NHacker Next
  • new
  • past
  • show
  • ask
  • show
  • jobs
  • submit
Is the RAM shortage killing small VPS hosts? (fourplex.net)
ZenoArrow 2 hours ago [-]
I'd see Chinese RAM manufacturers like CXMT filling the void left in the market for consumer-grade RAM modules, I appreciate they face challenges (like lack of access to cutting edge EUV machines), but the RAM just needs to be fast enough and affordable enough for the average user for these companies to make significant inroads into the market that Micron, Samsung and SK Hynix are abandoning to chase the AI server market.
filloooo 21 minutes ago [-]
Their scale is simply too small to affect the market outside China, majority of their chips will be eaten up by HBM3 production with yet unknown yield rate.

They are forbidden to buy foreign equipment beyond their current process node, which is already obsolete, die size is 40% bigger than Samsung, not to mention lithography, the big 3 are using EUV while they are stuck with lobotomized DUV.

They can start making some decent money now, but vastly expanding capacity as is means enormous losses if the cycle went downward a few years later, that's how all previous makers went bankrupt.

They can squeeze out a bit more performance if they are ready to go beyond their current node using only domestic equipment and be blacklisted by the US government.

But the cap is there, unless they can make a working EUV machine in 5 years, they are doomed to be a minor player, if the current cycle even lasts that long.

alecco 1 hours ago [-]
They will first fill the local demand for all their electronics manufacturing. Then their massive computer infra and AI. And if any is left, it will be bundled to local PC exporters like Lenovo.
nerdsniper 59 minutes ago [-]
It’s fine if it’s just filling Chinese manufacturing. Low-cost VPS hosts are going to be using brands like Supermicro anyways. It still gets exported.

Except for RAM from YMTC, which the USA gave a near-death sentence to by placing it on the Dept. of Commerce “Entity List” so no USA-associated business can do business with YMTC now.

neelc 40 minutes ago [-]
This is true.

We use ASRock Rack servers, mainly because the only option for our industry are OEMs like Supermicro and ASRock. Dell and HPE are non-starters, except for our "storage" offering.

Back in 2019, HPE was a good midrange option. Then came ASRock Rack who obliterated HPE with the X470D4U, relegating HPE to high-end enterprise servers. But also made Ryzen-based VPS hosts including yours truly, BuyVM, et al.

neelc 29 minutes ago [-]
I am very hopeful of CXMT. But then then it could take a while for them to ramp up production. Maybe by then, the AI bubble would've burst.

One problem with US sanctions is it could hurt US companies too, like in the case of cutting-edge EUV and CXMT. This is when China is actually a hero and not a villain.

dist-epoch 2 hours ago [-]
China also needs RAM for AIs, especially since they have plenty of electrical power and building speed to pump out data-centers.
actionfromafar 1 hours ago [-]
Turns out their wind "opercapacity" maybe isn't. Maybe they are trading chip efficiency for raw power.
bee_rider 1 hours ago [-]
Something I’ve been sort of wondering about—LLM training seems like it ought to be the most dispatchable possible workload (easy to pause the thing when you don’t have enough wind power, say). But, when I’ve brought this up before people have pointed out that, basically, top-tier GPU time is just so valuable that they always want to be training full speed ahead.

But, hypothetically if they had a ton of previous gen GPUs (so, less efficient) and a ton of intermittent energy (from solar or wind) maybe it could be a good tradeoff to run them intermittently?

Ultimately a workload that can profitably consumer “free” watts (and therefore flops) from renewable overprovisioning would be good for society I guess.

realusername 2 hours ago [-]
That's probably what is going to happen, it's a strategic opportunity for the Chinese government here, there's a big market demand that can fuel their domestic production capabilities that nobody wants to take.
giantrobot 25 minutes ago [-]
It would be a strategic opportunity for Intel, if they weren't run by imbeciles. DDR4 doesn't require the latest and greatest nodes. It's boring old technology. Even DDR5 is pretty boring. Intel could clean up fabbing DRAM (like they used to). But alas no. They're part of the semiconductor cartel and uninterested in the supply of DRAM increasing. Prices would drop and the fabs would only make stupid margins instead of disgusting margins.
dpedu 59 minutes ago [-]
While not a small host, I thought I would mention what I observed with OVH's VPS offering. I was considering their line of VPSes recently because of how generous the cores/ram quantities were given the price. For example, the smallest offering is 4 cores / 8GB at just over $4 a month.

