Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
Yes, You Can Run 18 Static Sites on a 64MB VPS (lowendbox.com)
125 points by tshtf on June 11, 2011 | hide | past | web | favorite | 109 comments

There's no practical limit to the number of static sites you can host on a 64MB VPS. There is a limit to the amount of traffic that a 64MB VPS can serve, but if you want to host 10,000 low-traffic sites then by all means go ahead.

Yes you can. We used to run whole webservers on 486DX/2-66's with 8megs memory. Ran just fine.

Kids these days.

Pfft - in my day we used to power our web servers using a potato: http://d116.com/spud/


Yep. Even got slashdotted once with a system that was a 100MHz and 16M RAM IIRC. The limiting factor was bandwidth, not CPU or RAM.

Why not just 18... why not 48 or 128 or 1024? Questions like this are always loaded. First of all:

- This assumes the end user is familiar with command line usage. The typical consumer of VPSes aren't, in my experience, and rely on something like cPanel to do all administration. Which is why you can't really run on 64MB.

- The site itself doesn't take up RAM, just disk space. If you have 1024 static sites the only thing taking up ram is the configuration of the sites sitting in Apache's memory. As long as there isn't a lot of traffic on the site, it doesn't really matter how many there are.

- You could have 1 static site that has a medium amount of traffic and it would bring the 64MB instance to its knees as soon as you have more than a few concurrent connections.

Anyway, from this hoster's experience, when I get a question like "What can I run on a 64MB VPS" the easy answer is "Not much" because usually the type of person that wants to spend $3/mo on 64MB VPS instead of $7/mo for a 1GB VPS doesn't really have their priorities in place.

"This assumes the end user is familiar with command line usage. The typical consumer of VPSes aren't"?

What? I thought it was the opposite, i.e., that typical VPS customers were familiar with a command line or had to get familiar pretty quickly :-) Do you have any data or experience to back this claim (I ask because I don't have any data to back my perception)? Maybe you are referring to managed VPS as opposed to unmanaged VPS?

Btw, the article is 2 yrs old so (should have been in the summary...).

I'm sure I could think about this more and figure it out, but its a lazy Saturday. If you aren't comfortable at the command line to the point where you need something like cPanel then whats the point of using a VPS over shared hosting? I pay something ridiculous like $8 a month for dreamhost just to host a few sites I don't want to deal with. (Note I also run a VPS for other things - but I maintain it myself from a prompt)

> If you have 1024 static sites the only thing taking up ram is the configuration of the sites sitting in Apache's memory. As long as there isn't a lot of traffic on the site, it doesn't really matter how many there are.

And if you're smart about the setup, you don't even necessarily have to have a separate configuration for each site. See mod_vhost_alias for Apache, for instance. With that in place, memory is no longer an issue at all.

Why would you use apache for static sites? Did you even read the article? It uses lighttpd.

By way of example. I'm sure there's equivalent incantations for lighttpd/nginx/flavor-of-the-week, the parent comment just happened to mention Apache. :)

Agreed. Using apache on a lowendbox is not a smart idea. Lighttpd serving static sites takes ~5MB in practise. That's also including a SSHd and other services.

The title at the top was because (if you read the article) the blog post spurred from a post on WebHostingTalk asking the community if it was possible to host 18 static sites on a 64MB VPS. A lot of people said no, so this post was made to disprove them.

a $7/month 1gb VPS is going to be really oversold in ost cases. My 128MB VPS is $3 a month and runs my MyBB forum great.

Apachebench on the 128mb VPS to a static page: Document Path: /index.html Document Length: 1046 bytes

Concurrency Level: 100 Time taken for tests: 0.843 seconds Complete requests: 10000 Failed requests: 0 Write errors: 0 Total transferred: 12630336 bytes HTML transferred: 10510208 bytes Requests per second: 11867.44 [#/sec] (mean) Time per request: 8.426 [ms] (mean) Time per request: 0.084 [ms] (mean, across all concurrent requests) Transfer rate: 14637.67 [Kbytes/sec] received

$7/month for 1GB is beyond just oversold -- at that price, it's probably an outright scam -- e.g, the server was stolen, your memory is all swapped out, /proc/meminfo is lying to you, or something of the sort. prgmr.com is one of the cheapest VPS providers I've ever seen, and $7/mo only gets you ~192 MB with them. While I'm sure they do leave some room for profit, it beggars disbelief that anyone can provide actual service at a third of their (already low) prices.

