Testing SkySilk
-
Found a new VPS provider today
I'll be doing some testing to see if they are any good or not.
-
@aaronstuder skypoints?
-
My first VPS took about 1 minute to come online. Running benchmarks now.
Currently testing the Basic Nano plan.
-
The pricing isn't bad, that's for sure.
-
They are almost six months behind on Fedora releases. These things always worry me. I know with Vultr, I get updates immediately. Why would Skysilk see their platform as not needing to be kept updated? That suggests a lot of things that aren't good in your hosting provider.
-
@wirestyle22 said in Testing SkySilk:
@aaronstuder skypoints?
yeah, that's not just confusing, but completely ridiculous and almost a reason to bypass the site completely.
-
No RAID on these units, that's a big deal.
-
Their OpenSuse is Leap, but they didn't know the name, and is a few versions old, as well. Weird that they named the company, but not the product. OpenSuse comes in Leap and Tumbleweed. Tumbleweed being the one you'd want more often. They would choose Leap to be lazy. And the laziness shows that they aren't getting the name right or keeping it updated.
-
I do like that you can pick your processor family, that's neat.
-
What do you all think of them using Proxmox as the base virtualization platform? I have no experience with it but it does look appealing. Thoughts?
-
Vultr does SkyLake processors from their $10 and up plans. Way more performance than the older procs. SkySilk does lower end procs until you get to their super expensive plans. That might be quite a bit difference in CPU performance.
-
@brandon220 said in Testing SkySilk:
What do you all think of them using Proxmox as the base virtualization platform? I have no experience with it but it does look appealing. Thoughts?
ProxMox is a joke as it is. Using it as their base is ridiculous. Given that they are a pure Linux provider, using KVM at all doesn't make much sense. They should be only on LXC, I would think.
That is literally enough for me to no longer consider them a serious provider in any way.
-
@brandon220 said in Testing SkySilk:
What do you all think of them using Proxmox as the base virtualization platform? I have no experience with it but it does look appealing. Thoughts?
I do like Proxmox Web Interface.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Testing SkySilk:
@brandon220 said in Testing SkySilk:
What do you all think of them using Proxmox as the base virtualization platform? I have no experience with it but it does look appealing. Thoughts?
ProxMox is a joke as it is. Using it as their base is ridiculous. Given that they are a pure Linux provider, using KVM at all doesn't make much sense. They should be only on LXC, I would think.
That is literally enough for me to no longer consider them a serious provider in any way.
https://help.skysilk.com/support/discussions/topics/9000041880
Our current infrastructure is based on LXC containers, which are served via ProxMox virtualization. Eventually, our goal is to be able to offer multiple types of virtualization such as KVM and others, but at the time of this writing our main focus and product offerings are centered around ProxMox. -
@black3dynamite said in Testing SkySilk:
@brandon220 said in Testing SkySilk:
What do you all think of them using Proxmox as the base virtualization platform? I have no experience with it but it does look appealing. Thoughts?
I do like Proxmox Web Interface.
Looks nice, but the underlying product and the company behind it....
-
@bnrstnr said in Testing SkySilk:
@scottalanmiller said in Testing SkySilk:
@brandon220 said in Testing SkySilk:
What do you all think of them using Proxmox as the base virtualization platform? I have no experience with it but it does look appealing. Thoughts?
ProxMox is a joke as it is. Using it as their base is ridiculous. Given that they are a pure Linux provider, using KVM at all doesn't make much sense. They should be only on LXC, I would think.
That is literally enough for me to no longer consider them a serious provider in any way.
https://help.skysilk.com/support/discussions/topics/9000041880
Our current infrastructure is based on LXC containers, which are served via ProxMox virtualization. Eventually, our goal is to be able to offer multiple types of virtualization such as KVM and others, but at the time of this writing our main focus and product offerings are centered around ProxMox.That doesn't make sense. ProxMox is a management layer, not virtualization. ProxMox' purpose is to do KVM and LXC transparently. But mixing the two on the same hardware is nutty unless you have only one box in your entire environment. And even then, nutty, but not AS nutty.
So their logic makes no sense. They have to have KVM in place to have ProxMox. So their statement is either a bold faced lie, or an admission that they have zero clue what they are doing.
-
There is no reason to have ProxMox if you are doing LXC. LXC has great interfaces as it is. ProxMox would actually just make things slower, more fragile, and more difficult to extend.
-
That sounds lazy of them to use Proxmox for LXC. Why not two separate servers, one for LXC and the other for KVM?
-
@black3dynamite said in Testing SkySilk:
That sounds lazy of them to use Proxmox for LXC. Why not two separate servers, one for LXC and the other for KVM?
Exactly. They have to build a cloud interface on top either way. ProxMox doesn't appear to be adding anything of value.
My guess is, like Cloud@Cost, they are using a third party product because they don't understand the moving parts involved and think that they can quickly get up and running with the Jurassic Park Effect and hope that things don't fall apart on them. Sounds, to me, like they built a product that they don't know how to support or how it actually works. All development, no operations.
-
Are they using Proxmox Interface or a custom one on top of Proxmox?
