Vultr Storage Instances
-
@eddiejennings said in Vultr Storage Instances:
I can't see the price now, but perhaps it's cheaper than SSD VM + Block storage, if SATA storage meets your needs.
It's $0.10 per GB. So a $2.50 instance with 50 GB would only be $7.50. 100 GB would only be $12.50 then. Plus the added benefit of being able to move your storage to another server. If the VM hoses up for some reason, you can just reattach to a new one.
-
@coliver said in Vultr Storage Instances:
@dashrender said in Vultr Storage Instances:
@eddiejennings said in Vultr Storage Instances:
@dashrender said in Vultr Storage Instances:
@eddiejennings said in Vultr Storage Instances:
I can't see the price now, but perhaps it's cheaper than SSD VM + Block storage, if SATA storage meets your needs.
I thought all their storage was SSD?
I'm pretty sure their Storage Instances were SATA. I only had a chance to see the details briefly a while back.
well, my quoted portion seems to show that currently it's SSD based/backed.
I think you are talking about two different things. Their block storage is backed by SSDs. I don't believe that to be the case with their storage instances.
I can't find any documentation to back this up so you may be right though.
I'm pretty sure you're right that the storage instances are SATA.
-
@stacksofplates said in Vultr Storage Instances:
@eddiejennings said in Vultr Storage Instances:
I can't see the price now, but perhaps it's cheaper than SSD VM + Block storage, if SATA storage meets your needs.
It's $0.10 per GB. So a $2.50 instance with 50 GB would only be $7.50. 100 GB would only be $12.50 then. Plus the added benefit of being able to move your storage to another server. If the VM hoses up for some reason, you can just reattach to a new one.
I meant the price of the storage instances. I see the benefits of having separate block storage.
-
@eddiejennings said in Vultr Storage Instances:
@stacksofplates said in Vultr Storage Instances:
@eddiejennings said in Vultr Storage Instances:
I can't see the price now, but perhaps it's cheaper than SSD VM + Block storage, if SATA storage meets your needs.
It's $0.10 per GB. So a $2.50 instance with 50 GB would only be $7.50. 100 GB would only be $12.50 then. Plus the added benefit of being able to move your storage to another server. If the VM hoses up for some reason, you can just reattach to a new one.
I meant the price of the storage instances. I see the benefits of having separate block storage.
I'm saying I think it's comparable. I think a 120 GB storage instance was around $10 a month, I think. So for the small extra price you get pretty much exactly the same storage (VM storage plus 100GB of block) and the added benefit of being able to move your data.
-
So according to this site it was $5 for 125GB.
https://vultrcoupons.com/vultr-price-vultr-local-storage-vls/
Still to me, the benefits of going the other way make it worth the cost.
-
@stacksofplates said in Vultr Storage Instances:
@eddiejennings said in Vultr Storage Instances:
@stacksofplates said in Vultr Storage Instances:
@eddiejennings said in Vultr Storage Instances:
I can't see the price now, but perhaps it's cheaper than SSD VM + Block storage, if SATA storage meets your needs.
It's $0.10 per GB. So a $2.50 instance with 50 GB would only be $7.50. 100 GB would only be $12.50 then. Plus the added benefit of being able to move your storage to another server. If the VM hoses up for some reason, you can just reattach to a new one.
I meant the price of the storage instances. I see the benefits of having separate block storage.
I'm saying I think it's comparable. I think a 120 GB storage instance was around $10 a month, I think. So for the small extra price you get pretty much exactly the same storage (VM storage plus 100GB of block) and the added benefit of being able to move your data.
As well as a much more performant VM.
-
@eddiejennings said in Vultr Storage Instances:
@dashrender said in Vultr Storage Instances:
@eddiejennings said in Vultr Storage Instances:
I can't see the price now, but perhaps it's cheaper than SSD VM + Block storage, if SATA storage meets your needs.
I thought all their storage was SSD?
I'm pretty sure their Storage Instances were SATA. I only had a chance to see the details briefly a while back.
They are.
-
@stacksofplates said in Vultr Storage Instances:
@eddiejennings said in Vultr Storage Instances:
I can't see the price now, but perhaps it's cheaper than SSD VM + Block storage, if SATA storage meets your needs.
It's $0.10 per GB. So a $2.50 instance with 50 GB would only be $7.50. 100 GB would only be $12.50 then. Plus the added benefit of being able to move your storage to another server. If the VM hoses up for some reason, you can just reattach to a new one.