What I found is that it is cheap because the cores, and presumably ram, is old. Like, 2013 era Xeon E3-1275 v3 old. But that's fine! Old hardware like this uses old ram that is less affected by the current shortage. It's good enough for my needs.

neelc 17 minutes ago [-]
I previously ran another VPS host who did the same exact thing (before OVH did it?).

Unlike Fourplex.net which uses modern ASRock Ryzen 9000 servers, Qeru.net used older HPE DL360 Gen9 servers.

I gave 3GB of RAM for $3-4/mo then. But these servers weren't very fast. I ended up selling the business, and am happy I did.

miyuru 2 hours ago [-]
Most low-end providers will just keep using old hardware for longer.

IPv4 shortages didn’t kill it, and I don’t think this will either.

neelc 26 minutes ago [-]
For providers like us, we have to lease IPv4. We came long after IPv4 was already depleted. IPv4 prices did go down. Despite that, the $15/year 128MB BuyVM plan is long-gone.

But for a new provider like us, we'd have to spend more than an established player like BuyVM or RackNerd who bought most of their servers pre-AI-boom.

1970-01-01 1 hours ago [-]
Exactly this. The old hardware from a year ago is fine as the typical use-case for a VPS didn't change.
Tiberium 1 hours ago [-]
I don't know if you can consider Netcup "small", but their RS 4000 G12 ("root server", basically a VPS with dedicated/guaranteed resources) costs ~€31 for a monthly contract for any location in Europe without VAT included.

It's 12 dedicated cores of a modern EPYC CPU, 32GB RAM, 1TB NVMe.

I got that offer during their Black Friday sale and pay €25/month (price before VAT), plus the offer I got has a 2TB NVMe instead of the 1TB one.

megous 55 minutes ago [-]
So with 8 customers per box (AMD EPYC™ 9645 CPU has 96 cores) if they have single-cpu boxes, that would need 256 GiB RAM.

CPU launch price 11000 USD. RAM will likely be another 10000 USD

20000 / 8 customers / 40 USD/mo = 62 months just to recoup CPU and RAM let alone other components.

Weird, whenever I napkin math offers of any HW for renting, I get that I could buy it myself in 1-2 years of rent. Sometimes faster.

Do they not intend to recoup the costs of HW? :)

saidinesh5 2 hours ago [-]
Out of curiosity, what advantages do the small VPS hosts offer compared to the big 3 (AWS, Azure, Google Cloud)? Customer Service? Pricing? Local Data Center?
zeagle 2 hours ago [-]
Until recently I had a 4gb ram 80gb ssd+2tb hd VPS running debian in a Montreal data centre with a real use 700 mbit pipe to my city with a budget provider for the equivalent of $80USD/year. When fio speeds were slow they moved me to a less crowded server. I gave it up as don't need it and moved my personal sites back to NFS for peanuts a year and services to my NAS. The pricing, offsite storage for my backups, Canadian sovereignty, lack of perceived complexity with a big provider was all attractive. I'm a physician with a tech hobby and last serious tech work was in the LAMP days with perl and php. Trying to think of learning about AWS and screwing up usage based billing was daunting!
sysworld 2 hours ago [-]
Yeah, don't try AWS. I tried it once and now I'm stuck with $0 bill emails coming each month that I can't stop.
enlyth 2 hours ago [-]
A few months ago I was going through my secondary email and noticed I was getting a $0.01 monthly bill from AWS.

Having not used AWS for years, I logged in to check it out, navigated through the Kafkaesque maze of their services until I found what I was looking for:

A lone S3 storage bucket, with one file, "Squirrel.jpg". A 200kB picture of a squirrel that I uploaded 8 years ago and can't remember why.

baby_souffle 1 hours ago [-]
> I was getting a $0.01 monthly bill from AWS.

I wonder what the cost to AWS was for keeping track of that and running your CC. There's no way they made money off you / that 12 cents/year cost them *at least* 12 cents to collect every year

zeagle 1 hours ago [-]
That's funny. I kept getting a -$100 bill from a credit card for a few months after closing it. Eventually called them and suggested they can send me a cheque instead of a bill next time for similar reasons...
enlyth 1 hours ago [-]
IIRC the CC they had on hand had long expired and they never actually managed to charge me for these minuscule amounts, which is why I didn't notice it for so long.
bluedino 1 hours ago [-]
My vps provider bills in $5 blocks
gopher_space 1 hours ago [-]
> Trying to think of learning about AWS and screwing up usage based billing was daunting!

