Linode Simplifies Plans, Reveals CPU Priority

https://www.linode.com/

by john2373 • 14 years ago

115 91 14 years ago

FreeKill• 14 years ago

I wonder how these new plans will affect existing users. My plan falls directly between two of these simplified plans. The prices seem the same still, so it would cost me $15 more a month to increase to closest new package.

TheSwordsman• 14 years ago

caker (the CEO) mentioned in IRC that current users will be able to resize in to those plans for the times being, they just won't be able to add new Linodes with those plans.

kyrra• 14 years ago

Linode forum discussion on this topic (that I could find): http://forum.linode.com/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=9544

And maybe I'm just ignorant on the topic, but what exactly does CPU priority do here? I understand basic linux process priority (like the 'nice' command), but how exactly does CPU priority behave on linode. Searching through their docs, I couldn't find anything.

EDIT: to maybe answer my own question, maybe this is the Xen credit schedule? http://wiki.xen.org/wiki/Credit_Scheduler

agwa• 14 years ago

2x CPU priority may simply mean that you're sharing the host with 1/2 as many other guests (and each guest is guaranteed at least its equal share of the CPU). They've stated publicly in the past that larger Linodes share the host with proportionally fewer other guests.

mashmac2• 14 years ago

What do they mean by CPU Priority?

I'm assuming that meant access to part of a processor, but how does that work with 4 CPU and 16x priority? (I'm working on the assumption that 1x priority ~= 1 core.) Of course, my assumption is probably wrong - just curious how this affects the load on a given server and how the VPS interacts with other VPS's on that node.

wmf4• 14 years ago

It's probably arbitrary units, so 16x just means 16 times more than 1x. I suspect that 1x is something like 1/8 or 1/4 of a core.

supersaiyan• 14 years ago

But the server configuration of 16x is different then 1x, they wouldn't be hosted on the same server; I still don't understand what the priority is relative to

cllns• 14 years ago

Weird they haven't updated their blog with a post about this.

larrys• 14 years ago

Anyone care to share their experience with linode.com vs. http://prgmr.com/xen/ ?

(We setup a few vps's with rackspace and have been happy so far.)

cowsaysoink• 14 years ago

They are kind of different beasts. Linode can spin servers up and down rather quickly and you can deploy different OS's all through the online menu.

Prgmr you buy a machine send an ssh key they set it up and send you the bill. Then you get a login console at xxxxxx.prgmr.com and login and setup a user or deploy your own OS using centos recovery. But you can't create and destroy servers like linode or aws or rackspace.

MatthewPhillips• 14 years ago

I've had a couple prgmr VPSes for about a year and I'll say this: I've never had any interruptions, they are always fast when sshed into, and make good web servers. The only problem, and its kind of a big one, is that support sucks. Reseting your ssh key (which I stupidly have needed to do a couple of times) takes about 3 days. You send them an email and they respond... eventually. But you get what you pay for and its hard to ask for much service when you're paying those low prices. For the price, the servers themselves are awesome.

I'm switching to Azure because their prices are reasonable and you get the full management experience.

thegyppo3• 14 years ago

Fairly similar performance, but almost $20 difference in price.

Here's some data comparing the 1GB plans:

Linode 1GB: http://serverbear.com/13-linode-1024-linode

Prgmr 1GB: http://serverbear.com/1709-1024mib-prgmr-com

nemesisj• 14 years ago

We've had a great experience with Linode, horrible with Rackspace. Rackspace London is a disaster - I'd stay far away from them if possible.

matthewking• 14 years ago

Would you mind sharing more? I've never heard a bad thing about Rackspace.

Zolomon• 14 years ago

Out of curiosity; wouldn't a Raspberry Pi be sufficient for the lower levels if you don't account for reliability and high-performance?

I am very happy at the moment managing two Linode accounts, one for personal use and another for an organization I am the IT guy for.

thegyppo3• 14 years ago

From my testing the Raspberry Pi benchmarks similar to the Amazon Micro instance. Happy to post some results if you want to see them.

jaytaylor• 14 years ago

Linode has consistently amazed me with their stable service and excellent customer support. I've only needed support a handful of times, but when I submitted tickets a response usually came within 10 minutes, and has never took more than 30 minutes (during normal pacific-time business hours).

