Replacement for CloudatCost
-
So now that we've all pretty much jumped off the Cloud@Cost bandwagon, I find myself in need of a new cloud server provider. So a few questions:
- Are there any cloud providers out there that do lifetime buy-ins like CloudatCost did? I don't know of any but aren't sure...
- What is the best option for a cloud provider? I know about DigitalOcean, Rackspace, etc. However, my budget is tight. Any suggestions?
Thanks!
A.J. -
I know you ain't coming over to my provider then. Our basic systems start at ~$300. You pay for what you get though.
-
@thanksajdotcom said:
- Are there any cloud providers out there that do lifetime buy-ins like CloudatCost did? I don't know of any but aren't sure...
No, because it is a very poor business model. While it is possible to pull it off, it is extremely hard and it is not in the interest of the customers. Remember, as Ann said on Twitter - once a cloud provider has your money in a "pay up front" scheme, their goal is for the service to suck enough that you leave. Because they make maximum money by having you pay and then leave.
So even if someone offered this, you shouldn't be looking for it.
-
Replacement implies equivalent functionality. I honestly don't know any others that bad.
-
@thanksajdotcom said:
- What is the best option for a cloud provider? I know about DigitalOcean, Rackspace, etc. However, my budget is tight. Any suggestions?
Rackspace is a premium service. More expensive than average for more hand holding and features. Not a lot more, but more. It's not a low cost service.
Amazon and Azure are slightly less expensive but more basic and harder to use as a VPS replacement. Very high end. Amazon, Azure, Softlayer / IBM and Rackspace are really the full range, high end players.
Digital Ocean, so far, has been great in our testing. Much lower cost than the above.
I hear good things about Vultr, but have not tested it at all yet.
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
Replacement implies equivalent functionality.
This was their selling point. They were doing something unique and interesting. But there is no doubt that it was a tough business model and clearly they had not figured it out enough to make it work.
Had they focused on lab work instead of production, used Xen or KVM (or even HyperV) for free instead of VMware, had they used scale out storage like CEPH or OpenStack's for low cost, scaling storage instead of a SAN.... maybe those things would have added up to enough to lower the cost enough to make it work. Had they not advertised redundancy but instead made a big deal about being risky in exchange for low cost, it would have been different.
Would that make the one time cost model make sense? Not likely, but maybe.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@thanksajdotcom said:
- What is the best option for a cloud provider? I know about DigitalOcean, Rackspace, etc. However, my budget is tight. Any suggestions?
Rackspace is a premium service. More expensive than average for more hand holding and features. Not a lot more, but more. It's not a low cost service.
Amazon and Azure are slightly less expensive but more basic and harder to use as a VPS replacement. Very high end. Amazon, Azure, Softlayer / IBM and Rackspace are really the full range, high end players.
Digital Ocean, so far, has been great in our testing. Much lower cost than the above.
I hear good things about Vultr, but have not tested it at all yet.
Unfortunately, for the server I need to start, it's $40/month, which is just a bit more than I can swing right now. Looks like I'm just going to have to go back to hosting it myself.
-
@thanksajdotcom said:
Unfortunately, for the server I need to start, it's $40/month, which is just a bit more than I can swing right now. Looks like I'm just going to have to go back to hosting it myself.
Windows hosting will never be cheap.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@thanksajdotcom said:
Unfortunately, for the server I need to start, it's $40/month, which is just a bit more than I can swing right now. Looks like I'm just going to have to go back to hosting it myself.
Windows hosting will never be cheap.
I'm not talking Windows hosting. I'm talking Linux hosting. Ideally I'd like to do the 8GB RAM and 4 core CPU for $80/month. Then I'd just host my LAMP server and second Plex server on the same VM. Now the most ideal one for that setup would be the $160/month plan. My web server could go on a $40/month server and my second Plex server on the $80/month server, but I just don't have that level of disposable income right now...
-
-
@thanksajdotcom said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@thanksajdotcom said:
Unfortunately, for the server I need to start, it's $40/month, which is just a bit more than I can swing right now. Looks like I'm just going to have to go back to hosting it myself.
