131–140 of 165 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And $12 gets you 512MB on http://prgmr.com/ .
The point is Linode has better service, e.g. 24x7 IRC, responsive ticket system, powerful admin interface.
I switched from Webfaction to Linode about six months ago, because the WF server I was on kept experiencing hard drive failures leading to an unacceptable amount of downtime. Once is tolerable, but they should have replaced the drive then. They didn't, and two months later it failed again. Again they tried to repair the filesystem. It failed two days later again. When I challenged them on this, they admitted they kne…
I don't know about nobody, but it seems very good. I downsized one of my machines from a dedicated server at Softlayer costing $234 a month to a ~$40 a month Linode and.. it's doing fine! (Though it's not like I was maxing out the dedi.)
I now have several Linodes, a couple in London, all the rest in Atlanta (which, by my research, seems to be the best US data center for them).
Disclaimer: Linode advertise on my Web site now, but I pay for my hosting and chose them independently - no deals :-)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I believe they have 24GB of physical RAM (with the remainder going towards dom0 and the hypervisor).
I find that... unusual. the hypervisor eats 64MiB, and few people use more than 1GiB in the Dom0.
Or, they're fibbing a bit by using that "on average" language, and they actually have more like 42 or 44 nodes, but wanted the nice round numbers for the marketing copy.
Edit: Oh, I didn't check the username. I imagine you'd know better than I.
A stupid question: why are the bigger linodes relatively more expensive? You get 512MB for $19.95 and 1024MB for $39.95. If you buy 2x512MB, don't you get twice as much CPU too?
If their setup is the way I think it is, your 1024MB instance will have twice the cpu 'weight' as each 512MB instances, so, /in the case of contention/ the 1024MB instance will have twice as much cpu time as the 512.
Of course, my experience has been that cpu usage rarely goes above 50% on most VPS servers, so it makes less difference.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think any money they might have saved by not keeping a backup may now have been negated single handedly by this HN discussion.
I doubt it. Most people who would be good customers for them would realize the complaint was far fetched. They don't need customers who whine about things that far off the gamut. People have suggested that 37signals would suffer from their attitudes towards implementing new features or crap like Gantt charts in BaseCamp, but I don't see them suffering for it, despite the ongoing rants and raves by "high maintenance"…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> expected hosting company to store data for free I've been mocked for my opinion on this before, but ... well, why the hell not? Storage is no longer expensive, and we're talking about not large amounts of data per instance, in an archival situation -- where disk bandwidth isn't an issue and compression is totally doable. So, why not store a copy of deactivated images for 3 months? If anybody's confused about how to…
I've actually had customers who've gotten mad at me for storing data after they cancelled. The concern, of course, is one of privacy. If the feds come knocking with a warrant, if I have the data, I'll give it to them. If I overwrote it, then I can't.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
tl;dr; Didn't back up data/config files, expected hosting company to store data for free
Actually, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect a hosting company to store some data for free. Not in the sense that I'm entitled to it as a customer, but in the sense that it might be in their best interests: if the data is deleted, that's a pretty good guarantee that the client won't reactivate; if the data is saved and it's trivial to reactivate, some percentage of customers will do so.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> expected hosting company to store data for free I've been mocked for my opinion on this before, but ... well, why the hell not? Storage is no longer expensive, and we're talking about not large amounts of data per instance, in an archival situation -- where disk bandwidth isn't an issue and compression is totally doable. So, why not store a copy of deactivated images for 3 months? If anybody's confused about how to…
I've actually had customers who've gotten mad at me for storing data after they cancelled. The concern, of course, is one of privacy. If the feds come knocking with a warrant, if I have the data, I'll give it to them. If I overwrote it, then I can't.
This is a coincidence. I had a funny experience with Linode just today! I´ve been in South America for a few months, and I found out that my bank card (visa) expired a little over a month ago. "Hmm," I thought. "I sure hope that my linode is all right. But it´s been less than two months. They will turn it off, but that is all." So I checked my email. Part of the joy of my style of travelling is not checking email for…
For the record: The Planet will cut your server, wipe it, and reassign after 5 days of non-payment. That's standard operating procedure at every server host I've ever used. I'm honestly surprised that Linode gives you 20 days; that's very generous in my experience.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've actually had customers who've gotten mad at me for storing data after they cancelled. The concern, of course, is one of privacy. If the feds come knocking with a warrant, if I have the data, I'll give it to them. If I overwrote it, then I can't.
Maybe it would be worthwhile to distinguish between customers who had actively cancelled their accounts and those who had passively stopped paying? With the former, there is the expectation that you will not retain their data. As the originator of this thread shows, when customers' credit cards expire, there is sometimes the opposite expectation.