But I bet nginx could still crank out static files from them.
We have 3 servers in the KS series:
KS-2G ATOM powered with 2G of RAM, 500GB, 100Mbps 2.99e/mois.
KS-4G 4GB of RAM, 2x500GB software raid 9.99e/mois
KS-16G Core i5 with 16G, VT and 2x1TB 19.99e/mois
They are also on the UK site:
That $26.50 server is currently $40 in the US (CA)
The real deal here IMHO is the i5 for $26.50, that cpu can run laps around the atom and can run in "turbo" mode near 3.5ghz all day.
I was surprised to discover that with a workload composed entirely of XML parsing using Python+lxml, an OVH 1.8ghz Atom N2800 beat hands down my mid-2010 2.4ghz Macbook Pro. This isn't a crazy result either. For instance, while the Macbook is equipped with dual cores, each core supports only one hardware thread, and thus is blocked while waiting to complete a load from RAM (a common occurrence when dealing with giant cache-unfriendly DOM trees that don't benefit from the Core 2's much increased L2).
In contrast the N2800 has 2 cores with 2 hardware threads each (hyperthreading), so each core can progress while its buddy thread is stalled. In my particular workload this was enough to beat by a significant margin a much faster, expensive and power-hungry processor.
Core2s have significantly better memory bandwidth, because they're dual-channel. They stream memory significantly more efficiently than N2800 Atoms. When a Core2 Duo has a memory stall, it can start executing other instructions out of order to compensate. Typically, out-of-order cores seem to do more for efficiency than hyperthreading.
If Apple screwed up by only giving a single DIMM (it happens on lower-end hardware, but I'd be pissed if I learned that an expensive Macbook were improperly configured memory-wise)... maybe the Atom would have a chance. But a properly-configured dual-channel RAM Core2 Duo, as old as it is, still would stream data faster from RAM than an Atom could. Almost twice as fast in fact.
If the N2800 does perform better on this workload, I'd be definitely interested in seeing the exact numbers... if you don't mind.
I actually do own a Hyperthreaded Atom (N570) and Core2 Duo (some old crap desktop version) myself. So... I'd be able to repeat the experiment :-p
In my case I had 1 software thread per thread, I'm not sure if over-subscription would make any difference. Also, out of ordering processing is only possible in the absence of data dependencies (I have no idea how to even go about measuring this). Also tree structures are no different to random walks from the hardware's perspective, i.e. the hardware has no useful predictive ability to prefetch data in this case.
The main point was that it's so cheap to test, there's little value in speculating about architecture specifics few are qualified to understand, assuming they're publicly documented in the first place
You're right in that its extremely easy to test, even to buy yourself an atom at home. Netbooks are regularly under $300, Clovertrail Atom Tablets are ~$400. Older Atom 330-based Netbooks are probably even cheaper. Its not like you're trying to test out the performance of a 64-core Quad Opteron or something.
And of course, the ability to just rent one for 3 months at a time from Kimsufi for less than $20 is always available.
The Atom is Intel's line of chips designed to compete against the iPad. It is still fully x86 compatible, its just slow. Roughly... the speed of a Pentium 4 or so.
Current generation Atoms are 32-bit only, which means 4GB maximum RAM (not an issue for smaller webservers with only 2GB).
Atoms tend to be best for I/O limited tasks. If you do video streaming for instance, the vast majority of your CPU power is going to be "wasted" on waiting for the Hard Drives and the Network. So the Atom makes a good, cheap CPU for that kind of task.
For tasks with tons of computations, (ie: game servers), the Atom is woefully inadequate.
You can purchase an Atom computer for ~$165: http://www.superbiiz.com/detail.php?name=MB-ZID60-U. So play around with the performance yourself, and see if its enough.
The Atom came out in 2008, two years before the iPad, and come from a lineage started in 2003. It was designed for the now dead netbook category that required low power consumption.
64-bit versions have been available since 2010, both versions used by OVH are x86-64. There are also server-specific versions with support for ECC memory, though they doesn't seem to be using them.
Regardless of the 'ordering', the Atom line of processors are designed for the <10W form factor. True, Atoms existed before the iPad, but they are in fact designed to compete in that power-range. The analogy works very well: the iPad 4th generation A6x processor is just slightly slower than the newest Clovertrail Atoms. The older Atoms (like the 330) probably are a bit slower than an iPad.