Windows hosting will never be cheap.
I'm not talking Windows hosting. I'm talking Linux hosting. Ideally I'd like to do the 8GB RAM and 4 core CPU for $80/month. Then I'd just host my LAMP server and second Plex server on the same VM. Now the most ideal one for that setup would be the $160/month plan. My web server could go on a $40/month server and my second Plex server on the $80/month server, but I just don't have that level of disposable income right now...
What the heck are you doing that requires that kind of CPU and memory!! Holy cow.
-
@thanksajdotcom said:
I'm not talking Windows hosting. I'm talking Linux hosting. Ideally I'd like to do the 8GB RAM and 4 core CPU for $80/month. Then I'd just host my LAMP server and second Plex server on the same VM. Now the most ideal one for that setup would be the $160/month plan. My web server could go on a $40/month server and my second Plex server on the $80/month server, but I just don't have that level of disposable income right now...
Why do you need that much ram? Plex isn't really anything more than a file server/web server on the server side (how many times can I say server).
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
@thanksajdotcom said:
I'm not talking Windows hosting. I'm talking Linux hosting. Ideally I'd like to do the 8GB RAM and 4 core CPU for $80/month. Then I'd just host my LAMP server and second Plex server on the same VM. Now the most ideal one for that setup would be the $160/month plan. My web server could go on a $40/month server and my second Plex server on the $80/month server, but I just don't have that level of disposable income right now...
Why do you need that much ram? Plex isn't really anything more than a file server/web server on the server side (how many times can I say server).
Plex handles the streaming of media, whether that be audio or video. For larger videos, it can be quite system intensive.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@thanksajdotcom said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@thanksajdotcom said:
Unfortunately, for the server I need to start, it's $40/month, which is just a bit more than I can swing right now. Looks like I'm just going to have to go back to hosting it myself.
Windows hosting will never be cheap.
I'm not talking Windows hosting. I'm talking Linux hosting. Ideally I'd like to do the 8GB RAM and 4 core CPU for $80/month. Then I'd just host my LAMP server and second Plex server on the same VM. Now the most ideal one for that setup would be the $160/month plan. My web server could go on a $40/month server and my second Plex server on the $80/month server, but I just don't have that level of disposable income right now...
What the heck are you doing that requires that kind of CPU and memory!! Holy cow.
My web server is usually using 2-3GB of RAM at least. I'm pretty sure it's due to the caching.
-
@thanksajdotcom said:
Plex handles the streaming of media, whether that be audio or video. For larger videos, it can be quite system intensive.
It shouldn't be server side. Are you pre-transcoding your files? other wise it has to transcode everytime you play it. If you transcode everything before you put in on the server 512MB-1GB would be more than enough.
Also the database might just be ballooning to fill up as much ram as you give it.
-
@thanksajdotcom said:
My web server is usually using 2-3GB of RAM at least. I'm pretty sure it's due to the caching.
Why would you need 8GB then?
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@thanksajdotcom said:
My web server is usually using 2-3GB of RAM at least. I'm pretty sure it's due to the caching.
Why would you need 8GB then?
That'd be for Plex. Or I might be able to make Plex and my web server work on the same VM. But I think that could cause some issues.
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
@thanksajdotcom said:
Plex handles the streaming of media, whether that be audio or video. For larger videos, it can be quite system intensive.
It shouldn't be server side. Are you pre-transcoding your files? other wise it has to transcode everytime you play it. If you transcode everything before you put in on the server 512MB-1GB would be more than enough.
Also the database might just be ballooning to fill up as much ram as you give it.
How would I pre-transcode them? I'm not sure what you mean by that...
-
Host your own boxes if you need that kind of hardware. Still better uptime than CloudatCost
-
Plex transcodes the original media on the fly if you don't have them in the format for the device you are watching from: https://support.plex.tv/hc/en-us/articles/200250377-Transcoding-Media. Direct Play uses almost no resource, DirectStream uses a bit. Transcoding uses a lot of resources.
