Is the RAM shortage killing small VPS hosts?
59 points
3 hours ago
| 6 comments
| fourplex.net
| HN
ZenoArrow
1 hour 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.
reply
alecco
3 minutes 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.
reply
dist-epoch
36 minutes ago
[-]
China also needs RAM for AIs, especially since they have plenty of electrical power and building speed to pump out data-centers.
reply
actionfromafar
20 minutes ago
[-]
Turns out their wind "opercapacity" maybe isn't. Maybe they are trading chip efficiency for raw power.
reply
realusername
54 minutes 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.
reply
Tiberium
11 minutes 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.

reply
miyuru
1 hour 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.

reply
1970-01-01
5 minutes ago
[-]
Exactly this. The old hardware from a year ago is fine as the typical use-case for a VPS didn't change.
reply
conductr
38 minutes 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.
reply
layer8
19 minutes ago
[-]
Yes, even if prices would triple, VPSs would still be an attractive offering.
reply
croes
9 minutes ago
[-]
At a certain price people choose not to buy
reply
saidinesh5
1 hour 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?
reply
zeagle
53 minutes 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!
reply
sysworld
33 minutes 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.
reply
enlyth
26 minutes 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.

reply
baby_souffle
18 minutes 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

reply
enlyth
6 minutes 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.
reply
zeagle
12 minutes 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...
reply
xmcp123
56 minutes 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.

reply
qwertox
10 minutes 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.

reply
atomicnumber3
52 minutes 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
reply
OkayPhysicist
50 minutes 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).
reply
b00ty4breakfast
38 minutes 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.

reply
vbezhenar
22 minutes 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.
reply
graemep
26 minutes ago
[-]
Low cost, simplicity and customer service.

AWS does offer Lightsail which is similar pricing.

reply
stephenr
13 minutes 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.

reply
buckle8017
52 minutes ago
[-]
10-100x cheaper
reply
drnick1
52 minutes ago
[-]
Where small VPS hosts can make a difference: require no KYC, accept crypto payments.
reply
yomismoaqui
57 minutes ago
[-]
Simplicity, price, stability.
reply
znpy
28 minutes 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.

reply
Insanity
56 minutes ago
[-]
Not being US owned can be an important one in this geopolitical climate.
reply
renewiltord
48 minutes 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.

reply
nicoburns
59 minutes ago
[-]
Pricing (both cheaper and more predictable), and reduced complexity.
reply
nozzlegear
42 minutes 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.
reply
saidinesh5
55 minutes ago
[-]
Interesting. I'd have thought these giants would have better pricing because of the scale...
reply
pinkgolem
50 minutes ago
[-]
The last comparison I did was Hetzner offers 14x the performance per dollar

Not including the faster SSD & included traffic

reply
bombcar
28 minutes 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.

reply
nicoburns
30 minutes ago
[-]
They might be if they were trying to compete on price. But my understanding is their margins are... healthy shall we say.
reply
unethical_ban
17 minutes 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.

reply
cynicalsecurity
42 minutes ago
[-]
They don't. AWS is the most expensive hosting provider in the world.
reply
vel0city
45 minutes 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.

reply
stephenr
10 minutes 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.

reply
ReptileMan
58 minutes ago
[-]
Not being Amazon, Microsoft and Google.
reply
iammjm
58 minutes ago
[-]
I moved from AWS to Hetzner, because: 1. lower prices, 2. not American
reply
tokyobreakfast
39 minutes 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.

reply
vbezhenar
7 minutes 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.

reply
nh2
29 minutes 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).
reply
tokyobreakfast
25 minutes 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.

reply
actionfromafar
17 minutes ago
[-]
Achtung, you will draw the ire of the systemd downvote zealots.

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

reply