Howdy, Stranger!

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


What do you currently consider a good price for ftp storage?
New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.

What do you currently consider a good price for ftp storage?

Hey there,

I am wondering what would you consider a good price to be for a 1 TB sftp acc (unmetered bandwidth shared environment with shared 1Gbps) would be. How would you consider scaling it? how much % should it be discounted after xx TB? Do you like to start low (let's say 250 Gb), and increase as you need?

Comments

  • SirFoxySirFoxy Member

    bout tree fiddy

    Thanked by 1pike

    lurking in the shadows like a wombat or some shit

  • Daniel15Daniel15 Member
    edited June 10

    Only SFTP? No rsync, Borgbackup, or file syncing apps (eg. Seafile or Syncthing)? That really limits its value IMO.

    I wouldn't pay any more than $5/TB/month for a storage VPS as there's several providers whose standard pricing is around this price point, and some have good Black Friday deals. I have one with Servarica that's $48/year for 2TB ($2/TB/month) and one with HostHatch that's $120/year for 10TB ($1/TB/month).

    An SFTP account is more limited than a VPS, the overheads are much lower in terms of RAM/CPU usage per user, and it's very easy to oversell and only add extra space when the server is filling up (since most users won't use all the space provided to them), particularly if your server chassis has hot-swappable drive bays. This means you can cram more users onto a single server, and thus I'd expect the pricing to be lower than a storage VPS.

  • tetechtetech Member

    @Daniel15 said:
    Only SFTP? No rsync, Borgbackup, or file syncing apps (eg. Seafile or Syncthing)? That really limits its value IMO.

    I wouldn't pay any more than $5/TB/month for a storage VPS as there's several providers whose standard pricing is around this price point, and some have good Black Friday deals. I have one with Servarica that's $48/year for 2TB ($2/TB/month) and one with HostHatch that's $120/year for 10TB ($1/TB/month).

    An SFTP account is more limited than a VPS, the overheads are much lower in terms of RAM/CPU usage per user, and it's very easy to oversell and only add extra space when the server is filling up (since most users won't use all the space provided to them), particularly if your server chassis has hot-swappable drive bays. This means you can cram more users onto a single server, and thus I'd expect the pricing to be lower than a storage VPS.

    I'd agree with the pricing assessment. However, a good long-term storage provider may do other things that a storage VPS doesn't - block-level reads at least once per week to prevent bit-rot, replicate across multiple servers, etc. Therefore I don't necessarily agree that a storage VPS (where the user is responsible for all this) is expected to be more expensive; maybe, maybe not, depends what is provided.

  • @tetech said:

    @Daniel15 said:
    Only SFTP? No rsync, Borgbackup, or file syncing apps (eg. Seafile or Syncthing)? That really limits its value IMO.

    I wouldn't pay any more than $5/TB/month for a storage VPS as there's several providers whose standard pricing is around this price point, and some have good Black Friday deals. I have one with Servarica that's $48/year for 2TB ($2/TB/month) and one with HostHatch that's $120/year for 10TB ($1/TB/month).

    An SFTP account is more limited than a VPS, the overheads are much lower in terms of RAM/CPU usage per user, and it's very easy to oversell and only add extra space when the server is filling up (since most users won't use all the space provided to them), particularly if your server chassis has hot-swappable drive bays. This means you can cram more users onto a single server, and thus I'd expect the pricing to be lower than a storage VPS.

    I'd agree with the pricing assessment. However, a good long-term storage provider may do other things that a storage VPS doesn't - block-level reads at least once per week to prevent bit-rot, replicate across multiple servers, etc. Therefore I don't necessarily agree that a storage VPS (where the user is responsible for all this) is expected to be more expensive; maybe, maybe not, depends what is provided.

    Well, would you pay a premium for raid 10 or not?

  • tetechtetech Member

    @skorupion said:

    @tetech said:

    @Daniel15 said:
    Only SFTP? No rsync, Borgbackup, or file syncing apps (eg. Seafile or Syncthing)? That really limits its value IMO.