I have had my share of cheap VPS's and in my experience you can find good value at $7/box. Rule of thumb is to go with Xen PV and to always pay monthly. There are some exceptions. For example BuyVM has a $15/year offer for 128 MB that is not oversold.

Not only are they oversold to the extreme, but majority of them only offer OpenVZ. As opposed to prgmr's pure Xen approach.

Memory is under your control, and if you can keep your content cached will serve you well.

The catch with very small VPS slices for me is disk performance. Small slices means more neighbors, and if a few of your neighbors are high disk use applications your disk latency can get ugly. The nasty bit is you can benchmark and check it all out when you move in, then a month later your site is suddenly a dog.

CPU has the same dynamic, but I think the virtualization platforms do a better job at "fair" for CPU, and if you are using nginx or lighttpd you don't need much so should be treated well by the scheduler.

I sell 64MiB VPSs and there has been a lot of internal discussion on the subject; should we continue selling them? As the article says, if you are willing to put in the work, even 64MiB can be useful.

On the other hand, more ram gives you a lot more breathing room. It is much easier to do useful things if you get the 128MiB service instead of the 64MiB service. (I charge $4 per account, and $1 for every 64MiB ram, so 128MiB is only a dollar more a month than 64)

Nick, an employee of mine, points out that the 64MiB guests are still useful because they force people to learn about every process running on the box, and to only run what is absolutely required. And he's right; that is a great thing to learn. But it is also a lot of work.

Worth pointing out that the site behind this is itself running Wordpress on a 80MB VPS (plus swap): http://www.lowendbox.com/blog/quickweb-7-128mb-xen-vps-in-la...

That's an old article, but LowEndBox is a fun site for checking out the bottom end of the VPS market, these days it's mostly only postings of very cheap providers ($7/month limit) the blogger has been sent or seen on WebHostingTalk. Then the ensuing discussion of how long until the company behind it goes bankrupt. 64MB VPSes like this don't really get offered anymore, while 128MB and 256MB offers are much more popular, usually in the $15-$20/year range.

> $15-$20/year

$15/$20 a YEAR ?

Yup. :)

I would argue that the most cheapest option for hosting static sites nowadays is on S3.

At $0.14/GB and $1/million requests - I don't think you can get any cheaper. Or reliable, for that matter.

At one of my hosting facilities outside Seattle I'm paying $2k per month for 25 terrabytes of transfer which is industry average. That's roughly 7.8 cents per GB. I'm billed using 95th percentile billing as is everyone running at scale. We're small compared to many larger consumer web startups. As you increase in scale, prices drop dramatically e.g. triple our transfer would give roughly half the price.

I know you're probably referring to options for small startups just starting out, but thought I'd share that data.

Your numbers are wrong, $0.14/GB is only for storage. The thing that will most likely bite you depending on what kind of site you are hosting is the $0.15/GB outbound transfers.

But yes it will still be cheap for most static sites like a jekyll blog or something, if you ever reach more than 130 GB of outbound transfer you have just reached the cost of an entry level linode with transfer of 200gb included.

For small files (less than a few dozen kb or so), it's important to keep in mind the per-request cost as well - $0.01 per 10,000 GET requests.

My $3/month VPS has 500gb transfer, and it's not the cheapest around.

Ruby Ring [1] offers an unlimited VPS for $2.49! I'm a flat-fee junkie, and although I hope I some day have the prospect of actual overuse, I love the peace of mind associated with flat fees.

Just for the curious, yes, you do get quite a few interruptions in your service, but the staff is pretty good about it, and it's a reasonable thing to expect given the conditions. Certainly it is OK just for learning, which is my case.

[1] http://rubyringtech.com/

What provider would that be?

Hostigation. Another good one would be BuyVM at $15/y =)

I'm paying $60 for 2000 GB of transfer/month on VPS with 4GB of Ram.