I've had fewer issues with my Linode hosts than with EC2. Granted, the services offered by EC2 are much more advanced -- VPC, routing, firewalls, NAT, etc.. so perhaps this is to be expected.

citricsquid• 14 years ago

I've been with Linode for just over 2 years now (I think my monthly bill is just north of $300, about 10 instances with them) and I'd highly recommend them. I've had maybe 4 or 5 servers down over my life as a customer, normally due to ~10 minute network issues and I once had a server go down due to the host machine and I had it back in 30 minutes.

The best thing about Linode is the support: if an issue happens they open a ticket with me and if I reply with questions / clarifications I'm replied to within a couple of minutes. Their pricing is a bit higher than elsewhere but after having shitty experiences with another company (vps.net) I decided to bite the bullet and switch and haven't regretted it since.

The billing isn't as flexible as EC2 (but then I guess they're different markets) however you get pro-rated payments to the day. So a server up for 10 days will cost 33% of the monthly cost and they refund the amount to you in account credit when you remove the server. Flexible enough that it can be helpful when you just need a server for a couple of days. Oh and their nodebalancer product is great.

I have seen complaints about one of their datacentres having some issues (Newark) but I can't comment on that as I use their London datacentre almost exclusively.

jbarham• 14 years ago

I use Linode for the name servers for my DNS hosting service SlickDNS (https://www.slickdns.com) and am very happy overall with their stability and performance (much better than EC2 at the low end).

DigitalSea• 14 years ago

I've only been with Linode for a year or so after coming previously from a Mediatemple Gs plan which costs the same per month but lacks in performance. I've found Linode's support to be better than expected, I am somewhat new to administering my own server via a command line and accidentally destroyed my site and they were able to bring it back for me (a configuration issue somewhere deep when trying to setup email). I've had nothing but a great experience with Linode not-to-mention their helpful guides for installing Nginx, Memcached, Wordpress (via command line) and offer third party apps definitely helps considering I am no system administrator by any means.

I am currently hosting one major site running Wordpress on my Linode box which gets roughly 17,000 uniques per month coupled with a plethora of other domain names and blogs (about 10 other sites) they don't get as nearly as much traffic though I have running on their 512mb plan and I haven't hit any kind of resource limit in terms of CPU, space, memory or bandwidth just yet. I am pretty amazed a small 512mb configured correctly can handle what I've thrown at it.

If you're new to managing your own server, get their $5 per month backup service (trust me, you'll need it). Because as you're learning, you're going to potentially destroy and break your site a lot and it's easier to revert to a backup than it is to decipher and fix Linux configuration issues when you have no idea where to start or even search on Google. Restoring from a backup is pretty quick as well.

My limited experience with VPS hosting (I've dabbled with Rackspace before and a Mediatemple Dedicated Virtual server as well) is pretty limited, but I have yet to see an affordable host allow you to destroy, create and rebuild instances so quickly like Linode allows you too.

dotBen• 14 years ago

Linode keeps instances homogeneous, so only the same type/size of instance exists on a given bare-metal machine.

Unless that's changed, that would mean that all instances running on a given machine share the same CPU Priority, there will just be fewer instances demanding service from the CPU(s) the larger the plan you have.

...so wondering if that's what CPU Priority means, or if Linode is about to mix instance sizes on same hardware?

salman89• 14 years ago

Great question. If only the same type/size exists on a machine, then these priority numbers are just a rough measure of relative CPU power (between plans).

taligent2• 14 years ago

Have they updated their security and disclosure policies ? If not they can remain in my "dodgy vendor who you can't trust" list.

For those that don't remember hackers managed to get root access to several VPS via some Linode vulnerability. Didn't bother to let customers know. Didn't bother to update their status/website. Didn't bother to tell anyone what they've done to fix it. Compare that with CloudFlare: http://blog.cloudflare.com/post-mortem-todays-attack-apparen...

Linode continues to be a recurring example of how not to behave as a vendor.

whalesalad• 14 years ago

Continues? I've been a happy Linode customer for a long time. Their boxes are snappy. I rarely have issues, and when I do, they are pretty quick to respond and help out. I've also had my fare share of free hosting thanks to their referral platform.

Aside from the issue you mention, what else have they been doing wrong?

taligent2• 14 years ago

Congratulations. I was a happy Linode customer too until I had to find out from Reddit that a major security hack had occurred and my VPS had potentially been rooted. I don't recall every receiving an email from Linode about it.

