Howdy, Stranger!

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

Advertise on LowEndTalk.com
which vps for a photographer ?
New on LowEndTalk? Please read our 'Community Rules' by clicking on it in the right menu!

which vps for a photographer ?

peter327peter327 Member
edited November 2015 in Help

so far i understand -> kvm is better than openvz

is xen pv better then openvz ?

in terms of isolation of resources

should i take kvm vps or cloud ? -> is 512mb enough for photogallery ? -> site will run on joomla

there will be more than 120 gallerys -> each will have more than 15mb in images -> so each photo around 1mb

should i install debian or ubuntu ?
i prefer debian

on common day i getting around 100visitors per day, each visitors visits 3,5 pages on site. i will boost my new site with facebook and adwords -> then come to site around 300people per day -> so one of the question is - is 1gb traffic enough ?

currently i am on a shared hosting -> on a new vps is speed hdd vs ssd so huge ? to load images

i am from central europe so i choose between digitalocean vs prometeus vs hetzner and even vs iwstack -> as i dont know if i should take cloud or vps,

any other good vps provider with location in central europe ? my budget is 10€ per month

i thank you for each help :)

should i take ?
  1. Provider25 votes
    1. hetzner
      16.00%
    2. prometeus
      24.00%
    3. iwstack
      16.00%
    4. digital ocean
      44.00%
  2. virtualization25 votes
    1. openvz
      24.00%
    2. kvm
      76.00%
  3. ssd or hdd25 votes
    1. hdd
      20.00%
    2. ssd
      76.00%
    3. there is no difference
        4.00%

Comments

  • What do you want from the server?

    Your question has different answers depending on use-case.

    Go give Vultr(referral) a try. | GNU/Linux http://debian.org

  • If you do photography I'd highly suggest a SSD Based VPS. as there will be loads of small files.

  • exception0x876exception0x876 Member, Provider

    @jmckeag12 said:
    as there will be loads of small files.

    I would not call photos small files.

    KVM with encryption is better if you don't want your hoster to have access to your photos.

    2x4GHz cores 200GB NVMe VPS for $9.99/mo, 8-core VPS for $11.99/mo, 32GB RAM VPS for $15.99/mo - wishosting.com

    Affiliate program

  • NexHostNexHost Member
    edited November 2015

    @exception0x876 said:
    KVM with encryption is better if you don't want your hoster to have access to your photos.

    I was just stating the obvious that SSDs are good for hosting images. never stated anything about using OpenVZ or KVM. Just about SSD. It all depends on @peter327 specific requirements. if he needs to store a lot of data. or if he is storing smaller files. let's wait for the OP to respond.

    I don't see why any provider would care about a clients hosted data. as it's none of the providers business. unless they are breaching the ToS or AUP. Privacy should always be respected.

  • If you are a vps user, kvm is better indeed. If you own a dedicated server and you want to create vms for yourself, openvz/lxc is much easier to manage.

  • @peter327 said:

    >

    Worldstream do a decent dedicated server for 9.99 euro excl vat. Had one myself, that should suit your needs well and the nice thing about a dedi is your images are only accessible by you.

  • */KVM/SSD

  • ZareZare Member, Provider

    You could use quite a small VPS, you won't see that much load from 100 visits and 1mb images. 1GB RAM + 20GB SSD Disk would be easily enough, most providers will have enough traffic included for you. If you wanted to save some bandwidth and have your images load faster, use your VPS/domain with Cloudflare too.

    Zare.com - UK and NL Baremetal Servers with DDoS protection - Follow us on Twitter https://twitter.com/zare

  • Or consider something like PhotoShelter

  • Consider taking a cheap dedicated if you're serious. You can get an old dedicated with a 250GB-2048GB drive around from around $10-$25. This is a good server for example from the looks of it https://www.online.net/en/dedicated-server/dedibox-xc.

    Go give Vultr(referral) a try. | GNU/Linux http://debian.org

  • IMHO, I think a third party service would do fine @ low end budget.

    MarkTurner said: Or consider something like PhotoShelter

    Saw some guys using this. Seems like a good fit for a low budget with good service.

    I repeat, RAID is not backup | Looking for a developer for your next project? - Hire me

  • I think you'd be fine with a good shared host to be honest.

  • @MarkTurner said:
    Or consider something like PhotoShelter

    tryed photoshelter and smugmug and dont like it. i know how to build my own website :)

  • @n1kko said:
    I think you'd be fine with a good shared host to be honest.

    why do you think ?

  • oneilonlineoneilonline Member, Provider

    With that budget I would recommend ssd cloud hosting, to get more bang for your buck. VPS would be more work and still a shared hosting environment.

  • @oneilonline said:
    With that budget I would recommend ssd cloud hosting, to get more bang for your buck. VPS would be more work and still a shared hosting environment.

    something like iwstack ?

  • peter327 said: tryed photoshelter and smugmug

    How many images do you have?

    Running on these lowend VPS is not ideal if you running indexing, searching too.

    You need something predictable. Photoshelter isn't the best solution and they do have regular outages, looking at last month they were down for nearly an hour and a half but they have the funding behind them to keep running.

  • @DelimiterVPS $200/year 16GB dedicated server (coupon: MAY2015, free double RAM since we're paying yearly).

    Thanked by 1MarkTurner

    wget https://s.flamz.pw/dl/bench.sh && bash bench.sh

    curl https://s.flamz.pw/analytics/bench/stats.php

  • peter327peter327 Member
    edited November 2015

    @MarkTurner said:

    currently over 4700 ->the big ones, then thumbnails of them ...

    and my current website is static, no cms, but i build now a joomla site so i need a fast provider

  • century1stopcentury1stop Member
    edited November 2015

    hmm, hi-res photos could take up to 20+MB each, depending on size, pixels, ........
    If you want visitors to admire your work, larger sizes are better, furthermore, images/site should load adequately fast enough, else no one will visit, meaning shared hosting or vps should be out.