$7 for 10 TB transfer with 512MB RAM. No SLA to speak of, but it makes a fantastic backup machine.


2HOST. Ugly website but it works.


1and1. Here are some of the plans they offer:


If you sign with a 1-year contract it's even cheaper. I've been using 1and1 for 5+ years and the performance is pretty good. I've only had a couple of hours of down time in those five years and support got back to me very quickly

If you can live with having your server in the EU definitely check out Hetzner: http://www.hetzner.de/en/hosting/produktmatrix/rootserver-pr...

e.g. 49 EUR a month for an Intel i7 Quad Core, 8 GB RAM, 5 TB traffic (each additional TB is 6,90), IPv6, awesome support staff. I'm a fan.

I'm a little hesitant about trying new hosting providers, because I've been burned in the past.

Generally ,it's pick 2: cheap, reliable, good support

How long have you been using Hetzner, have you had any down time, and if you did, how was the support?

I've started with one server in approx. 2003, in 2003/2004 they had once or twice half day downtimes, I can't remember any downtime since 2006 at least, sometimes certain routes are a bit slowed down, but I guess that's to be expected (they nicely inform about stuff like that in the forum) Oh yeah in 2009 they moved data centers which resulted in 6 hours scheduled downtime during the night.

I've just seen nowadays they guarantee 99% Network availability.

None of my 7 servers has ever suffered a hard disk crash or similar, which is nice but not actually a meaningful data point. (Another nice point, internal traffic is free, even between their data centers)

Their support is top notch in my experience, answers within 15 minutes with the free support. Just read a random post in their support forum, they switched a defective power supply within 2 hours. They once phoned me because one of my servers was behaving suspiciously.

All in all, if you can live with 99% uptime I don't know any provider that's cheaper or has better support. (They do have failover IPs (http://www.hetzner.de/en/hosting/produkte_rootserver/flexipa...) and high availablity packs (http://www.hetzner.de/en/hosting/produkte_rootserver/option-...) but that doesn't help with the 99% network availability)

Also check out this independent uptime data: http://www.webhostlist.de/provider/1782-Hetzner-Online-AG/ve...

I was disappointed that this article didn't have anything about traffic but speculation. I expected it because of the title. There's no point to me in how many static sites it can host if traffic isn't taken into account. As jonknee said, it could host 10,000 low-traffic sites.

I also looked up the VPS mentioned in the article, and noted that it's not really that cheap. There's only two price levels below $20, and $20/mo for 256MB isn't great. I got a tax-day special on Zerigo that amounts to about $20/mo for 640MB, and RackSpace Cloud has 512MB for $21.90/mo. The author of the article also mentioned getting a billing issue resolved, and I expect not to have any billing issues in the first place for web hosting. I'm more willing to give other types of services some slack but I think hosting companies ought to have this one figured out.

Sounds a lot like my thoughts on hosting. To me, a good provider isn't necessarily the one with the best 2-second-reply support. To me, it's the provider where unless you're running a really high traffic complex site you pretty much never need to contact support. For instance, having to contact support rather than pressing a cancel button is something of a red flag for me.

Have a look at BuyVM.net - $15/year for 128MB.

I found a Windows host with 1GB of RAM for just $8.00 at vpsport.com. That's a heck of deal.

Nice try, VPSport.

Why must you assume that is spam? It could very well be from the front pages of LEB.

Yes, I'm not affiliated with them at all; I just found the deal on LEB and opened a server and I just thought the price was fantastic for 1GB of RAM. In fact, it's the cheapest 1GB of RAM I've ever seen. I think they can manage it because they use Hyper-V dynamic RAM allocation. I've never seen that in practice, it's really interesting to see. A kernel driver actually sucks up the extra RAM you're not using if it's needed somewhere else.

It was a joke.

As an alternate option, it's more than possible to run a static site on Google App Engine (for free). Obviously, this is for low traffic and resource requirements.

Sure you could run dynamic sites as well.

But this isn't a VPS option.

My personal favourite is Nginx (pronounced Engine X)

I had no idea. I've been calling in "ninks" all this time.

I used to call it enjinx.

Me too. And I am not going to change it.

