?

      You should consider using 1GB of RAM for every 100GB of storage it's a good rule of thumb. Also, providers should consider this as well.

      Example:
      8GB RAM - 800GB Storage

      This is the same rule of thumb for a physical server.

    • seriesnseriesn Member, Provider

      @bsdfire said:

      @seriesn said:

      @bsdfire said:
      Plus keeping in mind the 1GB RAM to 100GB Storage ratio.

      Huh?

      You should consider using 1GB of RAM for every 100GB of storage it's a good rule of thumb. Also, providers should consider this as well.

      Example:
      8GB RAM - 800GB Storage

      This is the same rule of thumb for a physical server.

      Honestly though, that is a super broad statement, due to many variables. But I see where you are coming from :)

    • @seriesn said:

      @bsdfire said:

      @seriesn said:

      @bsdfire said:
      Plus keeping in mind the 1GB RAM to 100GB Storage ratio.

      Huh?

      You should consider using 1GB of RAM for every 100GB of storage it's a good rule of thumb. Also, providers should consider this as well.

      Example:
      8GB RAM - 800GB Storage

      This is the same rule of thumb for a physical server.

      Honestly though, that is a super broad statement, due to many variables. But I see where you are coming from :)

      Yes you are correct that its pretty broad but in the primary focus of usage it's a good rule of thumb and those being super cheap and asking for 1GB ram and 1TB of storage shouldn't be hosted. I'm surprised hosting providers actually offer this. It's a bit risky.

      Thanked by 1seriesn
    • seriesnseriesn Member, Provider

      @bsdfire said:

      @seriesn said:

      @bsdfire said:

      @seriesn said:

      @bsdfire said:
      Plus keeping in mind the 1GB RAM to 100GB Storage ratio.

      Huh?

      You should consider using 1GB of RAM for every 100GB of storage it's a good rule of thumb. Also, providers should consider this as well.

      Example:
      8GB RAM - 800GB Storage

      This is the same rule of thumb for a physical server.

      Honestly though, that is a super broad statement, due to many variables. But I see where you are coming from :)

      Yes you are correct that its pretty broad but in the primary focus of usage it's a good rule of thumb and those being super cheap and asking for 1GB ram and 1TB of storage shouldn't be hosted. I'm surprised hosting providers actually offer this. It's a bit risky.

      Well my good friend, usually, when you just need a place to store your files and backup your data, memory need is, super low :)

    • angstromangstrom Member
      edited February 9

      @bsdfire said:

      @seriesn said:

      @bsdfire said:

      @seriesn said:

      @bsdfire said:
      Plus keeping in mind the 1GB RAM to 100GB Storage ratio.

      Huh?

      You should consider using 1GB of RAM for every 100GB of storage it's a good rule of thumb. Also, providers should consider this as well.

      Example:
      8GB RAM - 800GB Storage

      This is the same rule of thumb for a physical server.

      Honestly though, that is a super broad statement, due to many variables. But I see where you are coming from :)

      Yes you are correct that its pretty broad but in the primary focus of usage it's a good rule of thumb and those being super cheap and asking for 1GB ram and 1TB of storage shouldn't be hosted. I'm surprised hosting providers actually offer this. It's a bit risky.

      May I ask where this "rule of thumb" comes from? I mean, where is it stated? (Is it akin to the "swap space should be twice as large as RAM" rule?)

      If low-end providers followed this "rule of thumb", it would mean the end of their livelihood.

      "Linux will run happily with only 4 MB of RAM, including all of the bells and whistles such as the X Window System, Emacs, and so on." (M. Welsh & L. Kaufman, Running Linux, 2e, 1996, p. 32)

    • @bsdfire said:

      @seriesn said:

      @bsdfire said:
      Plus keeping in mind the 1GB RAM to 100GB Storage ratio.

      Huh?

      You should consider using 1GB of RAM for every 100GB of storage it's a good rule of thumb. Also, providers should consider this as well.

      Example:
      8GB RAM - 800GB Storage

      This is the same rule of thumb for a physical server.

