

1GB Ram & SSD Cloud Hosting for $6 - ksec
https://www.ubiquityservers.com/cloud
Since there were high amount of interest on Digital Ocean, ( $10 for 1GB Ram and SSD Cloud ), this may be of interest to some.
======
ck2
This is pretty much a free advertisement for non-competitive pricing.

You have no idea how many neighbors you have on that vps.

And that "vcpu" is likely a hyperthreaded core, not physical, so it's a "half
core" in reality.

    
    
        Monthly	vCPU	Memory	SSD	Transfer
        $6		1	1GB	10GB	1TB
        $12		1	2GB	20GB	1TB
        $18		1	3GB	30GB	2TB
        $24		2	4GB	40GB	3TB
        $48		2	8GB	60GB	4TB
        $96		4	16GB	100GB	5TB
        $192	8	32GB	200GB	6TB
    
    

At that "4 core" (virtual) pricing I'd take dedicated from OVH instead [1]

The $6 pricepoint is likely to just get you in the door for an upsell.

Why would you subject yourself to unknown neighbors with unknown abusive
habits on the server resources when you can just get a dedicated with SSD for
less money and co-host your own projects with known behaviors (and without the
overhead of a vps hypervisor).

[1] <http://www.ovh.com/us/dedicated-servers/sp_32g_ssd.xml>

~~~
nicholassmith
As long as you're realistic it's not a bad deal, it'd act as a lovely
irssi/ssh machine that I don't need to worry about for me.

~~~
Retric
You can also get 2 free servers a month from Amazon.com (1 Linux one windows).
It's actually 750 hours each so could use more than one at a time if you
turned them off afterword. <http://aws.amazon.com/free/>

Note: _These free tiers are only available to new AWS customers, and are
available for 12 months following your AWS sign-up date_

~~~
derefr
Please don't present this as equivalent. AWS's free tier, amortized over the
life of a five-year web service, isn't free, or even cheap.

Now, I _did_ make pretty good use of AWS myself for that first year... and
then it ran out, and suddenly AWS was much more expensive than Linode (and
more recently, DigitalOcean.)

When all you want is "a thing to keep your Rails app running for its measly
10K hits a day" AWS _loses_ hands-down. It's just not their use-case.

~~~
Retric
At 2c an hour * 365.2425 days * 24 hours a day /12 months * 4/5 = 11.70$ a
month. But, if you want an always on connection for 1+ years you can get
discounts dropping down to 8$ a month and if you link it to a high volume
account you can get another 20% discount.

Which sounds cheap to me.

~~~
derefr
Where does the first 20% discount come from? (And I would completely disregard
the second one; if you know someone who has a _high volume account_ , you can
probably get some spare slices just with a polite word.)

More importantly, though: you're assuming Micro instances. Micro instances are
_tolerable_ , but not really comparable to anything offered to paying
customers at even the most downmarket VPS. The moment you want to burst the
CPU of a Micro for any extended period (say, starting up Unicorn workers),
your instance will become a chugging morass.

When I was on AWS, I had to go in and reboot my instance every other time I
deployed an update to it, because the update process ran just long enough to
prompt a 99%-CPU-throttle. At that point my server was basically wedged, since
new HTTP requests were still trickling into the old app servers and queuing up
(with the throttling, it now was too slow to handle them before more arrived),
leaving the CPU unable to "relax" enough to get out of the throttled state
even after the deploy was over.

> if you want an always on connection for 1+ years you can get discounts

 _With a down payment_. You have to calculate the NPV of the cashflow, not
just the aggregate sum; $10/mo is a lot easier to manage than $100 + $8/mo.

But disregaring that: even with a three-year term--costing $257 up-front, and
committing you to payments in a similar way to a cell-phone contract--it looks
like an Small will still cost $15.80/mo. Why put yourself in such a bind just
for a not-that-good slice? (Network throughput is one of the few acceptable
answers to that.)

This does all assume that your app that will live comfortably on any consumer
workstation machine for the foreseeable future (its growth has already
plateaued, in other words.) If there's any possibility of hockey-stick growth
in your app's future, AWS becomes a lot more attractive.

~~~
Retric
You said "amortized over the life of a five-year web service" that's 4 years
of cost + 1 year free.

As to Cost it's $100 for 3 years at .5cents an hour or 63$ for 1 year at
.5cents an hour. I used the 63$ for 4 years vs 3 for 100 plus one at 63. If
you really care about the time value of money your first year is free so it's
better than than paying up front for that first year any way you do the
numbers.

PS: I don't actually use AWS I was just defending them from the old 'there
vary expensive' which I found to generally be false. Most of the time your
time is worth far more than hosting costs especially when dealing with such
small servers.

------
derefr
Here's the #1 question I have for any of these hosts, and I never see it
answered: how stable is network throughput?

I run what amounts to a fancy real-time chat service. Are my users guaranteed
a slice of the pipe? Do you have the resources to make sure they won't lag
horribly if my neighbor is getting DDoSed?