So yes, perhaps I misspoke earlier. Nonetheless, I stand behind the analogy. Intel Atoms are Intel's version of the iPad A6x. They use roughly the same power and give roughly the same performance... but Atoms give you full x86 compatibility.
Perhaps a more appropriate way to say it... is that the Atom is designed to be a competitor to low-power ARM chips in general. Intel is making strides in making extremely slow, but power efficient chips. And in Performance/Watt, they're roughly on the same scale.
So Intel wanted a fairly power efficient chip, but they also wanted to ensure that it didn't cannibalize their own sales, so they intentionally crippled it from a performance perspective, not least by always building it on the last or second-last process. This is an aspect of the Atom that is missed by so many, sure that Intel was caught with their pants down by ARM: Intel's biggest fear wasn't ARM, but that their pricey high-end CPUs would get replaced by their low cost variants. They still fight with this paranoia to this day.
The Atom was neither inspired by the iPad (obviously given that it far preceded it) or even ARM. At best you could say Intel had some concern about Transmeta, leading to some of the early Atom work.
This isn't a minor error of "ordering". These were critical mistakes in your retelling of history.
I have admitted my mistake with an addendum, although I cannot edit my earlier post anymore. What more do you want?
This is incorrect. The Atom CPU was initially meant for smartphones, but the first models way overshooted the available power envelope. Netbooks were created by Asus when Intel offered a lot of cheap, slow chips for sale that were good for little else, and they created a new, shortlived segment. No-one at Intel thought about netbooks when designing Atom.
The first Atom processors actually had extremely competitive power characteristics. The only supporting chipset, however, was a) a power pig, because Intel just didn't bother despite it being a much easier task than making a processor (I have a little file server running a dual-core Atom, the processor being air cooled while the chipset has a fan. As a humorous aside, altogether that micro-PC uses about the same power as my new i7 Mac Mini under standard loads), b) completely built for traditional PC uses. Do you need IDE on your smartphone, for instance? How about an A20 line?
The "glut of inventory" notion is not realistic. It doesn't work that way.
Intel had no intentions in the smartphone industry at the time. If they did, not only would they have actually made a decent chipset (they happen to be the most advanced chipmaker in the world, with the world's best fabs), they would have made a prototype (which is what all manufacturers do when they try to enter a market - a proof of concept). There were absolutely none until later Atom variants.
People forget it now, but it was initiatives like One Laptop Per Child that initiated the netbook craze -- that program talking about ultra-inexpensive laptops, leading to a lot of people saying "You know...I too would like an inexpensive laptop that I could just bang around and leave in the car and..." (Slashdot was full of people trying to repurpose such devices), and with that an industry was born.
They never "really" tried to compete in the smartphone market (which is ~2W), the Atom was instead always targeted at ~10W. (IIRC, Intel's real focus at that time were Consumer Ultra-Low Voltage, CULV processors at the 18W envelope. Today... known as Ultrabooks). However, as Smartphones became the next hot thing, it is now obvious that Intel has to scale the Atom down even further. And unfortunately, the netbook market imploded.
Its not all wasted however, IMO, netbooks "became" tablets. From a CPU perspective, there is little difference between Netbooks and Tablets. You want low-power consumption between 5W to 10W, and lower costs. In fact, as netbooks were "dying out", they slowly became tablets. See AsusTab Smart for example, it basically is a Netbook without a keyboard, but built with a touchscreen. (same price range as Netbooks of old, but just in tablet form).
Anyway, Intel hasn't forgotten the Smartphone market either. Thus the Atoms that worked closer to the 2W SoC benchmark... Medfield, Clovertrail, and soon to be Bay Trail Atoms. Clovertrail is winning a few benchmarks here and there, and Bay Trail will be built on Intel's latest process for once. So it looks like Intel is finally taking the smartphone market seriously. But only the last generation or so are actual attempts at a Smartphone chip... and even then, there isn't a single Atom out there that is built on Intel's latest 22nm process. That will only come from the future Bay Trail Atoms.
To add some numbers:
The most popular first generation Atom, the N270, had a TDP of 2.5 W. The accompanying chipset and I/O controllers however had a combined TDP of 9.3 W.