And the fact is that every single day that passes without them updating their security/disclosure policies and showing some commitment to transparency is another day they will be classed as "untrustworthy".

jspthrowaway23• 14 years ago

If you are referring to the Bitcoin incident, the only accurate statement in your comment is that hackers managed to gain root access on several VPS. The rest of it is nowhere remotely close to the truth:

http://status.linode.com/2012/03/manager-security-incident.h...

You were very active in the very forum thread wherein the announcement was posted by another customer, not half a dozen posts above you, so I find it hard to believe this falsehood is not intentional:

http://forum.linode.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=8509

Considering the grandstanding you did in that forum thread and are continuing to do here with your overly aggressive (and false) commentary, I question whether you have some kind of overt agenda against Linode that is clouding any message you might have. Every company makes mistakes, and Linode, in my opinion, handled this one as appropriately as they could have; were it Amazon, who are far more secretive (particularly with outages), we might have never known.

thaumaturgy3• 14 years ago

taligent's primary complaint seems to boil down to Linode not making a public statement about the problem until after one of the affected individuals had taken his case to Reddit.

I don't think that's an unreasonable complaint. I'm still a pretty enthusiastic Linode customer, but that incident bothers me a little bit too. I have to wonder if they would have addressed the problem publicly at all if the story hadn't made the rounds on the social news sites.

You shouldn't question his motives unless you have something more solid to go on than, "unhappy former customer".

MichaelGG3• 14 years ago

I am consistently surprised how many VM hosts refuse to tell you what your CPU guarantees are. EC2 at least gives you a general equivalence to a specific hardware. Rackspace refuses to go into detail. Others I've spoken to will only commit to saying "core", without specifying what the reference hardware is. And even then, actually making sure you've got a commit of that CPU is a whole other issue. I think EC2's compute units are a commit, though.

Linode's "priority" seems like ex-Slicehost's way of saying "hey bigger machines get a higher proportion"... nothing really useful for figuring out exactly what you're buying.

And you can't ever really figure out what you have: things could be severely over-committed, and you'll never know until you get starved. So you can't just benchmark your way out of it.

spindritf• 14 years ago

> Others I've spoken to will only commit to saying "core", without specifying what the reference hardware is.

There's probably no reference hardware beyond `cat /proc/cpuinfo`.

patrickgzill• 14 years ago

Even that is not accurate... on an OpenVZ instance set for 2 cores, this command gives me the specs on the CPU, an E5405, twice. Of course, this chip actually has 4 cores, so to show only 2 is not really accurate.

On a nearly-identical XenServer instance, it shows the same info, showing 2 CPUs but identifying the CPU as a 6-core Opteron.

From this, however, you cannot infer what percentage of those 2 virtual CPUs that you are going to get.

astrodust2• 14 years ago

I used Slicehost and Linode in parallel until it was obvious that Linode's CPU performance was quite consistent and Slicehost's would waver from marginally better to significantly worse. This is probably because Linode is configured to use a fixed CPU time allocation method.

Amazon's CPU commitments are just as reliable as Linode's, but they seem to be less for the same dollar.

As for actual hardware, to go based on `/proc/cpuinfo`, some of the older instances I manage show up as Xeon L5420 CPUs at 2.5GHz, and the newer ones tend to be L5520 at 2.27GHz for what that's worth. They seem fairly consistent, and if you don't like what you get, just like AWS you can delete the instance and get a new one. You get refunded for your unused time.

maushu• 14 years ago

You get refunded for your unused time.

Please notice that the minimum time block is a day. If you spin an instance, you pay for the whole day.

seats6• 14 years ago

I cofounded slicehost and spent a lot of time at Rackspace thinking about this exact problem relative to Rackspace Cloud Servers.

The real issue is hardware skew. We like to buy/sell and build on cloud as if it is a pure utility where every unit is equivalent, but every year processors change, go EOL, etc. As a provider you have to make a call about how much of that complexity you expose to the end customer. Some customers want complete transparency, which I understand, but the downside of that is hundreds of variations of pricing options and complications around managing heterogeneity (e.g. how do you represent simply how much available capacity there is when you effectively have 300 variations of the same 'size' instance).

Of all the component parts of compute, CPU is the one that changes the quickest. Disk capacity is easy to model, disk throughput has changed much at all (minus the introduction of SSD), memory is pretty stable (minus some increases in databus rates). All in for the typical instance in a multi-tenant virtual environment, the same today as in 2006, the two most vaguely defined attributes are cpu and i/o. With the increasing use of 10gigE as well as SSD, hopefully we finally push through the i/o piece. Not sure what it will take to get us there for a clean way to model and describe 'standard cpu' as a provider.

