Howdy, Stranger!

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


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

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?

«1

Comments

  • @seriesn have nice deals

  • @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!

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

    Enjoy the view.

    Thanked by 1angstrom
  • vyas11vyas11 Member
    edited February 2020

    @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 2020

    @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.

  • cociucociu Member
    edited February 2020

    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 2020

    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 1letbox
  • 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).

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

    Huh?

  • HarambeHarambe Member, Host Rep

    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

  • @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.

  • @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
  • @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 Moderator
    edited February 2020

    @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.

  • @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

  • @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).

  • 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.

  • @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.

Sign In or Register to comment.