Some lines of Atoms since mid-2010 or so have supported x86_64. The Sxxxx "server" atoms released at the end of 2012 are all 64-bit-enabled, for example, although they can still only take 8GB of RAM: http://ark.intel.com/products/series/71265
I agree that this is mainly interesting if you're I/O-limited. Most benchmarks show a "regular" recent-gen Intel CPU performing around 5x-10x the Atom, so if you're CPU-limited, even a low-end VPS that gives you an average of 1/4 share of a core will probably outperform sole tenancy on an Atom core. But a high-contention VPS in most cases will give you much worse I/O performance. Also, the storage space and bandwidth quota here are much better than with a comparably priced VPS.
The specific issue with Go was significantly mitigated in Go 1.1 by making much more of the GC precise rather than conservative. Here's a comment from about a month ago on the current state: http://code.google.com/p/go/issues/detail?id=909#c59
Note that I've seen people running gnome on a netbook.
Still, I see this, and I think more about: "backups", "configuration management", "shell access", "VPN to other more powerful dedicated servers in OVH", "personal storage", "scheduled tasks", "monitoring systems", "status pages", etc...
The price is nothing, I still ask myself if it's rentable because "it's an Atom" and changes the power bill, or this is more a unprofitable product to attract you to other products.
Lets say 3€ * 12m = 36€ year, It takes some years to recover the hardware costs (without count electricity bills, company salaries, connectivity, taxes, etc).
pretty sure it's the latter. Even if there is minimal human effort on part of OVH involved that probably leads to unprofitability. For example a RAM stick breaks and has to be switched out, I guess it takes a systems engineer in the NOC at least 30 minutes to locate the server, disconnect it, replace the stick, mount the server again, make sure it is running fine. Assuming that employee get's paid 20 GBP, that is a 10 pound cost plus replacement RAM which is...I dont know...let's say 20 GBP, recouping that kind of money would take about a year (I know very dirty napkin calculations).
I bet they have a handful of these gimmick servers and they are going to sell out very soon. Comparable to the Raspberry Pi colocation edis offers ( http://www.edis.at/en/server/colocation/austria/raspberrypi/ ) try to order and you will find that they are sold out.
These servers run without cases, using water cooling. Hardware failure automatically notifies the NOC with the location of the failed hardware and replacement parts are already waiting on the desk.
>handful of these gimmick servers
OVH is one of the largest ISPs in the world, and is well known for disruptive pricing and services, such as 100/100 Mbps broadband to the home for $20/month.
Edit: Order placed, eagerly awaiting my Isgenug (that is what they are called for the German market) :)
As such their suitability depends greatly on your particular application.
They aren't so good for high concurrency for instance, but if you are using a mainly event driven server where concurrency isn't a massive issue you'll not notice that limitation.
At this price, the most cost effective option is going to be to rant one for a month or few and give it a try. In fact at that price if the machine works for you it is an absolute bargain, you could pay more for a much smaller VPS where you are competing with others for I/O bandwidth. I have a machine at OVH currently for a few bits and bobs - for my use pattern I might be better off cancelling it and getting a few of these instead for the same price.
As such, it can be quite surprisingly slow, managing to limit a lot of loads that most devs take for granted these days.
So for UK, prices are in £ :)
I'm guessing they buy mini-itx boards from China by the container load.
Probably similar spec, though.
They also just got severely owned the other week. So you can trust that the extreme invasion of privacy won't get straight to the wrong people.
When I started with this, the price of a server was the salary of an adult of medium class working during one year (and you got it without connection to internet, neither hosting facilities)...
I wish the price of technology at home (devices, connections, etc), could go down the same way for everybody.
 expensive exceptions apply, like in really touristic spots like Piazza San Marco in Venezia or similar
 of course not served to the table but at the counter (or bench or stand or whatever you call it in english) like we do typically:)
"All prices exclude VAT"
That said, it should be noted that here in the Iberian Peninsula we just mean coffee, not buckets of water, cream, sugar and milk with some coffee mixed in, like those served at Starbucks.
In Spain (where I did grow) as well as in The Netherlands (where I work now) you can.
Of course, in both places, you can get more expensive ones too. Depends on the shop.
Proof of ID:
Utility bill (Gas, electricity, phone)
Real identity verification is a solid step towards cleaning up the network, so if you do buy a server from them it can actually reach other parts of the internet.
In Ecatel's case, that has to do with them both openly allowing (via their sales team) DDoS attacks, as well as _not_ implementing uRPF at their edge. They allow spoofed traffic. I have no clue why _any_ carrier deals with them; all of their upstreams should have terminated them ages ago.