Keep in mind that there is a difference between "we actively make sure you'll
have a good experience" and "you happened to get provisioned on a machine with
good neighbors", even though the anecdotes will be identical.

~~~
vilpponen
Disclaimer: I work for UpCloud, also a cloud hosting company.

This is a great question. Something I've been thinking about a lot is also the
benchmarking of redundancy and the protection of one's data.

It's easy to benchmark performance, but as Pirelli stated in their
advertising: speed is nothing without control. I feel the same about online
hosting providers.

Naturally I have no knowledge of US redundancy solutions, but it's one of the
most critical yet toughest things to compare when choosing a new hosting
provider.

Best of luck to US though!

------
anovikov
LOL the site is now down :) bad sign for a hosting service!

~~~
nkozyra
Yeah that about kills the allure for ... well, anyone who wants a site that's
up.

~~~
ubersoldat2k7
Not so ubiquitous... oh! the irony!

------
tych0
Why does every host offer a plan that scales at the same rate in every column
(CPU, RAM, Disk space, bytes/month)?

I can think of almost no application which requires lots of all of these. Why
isn't there a host which allows you to scale your own requirements? Is it a
technical thing, or just another form of "oversell and underprovision because
most people won't use their plan"?

~~~
vilpponen
We offer completely scalable hosting at UpCloud. You get to choose your CPU,
RAM, disk space and bandwidth is billed by the actual traffic.

So I wouldn't call it a technical thing, but more of a strategic decision in
how you want to position your company + offering.

~~~
derefr
> and bandwidth is billed by the actual traffic

Is that billed by usage, or billed by throughput? I'd love to get a cheap rate
on something like "guaranteed 10Gbps port; 100GB monthly transfer cap."

------
cpg
Red flags:

> Ubiquity offers a 100% uptime SLA on our entire Cloud infrastructure

> In the unlikely event that one of the solid state hard disks fails on the
> Ubiquity Cloud there will be no data loss and no impact on the cloud
> instance's performance

~~~
pilsetnieks
The reddest flag of them all being that the site is currently down, especially
if they were promising 100% uptime.

------
MDCore
I'm now confused about what "Cloud Hosting" is. I thought it was a "virtual"
dedicated server. All that ubiquity provides is a control panel: > Our managed
cloud servers come with cPanel/WHM access. No root access is provided. How is
this different from regular hosting you can get elsewhere far cheaper? Is it
just the promises of RAM and SSD?

~~~
Goranek
today everybody is on "cloud", it sounds cool not to be there.

------
wiradikusuma
Server down. I hope this doesn't reflect their offering.

------
freefrag
Seems to be a pretty good offer, even in comparison to digital-ocean
(<https://www.digitalocean.com/>). Has anyone hosted anything with them
before? I'd like to know whether they're dependable.

~~~
ersii
DigitalOcean's deal still seems nicer. Two times the disk and two times the
traffic.

I guess it depends on what you want for your fiver (5-6$). Ubiquity's deal has
twice the RAM.

I'm suspicious regarding dependability, which I assume one should be in this
price range irregardless.

------
stanislavb
Lol, I migrated from Linode to DigitalOcean one month ago. The pricing of
UbiquityServers seems very tempting, however I will calm down this time :)
Anyway, has somebody had a chance to try both DO & US?

~~~
RoryH
Could you possibly take some time to tell us how the switch from Linode went
and how you feel about it now? (I'm a Linode customer)

~~~
cmaxwe
I made the same switch.

I had a Linode 512 and switched to a 2x512 Dropplet setup and put my Database
on one 512 and my Rails app server on the other.

My stuff runs as quickly if not quicker and I spend $10/mo less. In addition
to this I also have a clear scaling path (e.g. If my DB grows I can up it to a
1gb. If my traffic grows I can either move the app server to a 1gb or maybe
get a few more 512's and setup a load balancer.)

~~~
ksec
I am still waiting for Linode to React. At the moment i am still trying to
find a host that sit somewhere in the middle between DO and Linode.

~~~
andyhmltn
They have been. All servers are now 8 core and they cranked the bandwidth
allowance up by about 10x if I remember. Apparently they are meant to be
increasing RAM soon but I'm not sure how reliable that information is.
However, as they've done everything else it does make sense.

RAM is the only thing that I feel Linode is lacking as of late.

------
johnmurch
Whoa - Sweet Price.

If you want to compare to digital ocean they are having a coupon code on
Twitter - Includes 512MB RAM, 20GB SSD Disk, & 1TB Transfer for $5/mo.! Use
promo code "SSDTWEET" for a $10 credit.

------
KenCochrane
Website seems down. Not a good sign.

~~~
Metapony
It was still down when I checked about 22 minutes after your post. Definitely
not a good sign.

------
joe_bleau
At first glance, it doesn't seem any more compelling than DO. DO and upcloud
were nice enough to offer some free credits to the HN crowd for testing.

------
twodayslate
I use ChicagoVPS as my VPS and it is pretty decent for being so cheap.

~~~
hackerboos
I did until their massive security breach a few months ago.

Also I lost all my data and backups.

------
jole
Anyone can give a first-hand experience on this cloud hosting offer?

------
dcc1
Page wont load, great advertising lol