Many hosts (and users of hosts) - including myself - over at WebHostingTalk use/sell cPanel hosting a fair amount.

And naturally 64 MB of RAM would NOT be enough for a VPS running cPanel (or any other mainstream server control panel, for that matter).

If the user is happy to use command line though then yes, he can run 18 static sites on a 64 MB VPS.

His post doesn't mention whether he's happy to have a no-control panel VPS though, so this entire blog post (well, the basis for it) does seem to be predicated on a fairly big assumption...

Overall it's a good, informative post though.

Why the heck do you need a control panel to simply scp or sftp files over to a virtual host?

Many people in the market for such entry-level hosting don't have the know-how to setup and manage accounts/virtual hosts.

This article is more aimed to the type of user who would use a command line interface. If they require cpanel, they should look elsewhere. Negating this article because of a potential user deficiency is ludicrous.

Those people in the market for entry-level hosting don't use a VPS, they use a shared hosting service.

They use whatever's cheap and then will ask for help.

Unless you own a web host (that includes just hosting frineds/family) there is NO reason for cPanel (or other panels) except you not knowing how to run a server

There are plenty of reasons to use administrative tools. There are millions of people using them...including a significant number of experienced system administrators. Our userbase (Virtualmin, an Open Source competitor to cPanel, based on Webmin) is largely made up of experienced system administrators who've built web hosting systems for years. I've been a sysadmin for about 14 years now, and I find it tedious to manage virtual hosts, DNS records, databases, etc. manually, even though I'm entirely capable of doing so.

I'm not going to try to convince you that you should use a web hosting control panel, but I will point out that millions of people, almost certainly including at least a few people who have more experience than you, disagree with you.

I don't find it hard to manage vhosts, dns records and databases by hand. What I do:

each site gets it's own nginx config file, domain.name.conf (replace domain.name with real domain)

databases get prefixed with the domain name (replace . with _ )

Also, I'm working on a script to handle the DNS zones for me.

I didn't say it was hard. I said it was tedious.

Also, I'm working on a script to handle the DNS zones for me.

Yeah, we worked on one of those, too. We called it Webmin (literally, Webmin began as a simple tool for managing and delegating management of DNS records about 14 years ago). And, then we worked on a script to manage virtual hosts, mailboxes, databases, web applications, LDAP, DNS slaves, SVN and git, awstats and Webalizer, resource usage data collection and reporting, user management and delegation to untrusted users, virus and AV scanning, Greylisting, SPF record management, DKIM key management, automated backup and restoration of virtual hosts and all associated data, etc. We called that script (or huge pile of scripts as the case may be) Virtualmin.

Again, I encourage you to work in whatever way you are most comfortable and productive. I manage a few dozen websites, and find having tools to automate much of that process is valuable for me. Millions of users seem to agree that Webmin and/or Virtualmin removes tedium for them, as well. And, I'm sure the same can be said of cPanel users.

Incompetence is not the only reason someone would do something differently than you. Different requirements breed different solutions.

webmin uses more ram than nginx (my webserver) does on my VPS.

Webmin uses ~11MB on a 32 bit system. It used to require an additional ~11MB for the data gathering cron jobs, backup cron jobs, etc. but now it runs most of those tasks within the Webmin application service process and so only increases usage slightly during those tasks.

If that's too much, you don't need to use it. (You could shut it down when you're not using it, though it loses a lot of its utility when it can't communicate with your slave DNS servers, keep resource usage data, etc.)

Virtualmin is a more complicated beast, and can take quite a bit more memory, if caching is enabled, but that is optional, and when disabled it takes the same ~11MB as Webmin.

I do see your point, but I think the little more time setting things up manually is worth it in the end rather than using more memory (or needing a higher tier VPS)

I'm not going to argue that everyone should use Virtualmin or any other control panel, and I'm sure if I were trying to fit my websites into a 64MB system I wouldn't be using a control panel. But, I do want to mention that Virtualmin itself can be configured to use approximately 11MB of RAM (though it is an application server that can cache libraries and modules, and can be as much as ~130MB, with about 20MB resident, in a large system with all caching features enabled). The services being managed are, by far, the biggest consumers of resources.