      My storagebox (freebsd) ram only 512MB, Disk 3TB, it's been more than 3 years,
      still has a good function until now, just for backup files, don't need much ram :smiley:

    • There are a lot of articles out there if you look it up and do some reading. This is just one article that I found. With all of my time running XenServer and VMware this has been the rule of thumb I've set and lived by.
      https://www.elastic.co/guide/en/cloud-enterprise/1.0/ece-manage-node-configurations.html

    • @isunbejo said:

      @bsdfire said:

      @seriesn said:

      @bsdfire said:
      Plus keeping in mind the 1GB RAM to 100GB Storage ratio.

      Huh?

      You should consider using 1GB of RAM for every 100GB of storage it's a good rule of thumb. Also, providers should consider this as well.

      Example:
      8GB RAM - 800GB Storage

      This is the same rule of thumb for a physical server.

      My storagebox (freebsd) ram only 512MB, Disk 3TB, it's been more than 3 years,
      still has a good function until now, just for backup files, don't need much ram :smiley:

      *Running FreeBSD is a completely different beast :) It's low rescource needs is perfect for any server environment. I have run FreeBSD on both VM's and Dedicated Servers and have been super happy with the results. 1vCPU, 512MB ram and 100GB storage and handled it great. Then I have run Win2k12 with 2vCPU, 4GB ram and 100GB storage and it was sluggish after 4 weeks. Go BSD! :)

    • 256MB is fine for pure storage but I want 512MB at least to avoid any plain I may suffer.
      @bsdfire I am not gonna learn a new type of OS just for saving few bucks. LOL

      Coffee, please.

    • @bsdfire said:
      There are a lot of articles out there if you look it up and do some reading. This is just one article that I found. With all of my time running XenServer and VMware this has been the rule of thumb I've set and lived by.
      https://www.elastic.co/guide/en/cloud-enterprise/1.0/ece-manage-node-configurations.html

      That seems to be more product-specific advice than generic advice. Many people run generic Linux storage servers just fine without following such product-specific advice.

      You're new on LET, but as I said, no low-end storage provider will able to meet that ratio without losing their very livelihood (or raising their prices drastically).

      "Linux will run happily with only 4 MB of RAM, including all of the bells and whistles such as the X Window System, Emacs, and so on." (M. Welsh & L. Kaufman, Running Linux, 2e, 1996, p. 32)

    • Appliance storage with 512MB RAM :

      QNAP TS-220 8TB 2 x 4TB WD Red drives, Marvell 1.6GHz, 512MB DDR3 RAM , USB 3.0, Single Disk, JBOD, RAID 0/1

      Thanked by 1bsdfire
    • @angstrom said:

      @bsdfire said:
      There are a lot of articles out there if you look it up and do some reading. This is just one article that I found. With all of my time running XenServer and VMware this has been the rule of thumb I've set and lived by.
      https://www.elastic.co/guide/en/cloud-enterprise/1.0/ece-manage-node-configurations.html

      That seems to be more product-specific advice than generic advice. Many people run generic Linux storage servers just fine without following such product-specific advice.

      You're new on LET, but as I said, no low-end storage provider will able to meet that ratio without losing their very livelihood (or raising their prices drastically).

      That isn't true, Just because those requirements seem high you can easily support say 4GB of ram for 4TB storage for $18.99/mo. Take for example you build your host with (Example)
      Dell R820's - Quad Octa-core proc's, 512GB ram and 6 x 500GB SSD on RAID6
      Ceph cluster - Dell R720XD's with 64GB RAM and 16 x 5TB SATA (RAID 10) or use SSD's

      Now you have a clean build environment that can support you and your clients and still keep your cost way down.

    • @isunbejo said:
      Appliance storage with 512MB RAM :

      QNAP TS-220 8TB 2 x 4TB WD Red drives, Marvell 1.6GHz, 512MB DDR3 RAM , USB 3.0, Single Disk, JBOD, RAID 0/1

      Nice!

    • @bsdfire said:

      @isunbejo said:
      Appliance storage with 512MB RAM :

      QNAP TS-220 8TB 2 x 4TB WD Red drives, Marvell 1.6GHz, 512MB DDR3 RAM , USB 3.0, Single Disk, JBOD, RAID 0/1

      Nice!

      What do you mean "Nice!"? That's very far from what you recommend.

