Testing Out Vultr
-
Also, that base SATA package is 1vCPU and 512 RAM, that is a phone system there.
Way more phone system than most SMB need. and it is only $5/month
-
@JaredBusch said:
Also, that base SATA package is 1vCPU and 512 RAM, that is a phone system there.
Way more phone system than most SMB need. and it is only $5/month
You get a better phone system with the other package. $5/mo on the performance rather than the storage option gets you more memory and faster IO for the same money.
-
@JaredBusch said:
Also, that base SATA package is 1vCPU and 512 RAM, that is a phone system there.
Way more phone system than most SMB need. and it is only $5/month
Same price points as Digital Ocean too.
-
Well it is day two and already our Vultr server is offline. We can see the console, the box is up and running, but it has lost network access.
-
Rebooted and we are back up. But for an idle Linux box to lose networking after one day with nothing running on it is pretty fishy. Going to keep monitoring this. We've never seen this happen with another provider before.
-
From the SAR report, it has rebooted three times! Twice without us. Argh.
-
Our Vultr system is down... AGAIN. This is not boding well. Looking into it now, but it has only been a few hours and it is offline again.
-
Confirmed, the IPv4 address is blank. It's losing its DHCP.
-
If I restart the interface from the console, IPv4 returns.
-
Well that was pretty easy as a test goes. Vultr is a fail. No compelling features. The price is good but only the same as Digital Ocean which we have been testing for a couple of months without a single issue. Vultr makes some odd claims like that they are the biggest when, in fact, they are a tiny player. That stuff worried me. Looks like they are not prime time ready from what I can see.
-
Migrating our stuff that we were testing off of Vultr over to Digital Ocean. It was worth the effort to test and know, but our suspicions were correct. The weird claims, the "CloudatCost" style "sale price" on VM instances.... too good to be true.
-
@scottalanmiller Would be interesting to hear their take on why this is occurring.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Vultr makes some odd claims like that they are the biggest when, in fact, they are a tiny player.
Very similar to C@C
-
@Danp said:
@scottalanmiller Would be interesting to hear their take on why this is occurring.
I've reached out to support and got a response. There is a known issue with DHCP on CentOS 7 on their platform and they recommend manually reconfiguring the boxes for static. I'm trying that now, but not impressed. If they know that there is an issue, why haven't they addressed it?
-
I asked why they don't fix the issue rather than using DHCP when it's known to not be stable. Here is the quoted response:
"All deployments are done with DHCP. This is an occasional issue that can happen under certain circumstances."
Um, certain circumstances? Like what? I didn't do anything weird, didn't use my own ISO, nothing. I just ran a vanilla CentOS 7 build that they provided and let it run idle.
-
Here is what I have responded to them:
"That's not an encouraging answer. How many other stability issues exist and are ignored because it isn't procedure to fix them? What certain circumstances cause this issue? This is a one day old, vanilla CentOS 7 build. What have I done wrong that Vultr, as provided, is not stable? "
-
And here is the documentation that they pointed me to. Notice that the "why this happens" is just "this shouldn't happen." Um, okay, but it does happen. So let's stop pretending that it doesn't and deal with reality.
https://www.vultr.com/docs/configuring-static-networking-and-ipv6-on-centos-7
-
And here is the final followup. They definitely feel like they are just avoiding giving an answer. Don't know if they just don't know or if they just are refusing to talk about it:
If you are having issues with the DHCP configuration, switching to a static configuration will fix your issue.
IPv6 is one of the features which may interfere with DHCP.
I was using their new IPv6 Beta feature. So maybe it is my fault for testing that. Did not realize that it might break IPv4. Seems like, if they felt that that were true, that they would mention that and not just say that sometimes their platform isn't stable. If they could demonstrate that IPv6 being turned off would fix the issue, I imagine that they would be all over that. This feels like general instability to me.
-
Moved the system to static and the problem has returned!!
-
Definitely some serious instability going on here. How much time is it worth putting into troubleshooting when I've not seen any real advantage to the platform? On its own, it isn't bad, but it is the same pricing as Digital Ocean who has had zero stability problems over months of testing and has every feature the same, except for Windows support, which is dramatically more expensive anyway?