You can no more build a full-featured virtual hosting stack with email (and spam/AV scanning), web, databases, mod_fcgid or fastcgi with suexec, DNS, etc. in 64MB without a control panel than you could with a control panel. Likewise, if you just want web service, you can build one with Virtualmin in X+11 MB of RAM (where X is the amount of RAM the system and web server require).

Of course, Virtualmin (or cPanel or Plesk) are not targeted to very small deployments. They're for shared hosting, which tends to be on a larger system where a few MB for the control panel is of negligible impact.

I just want it to be clear that "control panel == memory hog" is not really accurate. It's probably all the stuff that users expect from a control panel-equipped system that makes it require more memory. ClamAV, for instance, requires more than 200MB. MySQL for a single moderately popular website can consume 300MB. Apache can grow as big as your imagination, because there are so many modules people can enable. A thoroughly stripped Apache isn't all that big, but the average Apache process is a couple hundred MB.

I'm running nginx, PHP-FPM, MySQL, NSD, exim, UnrealIRCD, ZNC, and thttpd for CGIs on my 128mb VPS, and it uses around 50mb RAM. It only goes up to over 64mb used when my file/database backup script is running. The only thing I don't run on the VPS is incoming email. (I use Google Apps's free version)

Why don't you sysadmins just write scripts?

We do. We called our scripts "Webmin", "Virtualmin", "Cloudmin", and "Usermin". Pretty catchy name for them, I think.

And, then we shared them, so that others wouldn't have to reinvent the wheel and write the same scripts over and over again.

Yeah, but these are web apps, not command-line tools. I thought you guys would prefer command-line tools.

A few points:

Virtualmin and Cloudmin have CLI apps (imaginatively called "virtualmin" and "cloudmin", respectively) that can do everything the GUI can do (and a little bit more, since they can readily be wrapped up in pipes and for loops and can do things in batches very easily).

At some point, when the scripts are advanced enough, all you're doing is data entry. Data entry may be easier/faster in a web-based UI with dropdowns, radio buttons, multi-select boxes, etc. It is also easier to delegate to untrusted or partially trusted users when you can control every option they have available to them. Ever tried to limit someone to only being able to modify some DNS records, but not others, using sudo and filesystem permissions?

A primary reason Webmin is web-based is that a web browser is always available. An ssh client may not be. We do have plans to create a "webmin" CLI tool, at some point in the future, that does the same thing for Webmin that the virtualmin and cloudmin tools to...though that's a trickier business since Webmin isn't really like either of those tools, and is a lot more open-ended in its purpose and capabilities.

But, sure, command line tools are awesome, and Webmin doesn't prevent you from hitting the command line when you want to. I spend my time about 50/50 in Webmin/Virtualmin/Cloudmin and in vim via ssh.

Again, I'm not opposed to people doing their job any way they want. I'd just like to see an end to the FUD that only incompetent sysadmins use tools that make their jobs easier ("It has a GUI!? How dare they!"). I've spent my entire professional working life trying to make sysadmins jobs easier, so I want people to make informed decisions about the available tools, and I've almost never met a sysadmin that couldn't save some time or hassle by using one or more of the tools I work on. It's not the right tool for every job, and I don't recommend everybody install it on every server they ever see (though some sysadmins do), but it's got a lot of niches that it serves very well.

Just wait until there are several active WP connections and then there is a cache miss.

WordPress can sometimes use 32M to build a page.

That kind of setup is only useful where most of your visitors are NOT logged in, since logged in users often cause cache-misses.

The headline says "static sites". That means WordPress isn't being used.

Yes, but beyond the headline is the article :)

It actually ends with MySQL + Nginx + PHP + WordPress all running in addition to the 18 static sites, which does seem a bit unlikely to hold up very well, even if the setup shown does leave the VPS with 48MB free.

But the article talks about installing WordPress. So the confusion is understandable.

"Kinda." The article says it might be possible to take it one step further to run a low volume wordpress/basic PHP install.

It does but at the end he also talks about running 2 or 3 wordpress sites on such a box.

Has any VPS provider thought of building customized Linux distributions specifically to reduce the memory footprint, preconfigured with lightttpd/nginx, php, and mysql, all with pre-configured configuration settings?