Also, if anyone has specific questions about Slicehost cpu priority handling circa 2006-2008 or Rackspace Cloud Servers cpu pre OpenStack, just ask and I'll be happy to answer.

MichaelGG3• 14 years ago

Create some sort of composite performance profile, then give me CPU information in terms of that. EC2 sorta does this[1], and although it's far from precise, at least it gives us a rough guideline and is at least an actual statement on what we're going to get.

The other issue, which I don't see Rackspace (or Slicehost or many others) addressing is the actual commit. It's fine to say "you get 2 cores", but then not tell me if those are reserved or if they might be sometimes overcommitted. This is a larger issue, because it means things might work fine... until they don't.

(I tried one provider out, and things worked swell in all our tests, but rarely in production, the entire VM would get paused for a few hundred ms ore more; something that wouldn't happen if there was a non-over-commitment guarantee. Right?)

1: "One EC2 Compute Unit provides the equivalent CPU capacity of a 1.0-1.2 GHz 2007 Opteron or 2007 Xeon processor."

wmf4• 14 years ago

...every year processors change...300 variations of the same 'size' instance...

Shouldn't it be four variations? (Or maybe only two if you count a tick and a tock as the same.) Would it really kill providers to offer something like Nehalem-1C-4GB and SNB-1C-8GB?

geuis2• 14 years ago

@seats I've been a Slicehost customer for 3 years. Was very happy with the service until bought by Rackspace. Currently looking to migrate my servers to somewhere else, blah blah.

Any interest on your part in starting another VPS hosting company? I figure if you did it right once, you can do it again. You'd likely have a customer in me.

graue2• 14 years ago

It wasn't immediately clear to me what changed. Here's the old homepage:

http://web.archive.org/web/20110713211922/http://www.linode....

It appears Linode removed the 768 and 1536 plans, renamed the 1024/2048/4096 plans to 1GB/2GB/4GB, and added an 8GB plan. They also added a row in the table showing CPU priority. The 512 plan is unchanged, as are specs and prices for the other three remaining plans.

shuzchen2• 14 years ago

They didn't actually add an 8GB plan, they've always had larger plans, just too many to display on the landing page. If you went into pricing or tried to signup, the larger plans were always available. Since they scrubbed some plans I guess there's room for the 8GB on the landing page now.

mp99e992• 14 years ago

Since there are all VPS users here, what do you think is the best way to market a VPS product.. or rather, how did you end up becoming a Linode customer?

astrodust2• 14 years ago

The best way to market a VPS product is to make a better VPS product. Linode offers a very good product, but it could be better. Their dashboard and management utilities are better than most, but aren't especially manager friendly and don't scale well to teams.

My ideal VPS provider would be somewhere between Heroku and Linode, offering self-managed hosting when you want it, and fully-managed hosting where you need it.

mp99e992• 14 years ago

Since there are all VPS users here, what do you think is the best way to market a VPS product.. or rather, how did you end up becoming a Lin

swalberg2• 14 years ago

I'm actually disappointed. I liked the 768 package, it was big enough that you could run a fair amount of stuff [0], and cost only $30/month. I was planning on buying a new one over my Christmas holidays and moving my stuff over so I could get onto a newer CentOS. CPU has never been a problem, so this new priority is meaningless to me.

For my needs, $30/mo was about as much as I'd spend on a server to host mine and a few friend's blogs, some photos, and some remote services. $40 is too much for me and the lower plan just doesn't have enough RAM to be interesting.

So now my options are 1) find somewhere else, or 2) backup my data and rebuild the box in place.

0 - I manage a few Linode 768s including my own. 768 was a great size for a few small blogs and a low traffic Rails site, or a larger traffic blog.

aaroneous• 14 years ago

768 is still available as a resize option - not sure if that's a mistake though...

pygatea• 14 years ago

Another potential option is using a Linode 512 with "extra" RAM (see the Extras tab in the Linode Manager).