    I wouldn't pay any more than $5/TB/month for a storage VPS as there's several providers whose standard pricing is around this price point, and some have good Black Friday deals. I have one with Servarica that's $48/year for 2TB ($2/TB/month) and one with HostHatch that's $120/year for 10TB ($1/TB/month).

    An SFTP account is more limited than a VPS, the overheads are much lower in terms of RAM/CPU usage per user, and it's very easy to oversell and only add extra space when the server is filling up (since most users won't use all the space provided to them), particularly if your server chassis has hot-swappable drive bays. This means you can cram more users onto a single server, and thus I'd expect the pricing to be lower than a storage VPS.

    I'd agree with the pricing assessment. However, a good long-term storage provider may do other things that a storage VPS doesn't - block-level reads at least once per week to prevent bit-rot, replicate across multiple servers, etc. Therefore I don't necessarily agree that a storage VPS (where the user is responsible for all this) is expected to be more expensive; maybe, maybe not, depends what is provided.

    Well, would you pay a premium for raid 10 or not?

    A premium over what?

  • @tetech said:

    @skorupion said:

    @tetech said:

    @Daniel15 said:
    Only SFTP? No rsync, Borgbackup, or file syncing apps (eg. Seafile or Syncthing)? That really limits its value IMO.

    I wouldn't pay any more than $5/TB/month for a storage VPS as there's several providers whose standard pricing is around this price point, and some have good Black Friday deals. I have one with Servarica that's $48/year for 2TB ($2/TB/month) and one with HostHatch that's $120/year for 10TB ($1/TB/month).

    An SFTP account is more limited than a VPS, the overheads are much lower in terms of RAM/CPU usage per user, and it's very easy to oversell and only add extra space when the server is filling up (since most users won't use all the space provided to them), particularly if your server chassis has hot-swappable drive bays. This means you can cram more users onto a single server, and thus I'd expect the pricing to be lower than a storage VPS.

    I'd agree with the pricing assessment. However, a good long-term storage provider may do other things that a storage VPS doesn't - block-level reads at least once per week to prevent bit-rot, replicate across multiple servers, etc. Therefore I don't necessarily agree that a storage VPS (where the user is responsible for all this) is expected to be more expensive; maybe, maybe not, depends what is provided.

    Well, would you pay a premium for raid 10 or not?

    A premium over what?

    raid 0

  • tetechtetech Member

    @skorupion said:

    @tetech said:

    @skorupion said:

    @tetech said:

    @Daniel15 said:
    Only SFTP? No rsync, Borgbackup, or file syncing apps (eg. Seafile or Syncthing)? That really limits its value IMO.

    I wouldn't pay any more than $5/TB/month for a storage VPS as there's several providers whose standard pricing is around this price point, and some have good Black Friday deals. I have one with Servarica that's $48/year for 2TB ($2/TB/month) and one with HostHatch that's $120/year for 10TB ($1/TB/month).

    An SFTP account is more limited than a VPS, the overheads are much lower in terms of RAM/CPU usage per user, and it's very easy to oversell and only add extra space when the server is filling up (since most users won't use all the space provided to them), particularly if your server chassis has hot-swappable drive bays. This means you can cram more users onto a single server, and thus I'd expect the pricing to be lower than a storage VPS.

    I'd agree with the pricing assessment. However, a good long-term storage provider may do other things that a storage VPS doesn't - block-level reads at least once per week to prevent bit-rot, replicate across multiple servers, etc. Therefore I don't necessarily agree that a storage VPS (where the user is responsible for all this) is expected to be more expensive; maybe, maybe not, depends what is provided.

    Well, would you pay a premium for raid 10 or not?

    A premium over what?

    raid 0

    I would not use RAID 0 for storage even if it were free, so I guess by definition any price I pay would be a premium. I don't think any of the prices Daniel15 quotes are for RAID 0, they are like RAID-Z2 or RAID-50/60.