I find that most VPS hosts just install a standard distribution and expect the customer to do all the work to reduce the memory footprint, or they install memory hogging Apache + Plesk control panel configurations that are hard to change.

I think one of these providers could make a great offering by having this type of small VPS all pre-configured and ready to run as soon as it's provisioned.

I believe that Virtualmin (a YC startup) is currently building[1] a control panel with the ability to configure a low-memory setup.

1. http://www.virtualmin.com/node/11831#comment-51928

http://vps.net does this (I highly recommend them)

I'd add that if the site is purely static (the example is a PHP site), you can get away with 2MB to 8MB for Nginx and the rest will be filesystem cache and OS. If you don't have too many files, CPU and network throughput will be your only bottleneck and you can have unlimited domains.

This may not seem practical to many who have larger boxes, but much of this advice is extremely useful when you're running a large cluster with millions of hits a day and every spare ounce of memory you save translates into less money for Dell. Great job!!

My main VPS has 128mb RAM and is running a MyBB forum which gets 80k pageviews a month. If I dropped the PHP, MySQL, IRC stuff and email server I could run it on 16-32mb except when updating the software on the VPS.

"number of sites" isn't a metric you can design against - you know nothing about the app requirements.

"number of static sites" is marginally better - the "number of sites" in that case is meaningless - the limiting factor will be the request rate and desired response time.

Pfft - Back in '00, I shifted a million requests a month across 22 static (using SSI though) sites off a circa 1991 SparcStation 2 (weitek 80MHz upgrade) with 64Mb, NetBSD, thttpd and a couple of 4.3Gb SCSI2 disks. It finally gave up in 2002 when the AUI port decided it'd had enough of electrons.

I reckon you could do that with one eye shut on even the crappiest VPS.

AGGHHH!!! This is CLEARLY a very well DISGUISED ad-article/spam. Im so angered when I see an article that has "WebHostingTalk", "Discount", "Heres how you..."

Its so painful to see this on HN!

P.S. @spitfire -- Yeah.. thems were the days! goes to show you how old I am

The title and text, etc. are all directly responsive to the linked contemporary WHT thread where someone asked about a 64mb plan on this specific service, and if it would be enough for 18 static sites. The WHT commentators all said no.

I'd be inclined to believe it is not spam. Mainly because sites designed as hosts for ad-articles/spam don't tend to build up communities or stick around this long (this article is over 2 years old).

But also because the site covers multiple providers, not just this one, sometimes favourably, sometimes not, always without any real benefits to the owner. It does provide a (presumably no longer valid) referral code for the particular service discussed in this one article, but it's an extra click away from this page, and the site goes to very large pains to point out it is a referral code: http://www.lowendbox.com/blog/vpslink-february-sale-and-10-o...

Also, to my knowledge, that is the only time this site has ever used any sort of referral code, and it was fully highlighted and explained. It also wasn't an affiliate code, it could only have been used to cover the site's hosting fees with a service the site owner had been using for the last 5 years.

Basically, it doesn't smell like spam to me. But, I have been enjoying the site for a number of months before it appeared here, so I'm less suspicious.

@jack12 Fair- enough. Though, it still doesnt negate the end-effect; and, the rising trend of flamebait titles on HN, and in fact has been discussed continuously ~and~ on nearly daily basis.

Nope. Try again, bro. The host mentioned was in the original thread that this blog post was a response to.

Sorry 'Bro' Clearly you are a SHILL -- your account was created TWO hours ago! Sorry 'BRO' we see right thru you.

I'm a longtime fan of LowEndBox too. I've found some pretty good deals though there. If you bother to read the site you'll find that the author slams quite a number of hosts as being bad - or at least doubtful.

He also doesn't make money via affiliate deals (only banner sale ads). See http://www.lowendbox.com/blog/advertisement-situation-at-low...

I hope you'll find my account acceptable from the "shill" point of view.