Does Voxility not run uRPF?
How do you ever make a credit card transaction online without giving up your name and address? That's pretty much standard every time fiat currency changes hands on the internet.
And this is one of the many things wrong with credit card transactions. A seller shouldn't need my address; it needs my money. In the Netherlands we have a system called iDEAL, where, when you want to pay for a product online, you get redirected to a page of your bank and confirm the transaction. All the seller gets is a confirmation you paid (and of course a wad of cash in his account) - no private information shared.
Unless you're having a product delivered. But even those can be delivered to a pickup station nearby nowadays.
I don't think they usually confirm my billing address(haven't bought anything in a while where I don't need shipping address anyway)
Also, I am using virtual credit card + debit with credit card possibilities.
EDIT: My bank does not require confirmation on my home address. I have random numbers and address there.
I can't also sign up to mt gox because they don't accept my proofs.
$2.99 is a crazy price for a dedi.
They are VMs but they perform better than a dedicated Atom from my testing.
They are having growing pains, they don't know which policies are hurting them long term. (ie: their former "unlimited bandwidth" issue).
Naturally, Digital Ocean will be cheaper than more respected and established players. When you're building a business on a web hosting company, saving a couple of bucks a month is not really worth it if reliability goes down.
The guys behind DO had a hosting company called 'Reality Check Network', it was great. They were new that time and if you google about Reality Check Network you will find a bad incident because of which it was shut down.
In 2010, their servers were hacked and the attackers corrupted the filesystems which forced them to reformat everything. They were managing around 1,000 servers that time and the backup system in 2010 wouldn't allow them to restore so many servers at once, the only option they had was to do it manually which required 4 man hours of work for each server. And that process could take more than 2 months because of the 4000 odd man hours required to do the job.
This was from a long email they sent to their customers, which shows they were transparent and admitted the issue and the problem. ( Unlike many reliable servers which are not being transparent and cause a lot of problem/trust issue. Linode? )
From what it looks like, for almost a month they tried getting all the data back but eventually couldn't so they folded and moved on. Almost 6-8 months later in 2011, they launched DO and been almost 3 years they are doing great. Rather best. No such incident and data is secure. They surely learned their lesson.
I would say despite their past, they are the experienced players whom we can trust. Even though they are building their business they are really reliable, affordable and looks like they are here for long.
1. Linode are 8 cores but only 1 is guaranteed.
2. Linode are not UK based whereas Bytemark (bigv's parent company) are UK based.
3. Linode are unreliable. Google for citations.
That's more than 4.65x better.
Big, big difference.
This OVH dedicated server is comparable to an Amazon EC2 Standard small (m1.small) instance. Taking an Amazon reserved instance, "heavy utilization" (to minimize cost), and in their less expensive region, with a 1-year term, the upfront payment is $169 plus $0.014 per hour, which amounts to $24.30 per month.
Compare this to OVH is only 3€, that is $4.00 per month... 1/6th the price! And OVH has 500GB storage vs 160GB for Amazon!
Yes but EC2 is a cloud provider and these are dedicated machines which are harder to scale without setting up a complex cluster.
Most sites have a fairly stable base load, and most dedicated providers these day can provision in less than 24 hours, so you at most need the ability to handle short spikes or growth over hours rather than days.
And EC2 is expensive enough that you can handle huge variations by buying extra dedicated capacity to cope. But the (far) cheaper option still is to handle your base load on a cheaper provider, and build your system to be able to scale using EC2 or another cloud provider to handle spikes.
WIth more and more providers providing "hybrid" services with colocation, dedicated, dedicated vms (single vm per physical server), and cloud servers all (or most) on offer from one location, this gets even easier - you can sometimes even get virtual private lans across dedicated and cloud servers without having to mess with your own vpn or pay for the bandwidth
Well, at least they are being open about this, but from the forum it seems the security incident is still open.
For file storage, you can use git-annex which gpg encrypts data stored on rsync special remotes. I hope to add gpg encrypted git repositories to it soon too.
Or tahoe-lafs, which encrypts files and allows sharing them by sharing a special url.
If you do any crypto on these servers, obviously anyone with physical access could compromise it (although potentially not without alerting you that it had been).
Just as one example, sysvinit - systemd migration took some careful file editing not to botch things remotely. At one point, merging all binaries in /usr/bin incentivized me to move from the no longer supported GRUB-legacy to GRUB2. GRUB2 installer failed leaving a zombie process that prevented anything from touching the mbr...