  • @tetech said:

    @skorupion said:

    @tetech said:

    @skorupion said:

    @tetech said:

    @Daniel15 said:
    Only SFTP? No rsync, Borgbackup, or file syncing apps (eg. Seafile or Syncthing)? That really limits its value IMO.

    I wouldn't pay any more than $5/TB/month for a storage VPS as there's several providers whose standard pricing is around this price point, and some have good Black Friday deals. I have one with Servarica that's $48/year for 2TB ($2/TB/month) and one with HostHatch that's $120/year for 10TB ($1/TB/month).

    An SFTP account is more limited than a VPS, the overheads are much lower in terms of RAM/CPU usage per user, and it's very easy to oversell and only add extra space when the server is filling up (since most users won't use all the space provided to them), particularly if your server chassis has hot-swappable drive bays. This means you can cram more users onto a single server, and thus I'd expect the pricing to be lower than a storage VPS.

    I'd agree with the pricing assessment. However, a good long-term storage provider may do other things that a storage VPS doesn't - block-level reads at least once per week to prevent bit-rot, replicate across multiple servers, etc. Therefore I don't necessarily agree that a storage VPS (where the user is responsible for all this) is expected to be more expensive; maybe, maybe not, depends what is provided.

    Well, would you pay a premium for raid 10 or not?

    A premium over what?

    raid 0

    I would not use RAID 0 for storage even if it were free, so I guess by definition any price I pay would be a premium. I don't think any of the prices Daniel15 quotes are for RAID 0, they are like RAID-Z2 or RAID-50/60.

    Yes, the Hosthatch offers are all RAID-60.

  • HotmarerHotmarer Member
    edited June 12

    I would pay 0.1$/tb if only ftp, no raid

  • deankdeank Member, Troll

    Seconded 0.1 / TB.

    "Jarland is stupid."

  • I'm effectively paying $3.5/TB•year for RAID 0 via SAMBA.
    In 2018, I bought a 2TB USB HDD from Amazon for $50, and plugged it onto the home router.
    I expect this device to last 7 years, so the operating cost is $3.5/TB•year.
    If it lasts longer, I'll have free storage.

    My 160GB HDD from 2006 is still spinning.
    The original case died but I hooked up a USB-PATA cable.
    Since last year, it's making weird noises at night, and I don't know how much longer it would last.

    Who involucrated my cupon?

  • tetechtetech Member

    @yoursunny said: Since last year, it's making weird noises at night, and I don't know how much longer it would last.

    Reminds me of my girlfriend.

    Thanked by 1Kassem
  • @yoursunny said:
    I'm effectively paying $3.5/TB•year for RAID 0 via SAMBA.
    In 2018, I bought a 2TB USB HDD from Amazon for $50, and plugged it onto the home router.
    I expect this device to last 7 years, so the operating cost is $3.5/TB•year.
    If it lasts longer, I'll have free storage.

    My 160GB HDD from 2006 is still spinning.
    The original case died but I hooked up a USB-PATA cable.
    Since last year, it's making weird noises at night, and I don't know how much longer it would last.

    count in the internet if you will be using it with a server

  • Daniel15Daniel15 Member

    @tetech said: However, a good long-term storage provider may do other things that a storage VPS doesn't - block-level reads at least once per week to prevent bit-rot, replicate across multiple servers, etc.

    Based on the comment about RAID 10 being "premium", I don't think these other things are what the OP had in mind 😅

    Dropbox have 2TB for $9.99/month (~$5/TB/month) and Google have 2TB for $99.99/year (~$4.16/TB/month), and I'd expect both of these to be high quality solutions with multiple redundant backups, months of file history so you can revert bad changes, etc. I'd definitely expect basic SFTP storage to be cheaper than these.

    Thanked by 1kwaralala
  • aliletalilet Member

    @yoursunny said:
    Since last year, it's making weird noises at night, and I don't know how much longer it would last.

    Your drive is about to be involucrated.