One of the hard rules we learned pre-pandemic was that services attached to usage based billing should really exit on error. It's a lesson I'm keeping in mind working with agents and routing (and the main reason I'm local-first).

xmcp123 2 hours ago [-]
Much better prices, and simplicity. The power you get from Hetzner or Kimsufi is crazy compared to AWS.

If I need to host something small, I don’t want to mess around with the many permissions and quirks that are required to deal with AWS. It is often much easier to just setup the server on a standalone service.

neelc 21 minutes ago [-]
This.

When I worked at Microsoft, I seldom used Azure for personal use due to it being expensive and complicated.

Whereas I have plenty of Fourplex.net servers because even on half the salary, it's affordable enough for 16 Tor exit relays and two personal web/email/Mastodon servers.

piou 52 minutes ago [-]
Most of my customers (small VPS host here) don't like the companies behind AWS, Azure, and Google Cloud, especially the amount of influence they have in the world and how they wield it. And the pricing often isn't that much different between a small VPS host and either a cloud provider or one of the larger VPS providers (Akamai/Linode, Digital Ocean, etc.) - larger providers have eoncomies of scale, but smaller providers don't have as much overhead for paying sales and C-suite.

There's also the human touch in terms of who you talk to: a lot of the smallest VPS hosts are 1-2 people, both technical, so customer support = sysadmin = contact for everything.

joseda-hg 1 hours ago [-]
I could pay like 30 bucks a month for an absolutely overspecc'd VPS (64GB/16c) that would cost around 20X on AWS (According to ChatGPT; which sounds about right based on the last time I cared to even look into it)

Does it have a billion 9's of reliability? No, but I don't care, it has literally never not worked when I've used it

Customer Service so far has been human, but that will vary greatly for the provider

I also use a different provider for work related hosting, and the reduced latency of being within 20 ms of the DC has been probably the single biggest (perceived) perf improvement my users have ever seen, specially on the legacy webforms platform we recently decomissioned (We're a bit too geographically far for most Datacenters of most large providers)

atomicnumber3 2 hours ago [-]
I'd use digital ocean over AWS for any SMB or lean startup (so... anyone not attached to an infinite money hose that has to either scale to NEED AWS, or die trying) just because of 1) their UI not being broken glass you have to crawl over and 2) not having eight trillion features that make doing simple things hard and 3) pricing
OkayPhysicist 2 hours ago [-]
If the only thing you need is "server, accessible via the internet, always online", and you're not interested in all the vendor lock-in masquerading as useful services offered by the big cloud providers, then small VPS hosts are 100% the way to go. For mid-sized servers they're cheaper (i.e., stuff that wouldn't be free on the big clouds, but not "I want a petaflop"), with more transparent pricing (I pay $12, every month. If I get inundated with traffic, I'll get cut off until I choose to pay more).
b00ty4breakfast 2 hours ago [-]
I used a vps service hosted in a country with strong digital privacy laws to host a personal wireguard+pihole vpn. I could probably think up a decent argument why that privacy with the smaller guy was only nominal but I could absolutely think up a good argument why doing that on a big name would have no privacy guarantees at all, especially as someone who would be in the bottom rung payment-wise.

Never had problems with downtime and I payed, like, 40 bucks a year over 3 years. I think I had to restart the thing once because of something dumb I did on my end.

MagicMoonlight 54 minutes ago [-]
The only advantage is cheapness, for personal use.

If you’re a government agency or a company you don’t care about saving $14/month, you want a secure provider. And these hosts are not secure, you’re basically just on your own.

qwertox 1 hours ago [-]
Price. 1 vCore, 2GB RAM, 20GB SSD, unlimited traffic (though throttled to 200mbit/s after transferring 2TB within 24 hours) = 1.85€

That is a nice way to have a static IP on the internet and enough resources to do small things like host a nameserver and/or OpenVPN/Wireguard.

I may have had 4 hours of downtime in one year, always announced days in advance.

ezequiel-garzon 1 hours ago [-]
Spending caps is the biggest reason for me. Granted, some VPS don't offer this (vital!) feature, but none of the big 3 or similar services do.
graemep 2 hours ago [-]
Low cost, simplicity and customer service.