I wiped it, installed Wheezy and I can tell you that it requires far less maintenance and you can still pull bits and pieces from testing if you really want to.
It's a similar process to setting up Netatalk on any Ubuntu server to get Apple computers to recognize a Linux server as a Time Machine endpoint.
An actual Time Capsule can be annoyingly slow sometimes, and I would expect it to be about five to ten times as fast as a Pi-based solution.
The link you posted has some good advice though. Like not using HFS+. Apart from HFS+ arguably being an antiquated filesystem, the Linux driver is in a horrible state and will cause corruption when used in rw mode. ext4 is the sensible choice.
German customers have to pay €3.99 for KS2G. The German price should be 1 cent cheaper, and not 1 Euro more expensive, as French VAT is 19.6% while German VAT is 19%.
See http://www.ovh.de/dedicated_server/isgenug.xml if this is possible outside Germany. You can not see ovh.com inside Germany, as ovh.com is redirected to ovh.de.
For certain applications (which you may or may not know about) that's quite significant.
[7.2] "The bandwidth is no longer guaranteed when the server or servers are used for the following activities: ... Server(s) used for downloading and sending files on peer to peer networks (including but not limited to: seedbox)"
> 3.7 Traffic within the OVH network is not recorded.
I guess the tactic is quite simple: Be extortionate while you have market share. Undercut your opponents when it starts being threatened.
Not that I'm complaining when stuff like this happens, I like OVH, sometimes.
So I guess it was too good to be true.
They sent me the IP of the server but it's stuck on "installing OS". Quite honestly I really assumed the installing process would be automated.
Has anyone got there server yet? (or are you still waiting?)
Increase profit margins with upgrades. The more premium the server, the higher the profit margin.
Data center list: http://www.ovh.co.uk/dedicated_servers/data_centre_selection...
11 packets transmitted, 11 packets received, 0.0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 111.052/116.042/120.117/3.412 ms
Surprisingly constant 148ms from a VPS on the west-coast US.
That's similar to the ping times to my current VPS on the West Coast.
Anyone recommends the company? Never heard of.
Don't know if the Wikipedia is correct, but I know them (I'm in EU).
I think the last time I did the math it worked out to something like 2M addresses in US-EAST.
Whether you use them or not is probably down to three issues: do you need managed servers and rapid response from a tech inside the company; if you need US based hosting, they don't offer that, but the Montreal location gets great speeds to most of the US; the listed kimsufi servers are obviously located in Europe.
Discussion here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6083944
A few VPSs for low traffic sites and a big dedicated for a drupal.
Everything was fine, no surprises, and they have a soap API which allows you to automate everything from billing, to dns, machine creation/resize/destroy, etc.
My only caveat was about their custom kernels, but that is something usual in lot of providers.
The Kimsufi 2 G offer is only for members of the EU.
1. The French site will only sell to EU residents
2. The UK site will only sell to UK residents
3. The Irish site will sell to Irish, Canadian, and US residents
So it's not strictly true that it's only for members of the EU, but Canada/US seem to be the only exceptions, and only if you order from ovh.ie.
That's totally unrelated to their service though. Lots of companies have an exclusivity policy.
Nothing to do with whatever development happens in their servers done by their customers.
* Their management interface is garbage, especially compared to sites like Linode. Pay your bills, restart the server, cpu graphs, set up rDNS and that's about it.
* Customer support response times tend to be ~1day or more.
* The network has been down for a period of over an hour twice this year.
However, for the value for money in terms of hardware, I don't mind overlooking the above, especially considering it's just a game server.
For anything more important, you might want to consider other providers, though I'm sure customer support is better on the higher end packages which come with phone support and so on.
Vanilla has had 14 people without issue. It's CPU usage is minimal compared to the FTB pack. Could probably go to 20 or 30 with no issue.
But there is a option called "netboot" which looks like it might be what you are looking for, but unfortunately I can't try it now on any of my servers.
Not as efficient as a direct console access, but for the occasional "Oh , I just firewalled myself" moment, it's enough.
untested? OVH is one of the top-5 ISPs world-wide. They are anything but untested.
(I believe its £2.49 without VAT, £2.99 with VAT included)
> £2.49 excl. VAT /month
> ( £2.99 VAT inc)
I suspect the error here is confusing the VAT inclusive cost with the cost of the VAT alone.