Should I move from dedicated colocated servers to a cloud?

Joeychgo

TAZ Administrator
Joined
Feb 28, 2004
Messages
6,960
I dont have all the details yet -- but ---- My hosting company has suggested I make the move.. I'm not sure if its right for me. Mostly because I have zero experience with clouds...

My servers are currently colocated, and managed by my hosting company. They are suggesting it will cost me no more monthly to move to their cloud and will offer me scalability without the ongoing expense of hardware upgrades.

Anyone have thoughts on this? As I said, I have no experience with clouds...
 

Alpha1

Administrator
Joined
May 28, 2007
Messages
4,014
That greatly depends. I moved from dedicated boxes to private cloud for pretty much the same reasons you describe. In hindsight it didn't improve the costs nor the scalability with that particular host. In fact I did end up paying more as costs were incrementally increased until it went over 20k a year.
Then however, I moved away from the host towards DigitalOcean droplets and have it managed by an engineer who is highly familiar with xenforo hosting. I no longer believe in managed hosting by hosts that have no XenForo expertise.

This was an excellent move. The monthly costs were slashed to a fraction. Scalability and flexibility increased a lot. Its possible to divide things up so that you have DB on one VPS, Elastic, Proxy, Mail all on separate VPS so that outages do not affect all services. In hindsight I would have opted for Vultr instead of DO because DO network often has issues, but hindsight is always 20/20.

The main question is: how much is it going to save you per month/year? If nothing significant then look further. Why would you use their cloud when you have lots of options to choose from? What makes their infrastructure better than cheaper options?
 
Last edited:

TLChris

Administrator
Joined
Jan 2, 2020
Messages
254
I've been using Linode, and Vultr for a while now - and I think they are solid with stability.
As far as cloud goes, the ability to add additional resources without a setup like Alfa1 mentioned will still take time to do.
It took ~3 hours when I had to restore, and increase the server resources. I have enjoyed Vultr with their NVMe setups for testing.

For email - I host everything at Zoho, again for reliability and a fraction of the cost. Offering a setup where each service was on it's on node sounds interesting.
 

eva2000

Habitué
Joined
Jan 11, 2004
Messages
1,782
No all cloud hosting is created equal. I did a 13-way VPS comparison benchmark review for Upcloud vs DigitalOcean vs Linode vs Vultr vs Hetzner https://community.centminmod.com/th...talocean-vs-linode-vs-vultr-vs-hetzner.17742/. Highly recommended reading and if you find useful, my referral links are there too :D

I currently have 160+ servers with 35+ web hosts - where only 2 servers are dedicated and rest are VPS based :D And of course 98% are using my own Centmin Mod LEMP stack based setups :)
 
  • Thread starter
  • Admin
  • #5

Joeychgo

TAZ Administrator
Joined
Feb 28, 2004
Messages
6,960
The main question is: how much is it going to save you per month/year? If nothing significant then look further. Why would you use their cloud when you have lots of options to choose from? What makes their infrastructure better than cheaper options?

Part of the key here is that my setup is quite fine. Server loads on my servers are low and performance is fine. I'm running dual E5-2660 v2 in each server -- intel enterprise SSDs, 64gb ram --- so my servers are just fine now....
 

Alpha1

Administrator
Joined
May 28, 2007
Messages
4,014
Then there does not seem to be a reason to change. The only potential benefit I can see is lowering of the costs. But since the host has indicated no change in costs, my guess is that there could be a financial benefit for them or its simply easier and therefore cheaper for them to maintain VPS deployments.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Admin
  • #7

Joeychgo

TAZ Administrator
Joined
Feb 28, 2004
Messages
6,960
my guess is that there could be a financial benefit for them or its simply easier and therefore cheaper for them to maintain VPS deployments.

That's kind of what I'm thinking. There may be benefits otherwise, but I just don't see how right now things would be much better. Maybe in a year or two
 

eva2000

Habitué
Joined
Jan 11, 2004
Messages
1,782
I'm running dual E5-2660 v2 in each server -- intel enterprise SSDs, 64gb ram --- so my servers are just fine now....
Intel Xeon E5-2660v2 is Ivybridge based processor and 8+ yrs old and
  1. lacks AVX2 instructions for better performance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Vector_Extensions#CPUs_with_AVX2 where applications can utilise AVX2. Intel Haswell cpus and newer support AVX2
  2. suffers more negatively from all the Intel security vulnerabilities for Meltdown and Spectre like vulnerabilities and the software Kernel based mitigation attempts at fixing the security issues. There can be as much as 40% performance overhead from the software mitigations on older cpus compared to newer Intel cpus. Though if you went with AMD zen1/zen2 for EPYC/Ryzen, you wouldn't have that big of a overhead. Though with latest EchoLoad security vulnerability pretty much every Intel cpu since 2010 is vulnerable https://community.centminmod.com/th...ing-spectre-meltdown.13632/page-11#post-81827
    [*]Our KASLR break, EchoLoad, works on all major OSs (Linux,
    Windows, macOS, and Android x86_64). We tested the KASLR break
    on Intel microarchitectures from Arrandale (2010) to Cascade Lake
    (2019) on Atom, Core, and Xeon CPUs. Even on Cascade Lake with
    fixes for Meltdown and MDS [41], we de-randomize the kernel in
    40 µs (F-score 1, n = 109). Hence, our KASLR break is the fastest
    and most reliable one published.
    Moreover, EchoLoad is the only
    KASLR break that only relies on memory loads and works on Intel
    microarchitectures since at least 2010. EchoLoad even works on
    KPTI, the Linux software mitigation for Meltdown.