      "Linux will run happily with only 4 MB of RAM, including all of the bells and whistles such as the X Window System, Emacs, and so on." (M. Welsh & L. Kaufman, Running Linux, 2e, 1996, p. 32)

    • @bsdfire said:

      @angstrom said:

      @bsdfire said:
      There are a lot of articles out there if you look it up and do some reading. This is just one article that I found. With all of my time running XenServer and VMware this has been the rule of thumb I've set and lived by.
      https://www.elastic.co/guide/en/cloud-enterprise/1.0/ece-manage-node-configurations.html

      That seems to be more product-specific advice than generic advice. Many people run generic Linux storage servers just fine without following such product-specific advice.

      You're new on LET, but as I said, no low-end storage provider will able to meet that ratio without losing their very livelihood (or raising their prices drastically).

      That isn't true, Just because those requirements seem high you can easily support say 4GB of ram for 4TB storage for $18.99/mo. Take for example you build your host with (Example)
      Dell R820's - Quad Octa-core proc's, 512GB ram and 6 x 500GB SSD on RAID6
      Ceph cluster - Dell R720XD's with 64GB RAM and 16 x 5TB SATA (RAID 10) or use SSD's

      Now you have a clean build environment that can support you and your clients and still keep your cost way down.

      I think that we're talking past each other (or I'm missing something), so I should stop ...

      Above, you said that one should have 1GB RAM for every 100GB of storage, but now you give an example of 4GB RAM for 4TB of storage.

      My original point (which you haven't refuted) was that if low-end storage providers offered 1GB RAM for every 100GB of storage, they would either go out of business or need to raise prices drastically.

      "Linux will run happily with only 4 MB of RAM, including all of the bells and whistles such as the X Window System, Emacs, and so on." (M. Welsh & L. Kaufman, Running Linux, 2e, 1996, p. 32)

    • @angstrom said:

      @bsdfire said:

      @isunbejo said:
      Appliance storage with 512MB RAM :

      QNAP TS-220 8TB 2 x 4TB WD Red drives, Marvell 1.6GHz, 512MB DDR3 RAM , USB 3.0, Single Disk, JBOD, RAID 0/1

      Nice!

      What do you mean "Nice!"? That's very far from what you recommend.

      It's a nice setup, No two environments are the same. Everyone builds and host their environments differently and cost can vary depending on where they get their hardware etc. I mean running FreeBSD vm's you can get away with 512MB ram and 1TB storage. You do know that these are all a matter of opinion and not set in stone. If someone wants a cheap vm they get what they pay for and so on.

    • @angstrom said:

      @bsdfire said:

      @angstrom said:

      @bsdfire said:
      There are a lot of articles out there if you look it up and do some reading. This is just one article that I found. With all of my time running XenServer and VMware this has been the rule of thumb I've set and lived by.
      https://www.elastic.co/guide/en/cloud-enterprise/1.0/ece-manage-node-configurations.html

      That seems to be more product-specific advice than generic advice. Many people run generic Linux storage servers just fine without following such product-specific advice.

      You're new on LET, but as I said, no low-end storage provider will able to meet that ratio without losing their very livelihood (or raising their prices drastically).

      That isn't true, Just because those requirements seem high you can easily support say 4GB of ram for 4TB storage for $18.99/mo. Take for example you build your host with (Example)
      Dell R820's - Quad Octa-core proc's, 512GB ram and 6 x 500GB SSD on RAID6
      Ceph cluster - Dell R720XD's with 64GB RAM and 16 x 5TB SATA (RAID 10) or use SSD's

      Now you have a clean build environment that can support you and your clients and still keep your cost way down.

      I think that we're talking past each other (or I'm missing something), so I should stop ...

      Above, you said that one should have 1GB RAM for every 100GB of storage, but now you give an example of 4GB RAM for 4TB of storage.

      My original point (which you haven't refuted) was that if low-end storage providers offered 1GB RAM for every 100GB of storage, they would either go out of business or need to raise prices drastically.

      I think you like to argue, and all I am doing is providing my opinion. If someone doesn't want to follow that model which obviously a lot of people don't then they shouldn't. It's all up to how they want to run their business. We should always consider our pricing and how much we can afford. I am not saying anyone should follow what I suggest to the tee but at least consider some kind of clean ratio.

    • @bsdfire said:

      @angstrom said:

      @bsdfire said:

      @isunbejo said:
      Appliance storage with 512MB RAM :

      QNAP TS-220 8TB 2 x 4TB WD Red drives, Marvell 1.6GHz, 512MB DDR3 RAM , USB 3.0, Single Disk, JBOD, RAID 0/1

      Nice!

