VPS Compare – compare worldwide VPS servers

Re:VPS Compare – compare worldwide VPS servers by nonuby on Friday March 20, 2015 @10:08PM (#9241631)

Be careful X core means nothing reliable, for 99.9% of VPS providers, they are not dedicated nor rated and could be divisible by up to 2000 guests (particularly with OpenVZ provider), at least on Rackspace, AWS, Azure the CPU performance is generally within a specific range (variability due to minor hardware config differences, and noisy neighbours, but appropriately restrained). In addition 99.5% of these providers don't have the sufficient knowledge to run a VPS operation, they purchase a few dedicated servers and copy of SolusVM and WHMCS and hope and pray for the best.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:VPS Compare – compare worldwide VPS servers by bgroins on Friday March 20, 2015 @10:21PM (#9241648)

99.9% of VPS providers 2000 guests 99.5% of these providers

Where are these figures coming from?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:VPS Compare – compare worldwide VPS servers by jlgaddis on Friday March 20, 2015 @11:33PM (#9241778)

I work for an ISP and can put as many machines in our datacenters as I want (within reason, of course) so I only have a few (small) VPSes nowadays. When I used to have a bunch of them, however, I quickly learned to avoid anything OpenVZ-based like the plague.

This is anecdotal, of course, but OpenVZ "feels" very much inferior and the providers running OpenVZ (more often than not) very much seemed like fly-by-night operations simply trying to squeeze as many VMs as possible onto a physical host without any regard to performance.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:VPS Compare – compare worldwide VPS servers by IgorPartola on Saturday March 21, 2015 @08:11AM (#9242521)

I've had the same experience. Xen and KVM seem to be best for predictable performance.

[ Parent | on HN ]