    As EchoLoad does not require anything but memory loads, it
    works in restricted environments such as SGX and JavaScript. We
    highlight that EchoLoad can aid kernel exploitation from within
    SGX enclaves, facilitating SGX malware [81, 82]. In contrast to
    previous ASLR breaks from JavaScript [7, 29, 76], we are the first
    to demonstrate a microarchitectural KASLR break from JavaScript
    on x86 OSs. We also show that on older unpatched x86 OSs, Melt-
    down can even be exploited from JavaScript. This is particularly
    dangerous for any Windows XP machines (1–3% of Desktop com-
    puters [68]), for which no software patches are available, but which
    are still running in official, commercial, industrial, or personal en-
    vironments. Our attack will also soon be possible on unprotected
    64-bit systems as WebAssembly plans to extend the size of linear
    memory indices to 64 bit [90]. We pinpoint the remaining challenges
    for widely deployable JavaScript-based Meltdown exploits.
    [*]
Though with cloud/VPS hosting it can vary what cpus the web host uses, so no guarantee you'd land on same old Intel Ivybridge based cpus in VPS land unless you go with a web host with known cpus in use. Or spin up a few VPSes and see which cpu you get and pick the one that is newest/fastest.
 
Last edited:
  • Thread starter
  • Admin
  • #9

Joeychgo

TAZ Administrator
Joined
Feb 28, 2004
Messages
6,960
Though with cloud/VPS hosting it can vary what cpus the web host uses, so no guarantee you'd land on same old Intel Ivybridge based cpus in VPS land unless you go with a web host with known cpus in use. Or spin up a few VPSes and see which cpu you get and pick the one that is newest/fastest.

They are telling me they are using AMD's processors
 

Soulwatcher

Devotee
Joined
Feb 27, 2006
Messages
2,627
If you look at the big picture upfront cost and you build the server of your dreams and you know what you are getting vs you don't own anything they choose the hardware and the more you ramp up hosting the higher your cost is going to be.
 

Joeychgo

TAZ Administrator
Joined
Feb 28, 2004
Messages
6,960
If you look at the big picture upfront cost and you build the server of your dreams and you know what you are getting vs you don't own anything they choose the hardware and the more you ramp up hosting the higher your cost is going to be.

twas my thoughts also
 

Joeychgo

TAZ Administrator
Joined
Feb 28, 2004
Messages
6,960
Just to update - this is the cloud pricing they are offering to move me to... It's suppose to be top of the line, state of the art, AMD CPUs


Proposed Pricing:
8 cores @ $10/core ($80.00)
32GB memory @ $5/GB ($160.00)
1024GB SATA SSD @ $0.06/GB ($61.44) 85% DISCOUNT
FREE daily backups (full server recovery) PROMO
FREE ping and HTTP monitoring of one website on your server PROMO
cPanel license separate (https://cpanel.net/pricing/)
 

Soulwatcher

Devotee
Joined
Feb 27, 2006
Messages
2,627
Just to update - this is the cloud pricing they are offering to move me to... It's suppose to be top of the line, state of the art, AMD CPUs


Proposed Pricing:
8 cores @ $10/core ($80.00)
32GB memory @ $5/GB ($160.00)
1024GB SATA SSD @ $0.06/GB ($61.44) 85% DISCOUNT
FREE daily backups (full server recovery) PROMO
FREE ping and HTTP monitoring of one website on your server PROMO
cPanel license separate (https://cpanel.net/pricing/)
Why not build/buy a bad to the bone server and blow the cloud hosting out of the water and have more resources and a cheaper monthly bill? And unless you get a dedicated server, cloud hosting is still shared hosting.
 

Joeychgo

TAZ Administrator
Joined
Feb 28, 2004
Messages
6,960
Why not build/buy a bad to the bone server and blow the cloud hosting out of the water and have more resources and a cheaper monthly bill? And unless you get a dedicated server, cloud hosting is still shared hosting.

I already have a server colocated/managed with them. I own the server.
 

mysiteguy

Migration Expert
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
3,124
I have yet to find a single situation where if you're needing the capabilities of dedicated that switching to cloud will give you the same capability for less money. Time and time again I have people come to me who are paying insane amounts of money for high performance based cloud hosting, and every time I cut their costs and increase their performance by moving them to dedicated. In some cases I've saved them close to 90%.

There's a reason why hosts like switching people to cloud... it's extremely profitable compared to dedicated. A fraction of the hardware, space and electricity per client.
 

Joeychgo

TAZ Administrator
Joined
Feb 28, 2004
Messages
6,960
There's a reason why hosts like switching people to cloud... it's extremely profitable compared to dedicated. A fraction of the hardware, space and electricity per client.

well, I own the hardware already so....
 

Pete

Flavours of Forums Forever
Joined
Sep 9, 2013
Messages
1,729
FWIW I do cloud hosting professionally on AWS and part of what I do is migrate from on-prem to cloud, mostly for scalability... my load is massively spiky where speccing out for max load is disproportionately expensive - peak times I’m coping with 15k concurrent users of which 4k are in a area concurrently doing some of the heaviest lifting in the site.

The times these peaks are is knowable in advance, down to the hour of the day, and drops off to a fraction of that within an hour, to maybe 1-2k concurrent users total. Building out dedicated on-prem for this is unworkable, with AWS scaling this is achievable, if not cheap. But cheaper than building for max capacity all the time.

Different workloads need different hosting ;)
 

Oldsmoboi

Fan
Joined
Mar 24, 2009
Messages
587
If it ain't broke, don't fix it. That said, your processer seems rather old. You may want to price out what it would cost to replace the server and then divide that over the expected lifetime of the server. See if you'll get better specs than what they're offering for the same price. Even if you don't make the move today, it would be helpful to know that number for when the time comes (and with hardware that age, it's coming sooner rather than later). It's better to get the price when it is not an emergency.
 
Top