AWS does offer Lightsail which is similar pricing.

vbezhenar 2 hours ago [-]
Small VPS hosts oversell like crazy and they offer much lower prices. Also their reliability might be worse, because they don't migrate VM between hosts.
buckle8017 2 hours ago [-]
10-100x cheaper
stephenr 1 hours ago [-]
Others have mentioned the general pricing, simplicity etc.

Outbound data pricing is a potentially huge saving.

AWS is as much as $90/TB outbound with 1GB free. Hetzner is $1.20/TB (in EU and US) with 1TB/20TB (US/EU) free.

(Good) Smaller places are more likely to have actual technical staff you can talk to.

gruturo 1 hours ago [-]
Predictable and extremely low costs for less critical stuff. My 2 main ones are respectively around 4 and 8 EUR per _year_.

I use them to run wireguard to evade geoblocks when I'm travelling, a few redundant monitoring scripts alerting me of reachability issues of more critical stuff I care about, they serve as contingency access channels to my home (and home assistant) if my primary channels are down.

I get no support, no updates, it's all on me - which is fine, it allows me to stay current and not lose hands-on practice on skills which I anyway need for my job (and which are anyway my passion). I don't even get an entire IPv4 - I get.... 1/3000th of it? (21 ports, the rest are forwarded to other customers). Suits me fine.

drnick1 2 hours ago [-]
Where small VPS hosts can make a difference: require no KYC, accept crypto payments.
yomismoaqui 2 hours ago [-]
Simplicity, price, stability.
Insanity 2 hours ago [-]
Not being US owned can be an important one in this geopolitical climate.
ddtaylor 1 hours ago [-]
I like Vultr for the simplicity of my own projects. I really hate spending my time on provisioning and similar labyrinths.
znpy 2 hours ago [-]
Simplicity, and low price.

VPS services are usually really, really simple and fairly cheap.

I'd say that actually VPS prices is where we actually see computing prices going down rather than on the big 3.

AWS used to optimize further and pass down the savings to the customers back in the day, now they don't do it anymore.

2 hours ago [-]
renewiltord 2 hours ago [-]
Pricing. They overprovision aggressively but most people actually just need a 0.1 CPU available remotely for the majority of their use cases.

I replaced with a home server and it costs way more just in power hahaha.

nicoburns 2 hours ago [-]
Pricing (both cheaper and more predictable), and reduced complexity.
nozzlegear 2 hours ago [-]
This is why I moved off of Azure and over to Hetzner's US VPS's. For what I was deploying (a few dozen websites, some relatively complex .NET web apps, some automated scripts, etc.), the pricing on Azure just wasn't competitive. But worse for me was the complexity; I found that using Azure encouraged me to introduce more and more complex deployment pipelines, when all I really needed was Build the container -> SCP it into a blue/green deployment scheme on a VPS -> flip a switch after testing it.
saidinesh5 2 hours ago [-]
Interesting. I'd have thought these giants would have better pricing because of the scale...
pinkgolem 2 hours ago [-]
The last comparison I did was Hetzner offers 14x the performance per dollar

Not including the faster SSD & included traffic

nicoburns 2 hours ago [-]
They might be if they were trying to compete on price. But my understanding is their margins are... healthy shall we say.
bombcar 2 hours ago [-]
They're selling all their capabilities; using them as a VPS is like using a battleship to cut cheese.

But if all you really do with cloud stuff is "ssh into a server I have" (which covers a ton!) then you'll find much cheaper/more performant elsewhere.

vel0city 2 hours ago [-]
They give potentially worse pricing on a lot of the basic things (egress bandwidth, basic VM hosting, storage pricing) because their real value-add are all the extra managed services they offer on top of those things, the scale they're able to offer, and the more enterprise features.

If you're using AWS/GCP/Azure to just host a couple of VMs for a small group you're massively overpaying.

unethical_ban 1 hours ago [-]
I haven't been professionally involved in AWS in some time, and never was involved in pricing.

Personally, the only thing I know of that is a true deal vs. competition is cold storage of data. Using the s3 glacier tiers for long term data that is saved solely for emergencies is really cheap, something like $1/100GB a month or less.

AWS is usually not the cheapest EVER when it comes to offerings like EC2. If you aren't doing cloud-native or serverless at AWS, you're probably spending too much.

cynicalsecurity 2 hours ago [-]
They don't. AWS is the most expensive hosting provider in the world.
stephenr 1 hours ago [-]
AWS outbound data is as much as 75x the cost of eg Hetzner.