I have bothered to read the site and he makes good points. Thats not the issue. The issue is with the "Title", then article starts with a reference to WebHostingTalk, then near immediately followed with a link his affiliate page -(very cleverly disguised) All of those three things separately are NO BIG DEAL; but all together on HN is very frustrating. The reason for that is because, I have grown to trust HN links and this makes me question that trust. I love HN because of the trust I have for the destination of the links. Post such as these challenge that trust.

followed with a link his affiliate page -(very cleverly disguised)

You mean the page where he says So, here is a clearly marked affiliation link — do not click on it if you don’t want me to get referral rewards nor 10% off discount :)

I don't think you can get more ethical than that.

All of those three things separately are NO BIG DEAL; but all together on HN is very frustrating

I thought the information was detailed, useful, and I can personally attest to the trustworthiness of the site.

Personally I think this perfect for HN (and given that your account has been registered only ~250 days I think trying to lecture about how bad it is doesn't make much sense).


The problem is not the technical write up.

Affiliate Link

He said: I am still taking the “no affiliation sales” stance. He posted that on his page http://www.lowendbox.com/blog/advertisement-situation-at-low... Which contradicts http://www.lowendbox.com/blog/vpslink-february-sale-and-10-o...

The Ethical debate belongs at a different venue.. but you must concede that these are two conflicting policies. but whatever.. its no big deal. I have no problem with folks making money off affiliate marketing.

-Im not even saying that he has a bad site. or a bad guy. Im not even saying that his post was incorrect. what I am saying is: 1) Provocative Title 2) Immediately references to a sketchy forum 3) affiliate link + ads -- these are usually the signs of link-bait.

*Im not even commenting on the merit of the article or whether it belongs on HN or not.. Im just commenting on how painful it is for me to see it on HN.


You are replying to my post and this is a threaded forum, not Twitter.

1) Provocative Title

If it bleeds it leads. And what would be a better title exactly?

2) Immediately references to a sketchy forum

WebHostingTalk is the biggest forum about webhosting in the world. It's pretty important if you work in that field.

3) affiliate link + ads

Welcome to the internet.

1) Provocative Title ---> As for a better title -- who knows.. the title: "Yes, You Can Run 18 Static Sites on a 64MB VPS" ---> it begs the question... "why wouldn't you be able to Run 18 Static Sites on a 64MB VPS?" -- So, you end up clicking on it. For this HN crowd - Im pretty sure that was going thru a lot of peoples head when they read the title.. (at least for me - but who knows)

2) Immediately references to a sketchy forum WebHostingTalk is the biggest forum about webhosting in the world. It's pretty important if you work in that field*

---> That's debatable. I've worked in the web hosting industry for a very long time and I almost never go to that forum unless, im baited to it.

3) affiliate link + ads Welcome to the internet. I've got nothing against affiliates, or ads... heck - affiliate marketing is a very important part of the internet marketing ecosystem. however, the very obvious absence of affiliates or ads on HN makes it a very nice place.

I don't want to start anything, but your tone comes across as pretty hostile. That kind of disrespect is more anathema to HN and worse for the community than an affiliate link contained on a linked page.

Nah, just a supporter of LEB. If you actually looked at the post in a sensible way you'd come to the same realizations.

Yeah.. you are admit.. Looking at it in a sensible way.

1) Title was written and posted as such to draw flame 2) Post is quickly started with a discount 3) The page is littered with advert

The merit of the technical write up is not in question; its the specific intention to incite controversy. thats the problem.

Its obvious to this crowd that 64mb is plenty to run a 18 Static Sites.

It is the very fact of challenging the ability to run 18 static sites on 64mb via a VPS is ridiculous. Now, if the article asked the question of "how quickly can you max out 64mb VPS and tactics to avoid it" -then, it would be less inflamatory.

Have a look at this thread - http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?t=765561 . The title of the blog post retorts what is generally said in that thread (No, you can't run 18 static sites on a 64mb VPS). It's a (more detailed) reply - nothing more. The offers (which, LEA most likely doesn't make money on - just the sidebar ads) were there about a month or so before the post. So, what else is wrong with it?

Like previously stated - theres nothing wrong with the technical write-up. though, it shouldve stated that any VPS running any control panel (like plesk or cpanel) can host 18 static sites (even without any optimization). The problem is that its flamebait. you can even see that on it the comments -- and subsequently on webhostingtalk. Just saying saying

As for the $$ im sure he does fine. Affiliate payouts in the webhosting indutry is huge.