Additionally, I've always found the Linode support folks to be fairly accommodating, so maybe it's worth asking if they can still provision 768s.

swalberg2• 14 years ago

Yea, some people suggested that in the forums. It doesn't end up being the full 768 (which is not the end of the world) but you also lose the extra HDD and bandwidth so you're actually paying more at that point.

shiftpgdn• 14 years ago

Have you thought about switching over to a kimsufi.ie server? Your $30 will go a lot further and you're not sharing a disk or CPU. I'd only stick with linode if you need the scale-ability.

wtf242• 14 years ago

This is disappointing. My Rails app gets just enough traffic that it uses 1.2-1.4 gigs of ram on average. The 1.5 gig plan was perfect for me and I've used it without issues for years now.

andmarios• 14 years ago

The change (removal of some plans) is a couple weeks old.

About CPU priority, Linode never kept it a secret. For the small VPS (512MB RAM), you get a guaranteed 1/20 of a 4 core XEON processor and it scales linearly with each plan's RAM.

As explained on their FAQ, their machines have 8 cores each and house 40 512MB VPS.

twodayslate• 14 years ago

Why would someone get a linode when they can get a dedicated server for $15? http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4838729

JohnTheRipper3• 14 years ago

And why would they get a Linode when they can get a VPS from another provider for much, much cheaper? They don't bring much to the table for the price that a cheaper provider can't offer.

shuzchen2• 14 years ago

Features? Performance? A lot of people have benchmarked various cloud providers and Linode consistently gets high marks on CPU and disk IO. That particular $15/month dedicated gets you a single-core (!!!) Atom/Celeron processor. Who knows what hard drive they put on there. At $15 a month for a slot on the rack, I doubt it's any good.

For the longest time I lived on a single 512 linode, and ran 6 mid sized Django sites, all with postgres and redis on the same machine. I knew how to keep lean (taking advantage of varnish, nginx, uwsgi) and even used that linode for a ongoing mumble server and irc. I've since got more Linodes (grew with more sites) and split up the responsibilities, but I still remember getting a lot of performance out of that one little instance.

Also, Linode brings other features to the table, like a great API, easy to use dashboard, free nameserver, and availability in various geographic locations. Granted, my opinion is biased - I'm a really happy customer there. But I have had experience managing other machines on Slicehost (horrible experience) and EC2 (decent enough, but doesn't make me smile).

songgao• 14 years ago

Am I the only one here who thinks that for personal use, owning a server in house is a better choice than using a hosted VPS or server?

It's quite easy to get a decent micro HP server (even with SSD storage) within $1000, which would cost $150.00 - $300.00 a month for a equivalent plan on Linode. Suppose you upgrade your server every two years, the monthly cost of the server is less than $50. You get dedicated CPU time and I/O, permissions to managing everything.

Internet bandwidth might be a problem. But let's put ourselves in the 2 or 3 years future. What if you already have Gigabit Internet like Google Fiber for $70/mo?

And you get other benefits for owning a server in your house. Since it's connected to your home LAN, it can be used to help build a smart home, control smart sensors/cameras, or serve as a media server.

Am I missing something here?

jacques_chester• 14 years ago

> Am I missing something here?

You are missing a lot of things.

1. Linode et al buy top-end hardware. It is, generally, going to be more reliable.

2. Linode et al have redundancy in multiple parts of their system. Redundant power, redundant networking, redundant disks, redundancy all over the damn place. A server sitting in a hallway closet does not have these advantages.

3. Finally, you assume that your time is worthless; as in having a $0/hr value.

I charge a lot more than $0/hr for my time. If, in actual fact, I could successfully farm out my little Wordpress blog network to a reliable host who charged a lot more than Linode, I would do so in a heartbeat because it makes financial and hair-pulling sense.

I farm out the management of physical servers to Linode for the same reason. I am nearly 32, my time is expensive, my patience is short and my interest in hardware has long since abated because I have other shit to do. Linode is a bargain from my POV.

raylu• 14 years ago

Yes. Your home internet connection is not nearly as reliable as a datacenter's. (Also, you have guests over and the 5 year old unplugs the machine. Your home catches on fire or, worse, you decide to move to another city.)

JohnTheRipper3• 14 years ago

There's quite a bit that you're missing.

Let's start with point #1. You're paying $1000 upfront. With a VPS, you can pay a few bucks per month to get very decent performance (assuming you go with a LEB instead of a overpriced Linode). You assume that you could use your home internet, but the reality of that is that almost every consumer ISP on the face of the earth won't allow customers to run servers. Can you get away with it? Usually, yes. Is it a good idea? Not at all.