    I would personally go for a low cost dedicated from either @MarkTurner or other providers, maybe Kimsufi, with sufficient bw, disk, RAM & good enough processor (higher clock speed)

  • @century1stop said:
    hmm, hi-res photos could take up to 20+MB each, depending on size, pixels, ........
    If you want visitors to admire your work, larger sizes are better, furthermore, images/site should load adequately fast enough, else no one will visit, meaning shared hosting or vps should be out.

    I would personally go for a low cost dedicated from either MarkTurner or other providers, maybe Kimsufi, with sufficient bw, disk, RAM & good enough processor (higher clock speed)

    yes the images are optimalized for web, each has max 1mb

  • linuxthefishlinuxthefish Member
    edited November 2015

    OpenVZ with RAID10 HDD will be fine, if you are sharing your images publicly your host stealing them will be the least of your worries.

    You don't need fast random write speed for sharing or uploading images, and choosing a KVM provider will increase cost for features you don't need.

  • @peter327 well 1MB files will need lots of bw and RAM, that is when you get good traffic. Pretty sure when you display your work, you'd want more admirers ;), means visitors must be able to search and view fast enough, otherwise, you'd be wasting your time. Go for a dedicated.

  • I would take a look at Atlantic.net SSD cloud hosting as well. They just opened up data center space in Europe.

  • @LinuxGeek9943 said:
    I would take a look at Atlantic.net SSD cloud hosting as well. They just opened up data center space in Europe.

    thx but london is far away from central europe

  • Kimsufi - France or Online.net

    Both are good, both have a range of plans to suite you..

  • If you want to self run it, then do as other photo libraries have done on our network:

    1. Host your site on a small dedicated server - we have a Dual E5420, 8GB RAM, 500GB disk for $20/month or $200/year

    2. If you find that your images are lagging the site, offload them to our objectstore and serve the thumbs, previews from there and the downloadables using one-time URLs ont the objectstore.

  • I got 2 days ago Opteron 1385 8GB 4TB SATA for $25 at dacentec

  • OpenVZ Ramnode SSD cached (good performance but plenty of space)

    Favourite host in general: Ramnode (affiliate link)
    Favourite host for hourly billing/custom ISOs: Vultr ($50 free credit for new accounts, affiliate link)

  • thx about dedicated servers - but that is higher league for me.

  • MarkTurner said: If you want to self run it, then do as other photo libraries have done on our network:

    Host your site on a small dedicated server - we have a Dual E5420, 8GB RAM, 500GB disk for $20/month or $200/year

    If you find that your images are lagging the site, offload them to our objectstore and serve the thumbs, previews from there and the downloadables using one-time URLs ont the objectstore.

    That's what I call a solution. However, OP live in central Europe, do you also have objecstore near OP's location?

    Happy to be alive and kicking!

  • peter327 said: thx about dedicated servers - but that is higher league for me.

    Same as VPS except without the neighbor problem. Same process to set it up but you know you can always max ALL of your purchases resources ALL the time.

  • You don't even need a VPS for that IMHO but "any" will do in your case.

    ...
    ...

  • @peter327 NO!!!!!! don't use dedicated server if you still new to *nix and still learn to manage your server. Don't listen whatever dedi provider said LOL.

    DigitalOcean more than enough for your need. even shared hosting will do.

    MarkTurner said: If you find that your images are lagging the site, offload them to our objectstore and serve the thumbs, previews from there and the downloadables using one-time URLs ont the objectstore.

    nice try to promote every service you have. He/she don't need that.

    Let's bet which dot-name will collapse first ;)

  • VirMachVirMach Member, Provider, Top Provider

    SSD is good for image hosting. KVM will be better than OpenVZ because you'll be more certain about how much disk is actually allocated. Out of the providers you listed, I would honestly just go with Digital Ocean. You can just get a small plan as scale up as you have more photos and visitors.

  • You should check out a provider like iwStack or DigitalOcean, you don't need anything huge for a project like this.

    This signature wasted 121 bytes of your data allocation.

    https://nixstats.com/report/56b53d6465689e44598b4567

  • If you are serving static photos, then ANY of the above will work, even shared hosting.

    However, if you are serving photos with a dynamic script, then "Cloud" works better, and SSD will be a plus, but not strictly required.

    Now works for a public institution. Opinions expressed here are mine and mine alone.

  • I'd suggest one of those:

    http://www.prometeus.net/site/kvm-vps.php -> KVMSSD5
    or
    https://www.ovh.ie/vps/vps-ssd.xml -> VPS SSD 1

    Both could easily handle 400 visits a day. If we assume one gallery really has 15mb and an average visitor browses 2 of them we have 400 * 30mb + some overhead ~ 15GB of traffic per day ~ 500GB traffic per month.

  • chrispchrisp Member
    edited November 2015

    I'd suggest one of those:

    http://www.prometeus.net/site/kvm-vps.php -> KVMSSD5

    or

    https://www.ovh.ie/vps/vps-ssd.xml -> VPS SSD 1

    Both could easily handle 400 visits a day. If we assume one gallery really has 15mb and an average visitor browses 2 of them we have 400 * 30mb + some overhead ~ 15GB of traffic per day ~ 500GB traffic per month.

  • chrisp said: chrisp Member

    7:42AM edited 7:42AM

    You know how to edit but you double post for correcting a line break. Why?

  • @classy said:

    Sometimes post button doesn't work instantaneously, you hit twice thinking it didn't send. Especially when you are on mobile. Been there, done that.
    (:

    ...
    ...

Sign In or Register to comment.