That's WAY more expensive than their storage instances, though.
-
@stacksofplates said in Vultr Storage Instances:
@eddiejennings said in Vultr Storage Instances:
@stacksofplates said in Vultr Storage Instances:
@eddiejennings said in Vultr Storage Instances:
I can't see the price now, but perhaps it's cheaper than SSD VM + Block storage, if SATA storage meets your needs.
It's $0.10 per GB. So a $2.50 instance with 50 GB would only be $7.50. 100 GB would only be $12.50 then. Plus the added benefit of being able to move your storage to another server. If the VM hoses up for some reason, you can just reattach to a new one.
I meant the price of the storage instances. I see the benefits of having separate block storage.
I'm saying I think it's comparable. I think a 120 GB storage instance was around $10 a month, I think. So for the small extra price you get pretty much exactly the same storage (VM storage plus 100GB of block) and the added benefit of being able to move your data.
$10 for 250GB.
-
@coliver said in Vultr Storage Instances:
@stacksofplates said in Vultr Storage Instances:
@eddiejennings said in Vultr Storage Instances:
@stacksofplates said in Vultr Storage Instances:
@eddiejennings said in Vultr Storage Instances:
I can't see the price now, but perhaps it's cheaper than SSD VM + Block storage, if SATA storage meets your needs.
It's $0.10 per GB. So a $2.50 instance with 50 GB would only be $7.50. 100 GB would only be $12.50 then. Plus the added benefit of being able to move your storage to another server. If the VM hoses up for some reason, you can just reattach to a new one.
I meant the price of the storage instances. I see the benefits of having separate block storage.
I'm saying I think it's comparable. I think a 120 GB storage instance was around $10 a month, I think. So for the small extra price you get pretty much exactly the same storage (VM storage plus 100GB of block) and the added benefit of being able to move your data.
As well as a much more performant VM.
If you don't need the speed, though, like you are using it for a file store, that extra performance is lost.
-
Remember that you need a server to consume it, as well. So a storage instance of 125GB, it is $5.
To use the separate block storage (SAN) option it is $17.50 (you can only get a maximum of 2 $2.50 instances across all your systems, so isn't useful for calculations). That's way more than triple the cost of the storage instance. I realize it is faster and has some nice benefits. But they aren't even remotely close in cost.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Vultr Storage Instances:
Remember that you need a server to consume it, as well. So a storage instance of 125GB, it is $5.
To use the separate block storage (SAN) option it is $17.50 (you can only get a maximum of 2 $2.50 instances across all your systems, so isn't useful for calculations). That's way more than triple the cost of the storage instance. I realize it is faster and has some nice benefits. But they aren't even remotely close in cost.
If you're only running 1 VM it's very useful for calculations. But also that's if you actually use 100% of 125 GB. Anything not being used is wasted. So if you purchase a storage instance and only use 50% since 125 is the smallest, you could do the same thing with block storage and pay the same price.
-
@stacksofplates said in Vultr Storage Instances:
@scottalanmiller said in Vultr Storage Instances:
Remember that you need a server to consume it, as well. So a storage instance of 125GB, it is $5.
To use the separate block storage (SAN) option it is $17.50 (you can only get a maximum of 2 $2.50 instances across all your systems, so isn't useful for calculations). That's way more than triple the cost of the storage instance. I realize it is faster and has some nice benefits. But they aren't even remotely close in cost.
If you're only running 1 VM it's very useful for calculations. But also that's if you actually use 100% of 125 GB. Anything not being used is wasted. So if you purchase a storage instance and only use 50% since 125 is the smallest, you could do the same thing with block storage and pay the same price.
Even at 50%, even if you only used a single instance with the $2.50, it's still more and any expansion costs money down the road, too. The break even point is around 25GB. Anything bigger than 25GB, storage instance is cheaper.
At the $5 inflection point... you can get the 25GB instance on SSD anytime, the 20GB local + 25GB SAN instance in special cases where it is one of your two VMs, or the 125GB SATA instance. The window in which the SAN is the cost leader is tiny. It's a sliver between the standard instances on one side and the SATA on the other.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Vultr Storage Instances:
@stacksofplates said in Vultr Storage Instances:
@scottalanmiller said in Vultr Storage Instances:
Remember that you need a server to consume it, as well. So a storage instance of 125GB, it is $5.