      What do you mean "Nice!"? That's very far from what you recommend.

      It's a nice setup, No two environments are the same. Everyone builds and host their environments differently and cost can vary depending on where they get their hardware etc. I mean running FreeBSD vm's you can get away with 512MB ram and 1TB storage. You do know that these are all a matter of opinion and not set in stone. If someone wants a cheap vm they get what they pay for and so on.

      Listen, sure, we all agree that no two environments are the same and that it all depends on the intended use, etc. There's no special need to say this.

      But this isn't how you came across in your first three posts above when you wrote comments such as:

      You should consider using 1GB of RAM for every 100GB of storage it's a good rule of thumb. Also, providers should consider this as well.

      Example:
      8GB RAM - 800GB Storage

      This is the same rule of thumb for a physical server.

      I pressed you on the origin of this "rule of thumb", but you appear to have backed down since and now say that no two environments are the same (sure, no doubt).

      "Linux will run happily with only 4 MB of RAM, including all of the bells and whistles such as the X Window System, Emacs, and so on." (M. Welsh & L. Kaufman, Running Linux, 2e, 1996, p. 32)

    • @angstrom said:

      @bsdfire said:

      @angstrom said:

      @bsdfire said:

      @isunbejo said:
      Appliance storage with 512MB RAM :

      QNAP TS-220 8TB 2 x 4TB WD Red drives, Marvell 1.6GHz, 512MB DDR3 RAM , USB 3.0, Single Disk, JBOD, RAID 0/1

      Nice!

      What do you mean "Nice!"? That's very far from what you recommend.

      It's a nice setup, No two environments are the same. Everyone builds and host their environments differently and cost can vary depending on where they get their hardware etc. I mean running FreeBSD vm's you can get away with 512MB ram and 1TB storage. You do know that these are all a matter of opinion and not set in stone. If someone wants a cheap vm they get what they pay for and so on.

      Listen, sure, we all agree that no two environments are the same and that it all depends on the intended use, etc. There's no special need to say this.

      But this isn't how you came across in your first three posts above when you wrote comments such as:

      You should consider using 1GB of RAM for every 100GB of storage it's a good rule of thumb. Also, providers should consider this as well.

      Example:
      8GB RAM - 800GB Storage

      This is the same rule of thumb for a physical server.

      I pressed you on the origin of this "rule of thumb", but you appear to have backed down since and now say that no two environments are the same (sure, no doubt).

      Holy buckets, I think you should seriously take a chill pill. You seem to be getting salty over something so simple. If you don't agree then don't follow it. It's my two cents and a period. I see that you feel the need to have the last word so go ahead and say something back snazzy and that'll be it. I will not respond but you will have won. Have a good day.

    • angstromangstrom Member
      edited February 10

      @bsdfire said: Holy buckets, I think you should seriously take a chill pill.

      I'm fine.

      In interaction, I simply try to take the other person's statements/pronouncements seriously, at least initially. Your opening statement/pronouncement about RAM/storage was new to me, so I just wanted to understand its origin. When asked/pressed about it, you ended up saying (after a few rounds of comments) that it's just your personal opinion, which is fine, but it didn't sound like (wasn't phrased as) "just a personal opinion" at the outset -- this is all.

      If I sounded "salty", it was due to my impression that you kept moving the goalposts. I have no problem with personal opinions if they're clearly designated as such.

      Thanked by 1uptime

      "Linux will run happily with only 4 MB of RAM, including all of the bells and whistles such as the X Window System, Emacs, and so on." (M. Welsh & L. Kaufman, Running Linux, 2e, 1996, p. 32)

    • Well, Mr. bsdfire didn't last very long: 18 posts and he's banned. I guess that it was for spamming in another thread (perhaps ban evasion as well). Good riddance.

      Thanked by 1uptime

      "Linux will run happily with only 4 MB of RAM, including all of the bells and whistles such as the X Window System, Emacs, and so on." (M. Welsh & L. Kaufman, Running Linux, 2e, 1996, p. 32)

    • fire .... 😂 :smiley:

    • Wait what? 1GB of ram per 100GB of disk? Huh? What did I miss

    • @MadRabbit said:
      Wait what? 1GB of ram per 100GB of disk? Huh? What did I miss

      You didn't miss anything! There's nothing worth talking about in this connection. Anyway, @bsdfire is now banned.