Why spend the equivalent of $50/mo? You can get budget dedicated servers for that price range, with a heck of a lot better network resources, and no need to maintain your own hardware.

Really, there's a ridiculously long list of reasons that running any public-facing server from your home is a horrible idea. Take the game server I used to run as an example — I'd be completely and utterly screwed if my home connection was getting 4Gbps DDoS attacks, yet with it being on a remote server, I have options to mitigate it or even ignore it (nullroute, yay).

Edit: There's a ridiculously long list of reasons why home-hosting is bad.

lsc• 14 years ago

If you have fibre to your home and a UPS and are okay dealing with the hardware? sure. You are better off. (cooling, in most places, is unlikely to be a huge deal if you only have one server. You'll cook before the computers will.)

The last mile is a huge problem. If we all get gigabit fibre to the home in a few years? everything will change, and of course, you will be right.

But, here in reality, if you want a network connection with a decent upload speed and decent reliability, you are paying a kilobuck or more a month. 'round here, it's usually $3-$5K/month for 100 to 1000Mbps (Up; you can get 100M down from comcast for like $400, but that's only 10M up.) and this is silicon valley. the place is lousy with dark fiber.

(It's better if you live in Santa Clara or Palo Alto; both places have municipal fiber. But you are still talking tens of kilobucks to get the fiber from the street to your house, and that's if you are very close to the city fiber, and then you've gotta buy bandwidth at a datacenter.)

But yeah, all that said, there are some places with decent last-mile internet; sacramento has had surewest FTTH for far longer than google has. Some areas, Verizon does it. Maybe we will all have it in a few years? It sure would be nice. But I ain't holdin' my breath.

ry0ohki• 14 years ago

And then a hurricane hits and you lose power for a week... (this was the event that deterred my super smart plan of hosting in my house years ago)

sethg• 14 years ago

For the things I actually use a personal server for, $150/month is overkill. A server that used to handle my family’s email\* and runs my personal Web site runs just fine on my Linode 512. Heck, if they offered a “256” plan with half the capacity for $9.95/month, I’d be tempted to switch to that.

\* I moved to gmail, not because of cost, but because I got tired of managing the spam filter.

contingencies• 14 years ago

I recently evaluated some cloud providers. There were differences of 10x latency for a bunch of basic (unix filesystem plus some bash script) level operations between EC2 and Rackspace. The Rackspace people failed to take complaints seriously, so we took our business elsewhere.

EC2 is good but their spin-up time is crap.

Though same-kernel is obviously a security reduction, the speed is far better: I for one can't wait to see more LXC and other lightweight virt stuff being made available with real cgroup-level guarantees.

wmf4• 14 years ago

...differences of 10x latency ... between EC2 and Rackspace...

Was that PV vs. HVM by any chance?

Tichy2• 14 years ago

I've heard good things about Linode, but ultimately, why not get a dedicated server for just a little more money? I pay 30€/month for mine with Hetzner, yesterday there was another host with prices starting from 10€?

So what is the appeal of Linode? That you can upgrade to a faster server quickly?

raverbashing• 14 years ago

Some things may be a factor

- If you hardware says goodbye, your server says goodbye as well. It needs to be physically rebuilt. With Linode, maintenance time means your server shuts down here and reboots somewhere else.

- Can you reinstall your server, pick a new distro automatically?

- Can you add more memory or more storage to your server with a click?

Tichy2• 14 years ago

I'm not much of an admin, but is it so much easier to transfer a virtual image to another server than to transfer an installation from one server to another?

Presumably as long as the server your VM sits on has more memory than your VM, you can increase memory easily. But the maximum might only be what a dedicated server would have given you from the start?

Edit: I just checked, seems Hetzner has a server with 16GB RAM for 49€/month (64$). The maximum Linode VM with 8GB sets you back 320€/month.

It seems the 49€ is the cheapest standard Hetzner server atm, but you can get cheaper ones via their auctions. Of course then if you need more memory you have to move server, not sure how complicated that really is...

MattBearman• 14 years ago

While I love Linode (It's my VPS host of choice) it's always bothered me they don't do any kind of volume discount - ie: the cost of 8 GB is just 32 times that of the 512 MB.

I was hoping this change would rectify that, wishful thinking I suppose.

ovi256• 14 years ago

The CPU priority may be considered a volume discount.

Linode Simplifies Plans, Reveals CPU Priority

Related Stories