I view a large percentage of "cloud" usage like Teslas stock price: it's completely detached from reality by people who have drunk the kool aid and can't get out.

ReptileMan 2 hours ago [-]
Not being Amazon, Microsoft and Google.
iammjm 2 hours ago [-]
I moved from AWS to Hetzner, because: 1. lower prices, 2. not American
conductr 2 hours ago [-]
If everyone is being hit by the same cost issues, small VPS hosts just need to charge more to operate the same. Most small VPS hosts are dirt cheap and I don't think many people would be shocked if prices go up in this environment.
layer8 1 hours ago [-]
Yes, even if prices would triple, VPSs would still be an attractive offering.
croes 1 hours ago [-]
At a certain price people choose not to buy
MagicMoonlight 56 minutes ago [-]
Small VPS hosts shouldn’t really exist. They’re either resellers or just half-assing it.

How can you trust Gary from GaryHosting not to just steal all your data? How can you trust him to have redundant networks? You just can’t.

RiverCrochet 42 minutes ago [-]
Ideally all cloud applications hostable on any platform would just provide the following services to clients:

A. rendezvous services so clients can connect to one another,

B. storage/retrieval of encrypted data where the host does not have the key to decrypt,

C. transport of encrypted data which cannot be known by the host due to B above.

> How can you trust him to have redundant networks

You can't, so abstract that away at the application layer. Make it not dependent on a single host or network.

ianseyler 59 minutes ago [-]
Can we get smaller VM hosts? I’ve seen some minimums at 512MB for a host. I need 8MB at most sometimes.

Update: Fourplex (this host) uses a 1GB minimum.

tokyobreakfast 2 hours ago [-]
RAM shortage or competent programmer shortage?

Can't get a Linux box to idle (or even install) under 512M these days.

Can't find a web developer worth a shit who doesn't think he needs a Python backend application server to print "Hello, world" when you could do this with a static page served with something like OpenBSD with two-digit RAM requirements.

It's not the RAM that's changed; it's everyone around the RAM.

A coddled generation who were taught that AWS is the Internet and live in abstractions certainly hasn't helped.

vbezhenar 1 hours ago [-]
You definitely can use Linux with few simple servers with 128 MB RAM.

Install can be tricky indeed, but if you have installed system, it's easier.

tokyobreakfast 1 hours ago [-]
Yeah I'll need conclusive proof of that.
nh2 25 minutes ago [-]
This is not difficult, you just need to run `htop` and perform addition of the RES column (which is in KB unless a unit is shown). Example:

    USER         RES▽ Command
    root       70436  systemd-journald
    root       14268  amazon-ssm-agent
    root       13508  systemd
    root       12160  systemd --user
    root       10240  sshd: root@pts/0
    root        9088  sshd: root [priv]
    root        8944  systemd-udevd
    root        8704  systemd-logind
    root        8320  nix-daemon --daemon
    systemd-ti  8192  systemd-timesyncd
    systemd-oo  7808  systemd-oomd
    root        6492  -zsh
    nscd        6272  nsncd
    messagebus  5888  dbus-daemon --system --address=systemd: --nofork --nopidfile -
    root        5888  htop
    sshd        4904  sshd: root [net]
    root        4736  sshd: sshd -D -f /etc/ssh/sshd_config [listener] 1 of 10-100
    root        2960  (sd-pam)
    root        2816  agetty --login-program login ttyS0 --keep-baud
    root        2192  dhcpcd: [privileged proxy]
    dhcpcd      1680  dhcpcd: [manager] [ip4] [ip6]
    dhcpcd      1468  dhcpcd: [BPF ARP] ens5 172.31.8.86
    dhcpcd      1168  dhcpcd: [control proxy]
    dhcpcd      1040  dhcpcd: [network proxy]
andersmurphy 17 minutes ago [-]
netBSD! ... o wait not linux... damn
nh2 2 hours ago [-]
My NixOS SSH jump host server here idles at 234 MB of which 64 MB is systemd-journald (which I assume can be reduced with some settings of how much to keep in RAM).
tokyobreakfast 2 hours ago [-]
>which 64 MB is systemd-journald

why

Windows NT was routinely run with 32 MB of RAM TOTAL and the event log is basically unchanged 30 years later.

actionfromafar 1 hours ago [-]
Achtung, you will draw the ire of the systemd downvote zealots.

Edit: Haha, withing a handful of seconds I got a downvote. :-D

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact
Rendered at 20:15:06 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Vercel.