    Thanked by 1yoursunny
  • @Daniel15 said:

    @tetech said: However, a good long-term storage provider may do other things that a storage VPS doesn't - block-level reads at least once per week to prevent bit-rot, replicate across multiple servers, etc.

    Based on the comment about RAID 10 being "premium", I don't think these other things are what the OP had in mind 😅

    Dropbox have 2TB for $9.99/month (~$5/TB/month) and Google have 2TB for $99.99/year (~$4.16/TB/month), and I'd expect both of these to be high quality solutions with multiple redundant backups, months of file history so you can revert bad changes, etc. I'd definitely expect basic SFTP storage to be cheaper than these.

    so you'd buy at 3 usd p/m p/TB with RAID 10?

  • tetechtetech Member

    @skorupion said:

    @Daniel15 said:

    @tetech said: However, a good long-term storage provider may do other things that a storage VPS doesn't - block-level reads at least once per week to prevent bit-rot, replicate across multiple servers, etc.

    Based on the comment about RAID 10 being "premium", I don't think these other things are what the OP had in mind 😅

    Dropbox have 2TB for $9.99/month (~$5/TB/month) and Google have 2TB for $99.99/year (~$4.16/TB/month), and I'd expect both of these to be high quality solutions with multiple redundant backups, months of file history so you can revert bad changes, etc. I'd definitely expect basic SFTP storage to be cheaper than these.

    so you'd buy at 3 usd p/m p/TB with RAID 10?

    I'm not sure what the real purpose of this thread is. Are you looking to purchase a service or doing market research in anticipation of offering a service? If offering, then I wouldn't buy an FTP-only service. If it included SSH/SCP/SFTP then you'd need to compete with providers like Lima running BlueStore starting at $0.8/TB/mo for 1000TB (or $2/TB/mo for 5TB). And for me, I'm comparing it against $1/TB/mo for a HostHatch 10TB VPS.

    So no, I wouldn't pay $3/TB/mo to a provider without a good reputation and with less features than what I currently have for 1/3 the price.

  • that_guythat_guy Member

    2-3€ per TB if it has

    • some kind of redundancy
    • FXP/SCP/SSHFS?/SFTP/FTPS
    • separate dir for anon FTP
    • maybe some nice looking HTTPS directory listing thing (e.g. NGINX fancy index) for a "public" dir for easy public downloads (also as an alternative to public FTP)
    • non-root SSH with some useful networking and filetransfer/-sync tools like wget, aria2, rsync, unison, rclone, FUSE, iperf, syncthing or so, a CLI filemanager, a CLI webbrowser, an editor that is NOT vi(m), etc.,
    • multiple users with different permissions and home directories (maybe configurable by the customer via SSH)
    • proper SSL cert that gets reliably autorenewed (letsencrypt+acme.sh)
    • maybe even domainhosting
    • dedicated IP with custom rDNS record for 1-2€ per month
    • a kernel & network stack & IO sheduler & filesystem & googles TCP thing called BBR etc. fully tuned for throughput like some seedbox tuners do (but I guess thats not worth it at 1 GBit/s)

    Just some brainstorming to make pure FTP more attractive.

    Thanked by 1skorupion

    Don't forget to like, subscribe, and comment below.
    "they just simply can't trace me down on internet because I'm using Linux." Mr_indescribable

  • james50ajames50a Member

    probably just 2$/tb max. any higher and it doesn't make sense vs other providers offerings

  • skorupionskorupion Member
    edited June 16

    @that_guy said:
    2-3€ per TB if it has

    • some kind of redundancy
    • FXP/SCP/SSHFS?/SFTP/FTPS
    • separate dir for anon FTP
    • maybe some nice looking HTTPS directory listing thing (e.g. NGINX fancy index) for a "public" dir for easy public downloads (also as an alternative to public FTP)
    • non-root SSH with some useful networking and filetransfer/-sync tools like wget, aria2, rsync, unison, rclone, FUSE, iperf, syncthing or so, a CLI filemanager, a CLI webbrowser, an editor that is NOT vi(m), etc.,
    • multiple users with different permissions and home directories (maybe configurable by the customer via SSH)
    • proper SSL cert that gets reliably autorenewed (letsencrypt+acme.sh)
    • maybe even domainhosting
    • dedicated IP with custom rDNS record for 1-2€ per month
    • a kernel & network stack & IO sheduler & filesystem & googles TCP thing called BBR etc. fully tuned for throughput like some seedbox tuners do (but I guess thats not worth it at 1 GBit/s) Just some brainstorming to make pure FTP more attractive.

