All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
which vps for a photographer ?
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
- Provider25 votes
- hetzner16.00%
- prometeus24.00%
- iwstack16.00%
- digital ocean44.00%
- virtualization25 votes
- openvz24.00%
- kvm76.00%
- ssd or hdd25 votes
- hdd20.00%
- ssd76.00%
- there is no difference  4.00%
Comments
What do you want from the server?
Your question has different answers depending on use-case.
If you do photography I'd highly suggest a SSD Based VPS. 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.
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.
>
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
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.
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.
IMHO, I think a third party service would do fine @ low end budget.
Saw some guys using this. Seems like a good fit for a low budget with good service.
I think you'd be fine with a good shared host to be honest.
tryed photoshelter and smugmug and dont like it. i know how to build my own website
why do you think ?
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 ?
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).
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
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.
yes the images are optimalized for web, each has max 1mb
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.
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:
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.
I got 2 days ago Opteron 1385 8GB 4TB SATA for $25 at dacentec
OpenVZ Ramnode SSD cached (good performance but plenty of space)
thx about dedicated servers - but that is higher league for me.