      "Linux will run happily with only 4 MB of RAM, including all of the bells and whistles such as the X Window System, Emacs, and so on." (M. Welsh & L. Kaufman, Running Linux, 2e, 1996, p. 32)

    • marvelmarvel Member without signature

      @MadRabbit said:
      Wait what? 1GB of ram per 100GB of disk? Huh? What did I miss

      If you run ZFS the rule of thumb is 1 GB RAM per 1 TB disk. Perhaps he got confused with that?

    • isunbejoisunbejo Member
      edited February 11

      @marvel said:

      @MadRabbit said:
      Wait what? 1GB of ram per 100GB of disk? Huh? What did I miss

      If you run ZFS the rule of thumb is 1 GB RAM per 1 TB disk. Perhaps he got confused with that?

      ZFS is disk caching, of course need big ram for pool, index, meta etc.

    • Was bsdfire another incarnation of bsdguy?

    • @saibal said:
      Was bsdfire another incarnation of bsdguy?

      I don't think so (for a number of reasons).

      "Linux will run happily with only 4 MB of RAM, including all of the bells and whistles such as the X Window System, Emacs, and so on." (M. Welsh & L. Kaufman, Running Linux, 2e, 1996, p. 32)

    • have been using @cociu for storage servers and personal vpn. Other than support tickets services are good :smile:

    • @agroup said:
      Other than support tickets services are good :smile:

      They have a great improvement in tickets recently due to new members.

      Thanked by 1agroup

      Coffee, please.

    • cociucociu Member, Provider

      agroup said: Other than support tickets services are good

      we have change in this ...

      Thanked by 1agroup
    • cociu said: we have change in this ...

      Sounds perfect then.

    • @cociu said:
      hello, you can visit https://hostsolutions.ro/eng/hosting/kvm-storage , and using the cupon code "FRE85XOP86" will do 50% off recurring for life .

      Edit : this is kvm not ovz7 , sorry i just see your requirements

      No option for OVZ7?

      Why currency dose does not have $USD?

      @dimqua said:
      Why do you need 2gb RAM for storage? Just curious.

      It's the minimum ram to do basic stuff I am doing, basic processing, which anything you do like zip file compress and uncompress faster, which is very basic actually, and just in case some software requirements are the basic 2GB RAM, otherwise, everything will be very slow.

      @james50a said:
      If you want high storage decent ram probably watch for offers from letbox. currently closest to your budget would be yearly (5$/month) @ 1tb storage w 2gb ram https://letbox.com/page/promo

      Thanks, I do not want NVMe or SSD hard drive just basic hard drive would do to me,> @bsdfire said:

      Yes, there are certain limitations when connecting large storage on the backend of a VM. Plus keeping in mind the 1GB RAM to 100GB Storage ratio. So looking at the performance this is what I would keep in mind.

      Yes, totally agreed if so I would need 200GB Storage as well with the 2GB RAM.

      @Harambe said:
      https://securedragon.net/ - Storage VPS tab

      A bit short on ram for your budget, but a good OVZ7 option if that's what you're after

      price is a bit high, but thanks.> @seriesn said:

      @bsdfire said:

      @seriesn said:

      @bsdfire said:

      @seriesn said:

      @bsdfire said:
      Plus keeping in mind the 1GB RAM to 100GB Storage ratio.

      Huh?

      You should consider using 1GB of RAM for every 100GB of storage it's a good rule of thumb. Also, providers should consider this as well.

      Example:
      8GB RAM - 800GB Storage

      This is the same rule of thumb for a physical server.

      Honestly though, that is a super broad statement, due to many variables. But I see where you are coming from :)

      Yes you are correct that its pretty broad but in the primary focus of usage it's a good rule of thumb and those being super cheap and asking for 1GB ram and 1TB of storage shouldn't be hosted. I'm surprised hosting providers actually offer this. It's a bit risky.

      Well my good friend, usually, when you just need a place to store your files and backup your data, memory need is, super low :)

      Yes, as a backup server, I do require at least 2GB or 3GB to have some basic processing done fast.

      Thanks and regards

    Sign In or Register to comment.