    So you'd do with DA install + ssh so you have .ftpaccess file, plus the programs installed via ssh with RAID60/50?

  • that_guythat_guy Member
    edited June 16

    @skorupion said:
    So you'd do with DA install + ssh so you have .ftpaccess file, plus the programs installed via ssh with RAID60/50?

    Not sure what DA is, but basically yes. SSH with a bunch of tools and access to as many config files as possible (e.g. maybe also some config for a simple webserver (.htaccess or whatever is possible with nginx), .bashrc, and whatever else might be configurable per customer by the customer would make it more useful for powerusers than purely pure FTP. I wouldn't need a web contoll panell then.
    As for the redundancy, I'd take everything that gets the costs down. SW Raid5/6, or baked into the filesystem or a third party method like snapraid. I just don't want to loose everything whenever a HDD dies. RAID60/50 for such a low price would be great of course.

    More brainstorming:

    • Being able to expand space in 100gb increments (up to a reasonable size) would be good too.
    • Maybe also access to various logs via SSH.
    • cronjobs
    • CLI FTP client
    • Tar.gz, zip/unzip, rar/unrar
    • curlFTPfs
    • vnstat
    • ability to execute shellscripts
    • sending e-mails from shellscripts/cronjobs (maybe limited to a whitelist under your controll, and a limited no of mails per day)
    • Putting the whole account not in a regular chroot but a lightwight container/jail like docker, XLC, systemd-nspawn etc. (really just a ramdom thought. I wouldn't need it at all)
    • per FTP user quota via config file

    So basically offering as many bonus features and config file customization as possible, while keeping the whole softwarestack relatively simple and low maintenance (just kernel features, filesystem features, the usual commandline tools plus filetransfer/editing/management related tools, (S)FTP(S) in all its glory, SSH. Anything that can be safely exposed to the customer and would make sense on a storage/backup/sync/share box. So maybe nothing that requires a webserver, if that would be too much to stay cheap and simple. Kinda like an old fashioned "shell account" but with a focus on FTP/storage/backup/sync.

    https://manual.uberspace.de can give you more inspiration. They offer webhosting in the way that I'm talking about here.

    Don't forget to like, subscribe, and comment below.
    "they just simply can't trace me down on internet because I'm using Linux." Mr_indescribable

  • cazrzcazrz Member

    @skorupion said:

    @Daniel15 said:

    @tetech said: However, a good long-term storage provider may do other things that a storage VPS doesn't - block-level reads at least once per week to prevent bit-rot, replicate across multiple servers, etc.

    Based on the comment about RAID 10 being "premium", I don't think these other things are what the OP had in mind 😅

    Dropbox have 2TB for $9.99/month (~$5/TB/month) and Google have 2TB for $99.99/year (~$4.16/TB/month), and I'd expect both of these to be high quality solutions with multiple redundant backups, months of file history so you can revert bad changes, etc. I'd definitely expect basic SFTP storage to be cheaper than these.

    so you'd buy at 3 usd p/m p/TB with RAID 10?

    I will if it is block storage.
    I will if you have good reputation.
    I will if you are at least 5 yrs in the business.
    I will if the bandwidth is enough and reasonable for upload and download.

  • ditlevditlev Member, Top Provider

    on another note: What platforms are hosts/SPs using to orchestrate, sell and service their FTP customers? Are they using DA/cPanel/etc? Or are there specific FTP CPs out there?

    :)
    D

    www.onapp.com | www.cloud.net | www.cdn.net

Sign In or Register to comment.