Of course any VPS can host 18 static sites. The main point is even one with as little memory as 64mb can host static sites, whilst the majority opinion over at WHT is that it wasn't possible. I'm sure the OP of the WHT post wasn't intending to put out 'flamebait,' merely ask a simple question which the majority said nei. I don't believe LEA (the admin) had a WHT account, so he made a writeup via his blog. Who knows if he gets affiliates? The providers would have to make it though the promotional codes that are directly emailed to him (he does not post direct affiliate links that I can see), but the offers posted on WHT would get no affiliate income. I do see money being made via the side banner adds however. Some see it as 'flame bait,' others see it as an disproving article. I guess no one can win, ne?

You sure do know alot of this guys (www.lowendbox.com) affairs.. for NOT being a confederate.. or are you?

Nope, just a community fan. I'm sure you/others would do the same to defend this site if it came under attack for something you deem as non-valid. There is only one person who works for LEB and that is LEA.

Its pretty clear.. that you are a SHILL (or a community fan of LowEndBox) as you phrase it... whatever you want to call it. your impact is still negative and the same.

I find it highly suspicious that your ACCOUNT STARTED the SAME TIME this was posted.

You are FAR too sensitive to deem comments as an ATTACK on the site; or deem it as non-valid. Frankly, there is nothing for you to defend. As I stated; theres nothing wrong with his technical write-up. I just highly question the motivations of being posted on HN with such a title, promo code, ads, etc.

FRANKLY, what you are doing text book 'Gaming HN'. And Heres WHY: 1) You just started your account today for this post 2) You have your comments upvoted and down vote dissenting comments by your confederates 3) You keep on telling people to go to " BuyVM .net" which by the way has LowEndBox.com as its biggest advocate 4) You have a very intimate knowledge of how LowEndBox operates, (if he does affiliate links, or has a WebHostingTalk account, or if he makes money from his ads) Come on you can tell me if you are Francisco Dias - the guy that runs BuyVM and markets almost exclusively at LowEndBox (You just got caught!)

Please stop trying to Game HN and HN users.

"Its pretty clear.. that you are a SHILL (or a community fan of LowEndBox) as you phrase it... whatever you want to call it. your impact is still negative and the same."

Open community, ne?

"I find it highly suspicious that your ACCOUNT STARTED the SAME TIME this was posted."

Of course, I found that this site/post even existed through a community.

"You are FAR too sensitive to deem comments as an ATTACK on the site; or deem it as non-valid. Frankly, there is nothing for you to defend. As I stated; theres nothing wrong with his technical write-up. I just highly question the motivations of being posted on HN with such a title, promo code, ads, etc."

I'm just defending the 'questionability' part - there is nothing questionable about this article being posted here, nor is it complete spam.

"FRANKLY, what you are doing text book 'Gaming HN'."

It's not a very fun game, if a game at all.

"And Heres WHY: 1) You just started your account today for this post"

Yes. I only found out that this place existed through a community.

"2) You have your comments upvoted and down vote dissenting comments by your confederates"

Sure, someone else might have been voting me up, but I don't have access to downvote anyone. Please try again. (I've also upvoted some other members of HN's group here - eh)

"3) You keep on telling people to go to " BuyVM .net" which by the way has LowEndBox.com as its biggest advocate"

It's only the "biggest advocate" because it won a voting contest - if another company won the vote they would be listed.

"4) You have a very intimate knowledge of how LowEndBox operates, (if he does affiliate links, or has a WebHostingTalk account, or if he makes money from his ads)"

It's kind of easy to figure out if you actually visit the/any site often. Who doesn't make money from ads?

"Come on you can tell me if you are Francisco Dias - the guy that runs BuyVM and markets almost exclusively at LowEndBox (You just got caught!)"

Nope. I'm not Francisco, sorry. I'm just a satisfied client.

"Please stop trying to Game HN and HN users."

There is no "game," sir, I don't know what you're trying to play.

Theres no need to further debate this with you.

Good day to you too.

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact