Howdy, Stranger!

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


IPv6 Only Backup VPS
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.

IPv6 Only Backup VPS

SimpleNodeSimpleNode Member
edited December 2012 in General

THIS IS NOT AN OFFER

256MB RAM
500GB Disk (No RAID)
16 IPv6
$12/mo

500mbit - Unmetered In, 2TB Out

+$1.50 for an IPv4.

Any interest?

(location would be Dallas, Phoenix or NY. Will decide once we see how much interest we get)

«1

Comments

  • RobertClarkeRobertClarke Member, Host Rep

    Yes, please offer me these what appears to be very simple nodes.

  • Also, one more question for everyone - Would you pay $4 more for RAID5?

  • RobertClarkeRobertClarke Member, Host Rep

    I think you should include RAID 1/10 for $3 more.

  • SimpleNodeSimpleNode Member
    edited December 2012

    @RobertJFClarke said: I think you should include RAID 1/10 for $3 more.

    For this, we would be using 4TB disks so we can't do that at that price.

  • @SimpleNode said: 16 IPv6

    For a backup VPS 1 IPv6 is enough. I really don't see how the other 15 would help with the backups.

  • RobertClarkeRobertClarke Member, Host Rep

    I think if you're backing something up, you'd want it to be secure.

  • @SimpleNode said: For this, we would be using 4TB disks so we can't do that at that price.

    Seems like quite a bit of data to lose if one disk dies.

  • I think I've made this point in similar threads - personally by the time I'm backing up offsite, I already have multiple on-site backups, so RAID isn't something I need or want to pay extra for.

  • JacobJacob Member
    edited December 2012

    2 x 4TB in RAID 0. That would be a good choice.

    Make /boot as RAID 1 with small SAS Drives.

    Everytime you have data loss you will have to recreate all the containers conf and /vz/private directories. Imho using raid 1 for the boot is more of a requirement, and then raid 0 for the container data is more Ideal then no raid at all.

    @kbeezie said:

    Seems like quite a bit of data to lose if one disk dies.

  • @Nekki said: I think I've made this point in similar threads - personally by the time I'm backing up offsite, I already have multiple on-site backups, so RAID isn't something I need or want to pay extra for.

    That would of course be good for you, but if SimpleNode is working with 4TB disks, how much of a guarantee do you have that 100% of the customers using space on that 4TB is going to have a backup elsewhere if that one 4TB drive fails?

    To me a "backup" server should have some form of redundancy, Raid-1 (mirroring) either by hardware or software at the very least.

    If it were simply an IPv6 VPS and not sold as a "backup" service, then I'd agree with you about needing to worry bout raid.

  • @Jacob said: 2 x 4TB in RAID 0. That would be a good choice.

    I hope you're being sarcastic... cuz in Raid-0 if just one drive dies the data from both dies, the only benefit you gain is performance, not redundancy.

  • Running 2 drives in raid 0 and gaining performance, but lacking redundancy is the way to go for cheap storage.

    I didn't state that raid 0 provided redundancy, but using raid 1 for /boot I hope is what the OP was going to do.

    @kbeezie said: you gain is performance, not redundancy.

  • @Jacob said: Running 2 drives in raid 0 and gaining performance, but lacking redundancy is the way to go for cheap storage.
    I didn't state that raid 0 provided redundancy, but using raid 1 for /boot I hope is what the OP was going to do.

    Your response, in response to my response originally didn't make much sense, since I was addressing the lack of redundancy in a "backup" service.

  • NekkiNekki Veteran
    edited December 2012

    @kbeezie That would of course be good for you, but if SimpleNode is working with 4TB disks, how much of a guarantee do you have that 100% of the customers using space on that 4TB is going to have a backup elsewhere if that one 4TB drive fails?

    None obviously, but the question was 'would you pay more for RAID', which is what I gave my opinion on.

  • kbeeziekbeezie Member
    edited December 2012

    @Nekki said: None obviously, but the question was 'would you pay more for RAID', which is what I gave my opinion on.

    Personally though, since it would be a backup VPS, meaning not meant to be serving websites/hosting/databases etc and is just storage, Raid0 would seem pointless to me, I'd pay more for 500GB of storage if I knew the provider was at least doing mirroring for redundancy. I personally would not be setting up 4 or 5 backup locations just because the provider didn't want to perform some sort of redundancy, hence more or less no redundancy is the deal breaker for me.

    Also as a backup storage piece, not sure the ram plays a major factor as most backup scripts/rsync/etc can be run on less than 32 pretty easily.

  • A bit more for RAID 1 or 5 would be great, and def something I would be interested in. Wouldn't be happy about a backup service with no redundancy at all.

  • @JacobH said: A bit more for RAID 1 or 5 would be great, and def something I would be interested in. Wouldn't be happy about a backup service with no redundancy at all.

    Makes sense. Imagine you want to restore from backup and the backup itself has failed. Pain.

  • MaouniqueMaounique Host Rep, Veteran
    edited December 2012

    @concerto49 said: Makes sense. Imagine you want to restore from backup and the backup itself has failed. Pain.

    The backup is just backup. To be able to restore from backup is the desired outcome, but the chances to have a failed drive exactly when you need the backup are slim at best.
    Instead of having redundancy at the backup site I would rather build my own redundancy with more backup sites, this eliminates the risk that one provider goes bust which no level of redundancy in one place can ensure.

    The price seems fair regarding OVZ, and excellent if Xen or KVM which allows user to run any kind of backup type including mounting a FS remotely by any conceivable means.
    One little suggestion... Not everyone needs 500 GB, maybe make smaller plans too ?

  • @Maounique said: Instead of having redundancy at the backup site I would rather build my own redundancy with more backup sites, this eliminates the risk that one provider goes bust which no level of redundancy in one place can ensure.

    true

  • rm_rm_ IPv6 Advocate, Veteran
    edited December 2012

    @Maounique said: Not everyone needs 500 GB, maybe make smaller plans too ?

    I would say even more, by proposing only a non-LEB plan here you are showing disrespect to the principles and rules of this place. It's not like it would kill you (with no fixed IPv4 cost involved) to offer a... let's see... 500/12=41.66, *7 = 291, okay 300 GB plan for $7. Could absolutely "legally" post an offer on LEB/LET, etc.

  • MaouniqueMaounique Host Rep, Veteran

    I am already done with 3 backup plans and a 50 cents on Xen-PV, the highest is 200 GB for 4 Eur, the smallest 50 GB for 1.5, need only Uncle to sort out his very serious personal problems to launch it.
    Even prepared new images with IPv6 repos, canonical is not dual stack if you can believe that, even if they offer IPv6 on Ubuntu.

  • I like the option to have storage with no redundancy or pay some more for RAID 1

  • MaouniqueMaounique Host Rep, Veteran

    @craigb said: I like the option to have storage with no redundancy or pay some more for RAID 1

    I am not sure raid 1 is suitable for backups, it cuts storage to half, it would probably be better to have raid 5 or 6 if there are lots of drives.

  • SimpleNodeSimpleNode Member
    edited December 2012

    Currently our plan is to have the boot partition & root partition to be mdadm RAID 1, then /vz to have no RAID.

    That, or we throw in a RAID card and run the entire thing in RAID 5. (And possibly use Xen PV virt. Instead)

  • @Maounique said: I am not sure raid 1 is suitable for backups, it cuts storage to half, it would probably be better to have raid 5 or 6 if there are lots of drives.

    Cut's the provider's storage in half, not yours... they would just price accordingly.

  • @SimpleNode said: That, or we throw in a RAID card and run the entire thing in RAID 5. (And possibly use Xen PV virt. Instead)

    Course at that point I'd stick with OpenVz... faster, or skip Xen-PV and go KVM :P

  • MaouniqueMaounique Host Rep, Veteran
    edited December 2012

    @kbeezie said: Cut's the provider's storage in half, not yours... they would just price accordingly.

    I know it does, but as a consumer I want the biggest storage at the lowest price, same goes with raid space, i want it cheapest per GB possible.
    If the provider needs to buy 2 times more hdds, the price will go up and I dont get much more redundancy.

  • I think that's a fine deal. People are forgetting that this is just a backup, and you should really spread your backups around. The point is to get it as cheap as possible so that you can have space all over, preferably at different providers.

  • MaouniqueMaounique Host Rep, Veteran

    @Kairus said: I think that's a fine deal. People are forgetting that this is just a backup, and you should really spread your backups around. The point is to get it as cheap as possible so that you can have space all over, preferably at different providers.

    Exactly my point.

  • SimpleNodeSimpleNode Member
    edited December 2012

    I think KVM may be a better choice here, as customers can easily encrypt their entire FS if they wanted to.

    Nobody likes the possibility that their provider can look at all their backups with a few commands (ovz)

Sign In or Register to comment.