To use the separate block storage (SAN) option it is $17.50 (you can only get a maximum of 2 $2.50 instances across all your systems, so isn't useful for calculations). That's way more than triple the cost of the storage instance. I realize it is faster and has some nice benefits. But they aren't even remotely close in cost.
If you're only running 1 VM it's very useful for calculations. But also that's if you actually use 100% of 125 GB. Anything not being used is wasted. So if you purchase a storage instance and only use 50% since 125 is the smallest, you could do the same thing with block storage and pay the same price.
Even at 50%, even if you only used a single instance with the $2.50, it's still more and any expansion costs money down the road, too. The break even point is around 25GB. Anything bigger than 25GB, storage instance is cheaper.
At the $5 inflection point... you can get the 25GB instance on SSD anytime, the 20GB local + 25GB SAN instance in special cases where it is one of your two VMs, or the 125GB SATA instance. The window in which the SAN is the cost leader is tiny. It's a sliver between the standard instances on one side and the SATA on the other.
But this again also assumes you're only running 1 system. To me, the flexibility still outweighs the cost. Plus, you will most likely never get a storage instance in a data center that's even remotely close to you. And, are you able to dynamically grow the storage like you can with either a regular instance or block storage? That really locks people or companies into specific instances. Plus, if they're never available, you can't ever grow anyway.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Vultr Storage Instances:
@coliver said in Vultr Storage Instances:
@stacksofplates said in Vultr Storage Instances:
@eddiejennings said in Vultr Storage Instances:
@stacksofplates said in Vultr Storage Instances:
@eddiejennings said in Vultr Storage Instances:
I can't see the price now, but perhaps it's cheaper than SSD VM + Block storage, if SATA storage meets your needs.
It's $0.10 per GB. So a $2.50 instance with 50 GB would only be $7.50. 100 GB would only be $12.50 then. Plus the added benefit of being able to move your storage to another server. If the VM hoses up for some reason, you can just reattach to a new one.
I meant the price of the storage instances. I see the benefits of having separate block storage.
I'm saying I think it's comparable. I think a 120 GB storage instance was around $10 a month, I think. So for the small extra price you get pretty much exactly the same storage (VM storage plus 100GB of block) and the added benefit of being able to move your data.
As well as a much more performant VM.
If you don't need the speed, though, like you are using it for a file store, that extra performance is lost.
What about when using lvm snapshots? Wouldn't that be needing extra performance?
-
@black3dynamite said in Vultr Storage Instances:
@scottalanmiller said in Vultr Storage Instances:
@coliver said in Vultr Storage Instances:
@stacksofplates said in Vultr Storage Instances:
@eddiejennings said in Vultr Storage Instances:
@stacksofplates said in Vultr Storage Instances:
@eddiejennings said in Vultr Storage Instances:
I can't see the price now, but perhaps it's cheaper than SSD VM + Block storage, if SATA storage meets your needs.
It's $0.10 per GB. So a $2.50 instance with 50 GB would only be $7.50. 100 GB would only be $12.50 then. Plus the added benefit of being able to move your storage to another server. If the VM hoses up for some reason, you can just reattach to a new one.
I meant the price of the storage instances. I see the benefits of having separate block storage.
I'm saying I think it's comparable. I think a 120 GB storage instance was around $10 a month, I think. So for the small extra price you get pretty much exactly the same storage (VM storage plus 100GB of block) and the added benefit of being able to move your data.
As well as a much more performant VM.
If you don't need the speed, though, like you are using it for a file store, that extra performance is lost.
What about when using lvm snapshots? Wouldn't that be needing extra performance?
No, there is nothing intrinsic there that would make you need extra performance.
-
@stacksofplates said in Vultr Storage Instances:
@scottalanmiller said in Vultr Storage Instances:
@stacksofplates said in Vultr Storage Instances:
@scottalanmiller said in Vultr Storage Instances:
Remember that you need a server to consume it, as well. So a storage instance of 125GB, it is $5.
To use the separate block storage (SAN) option it is $17.50 (you can only get a maximum of 2 $2.50 instances across all your systems, so isn't useful for calculations). That's way more than triple the cost of the storage instance. I realize it is faster and has some nice benefits. But they aren't even remotely close in cost.
If you're only running 1 VM it's very useful for calculations. But also that's if you actually use 100% of 125 GB. Anything not being used is wasted. So if you purchase a storage instance and only use 50% since 125 is the smallest, you could do the same thing with block storage and pay the same price.
Even at 50%, even if you only used a single instance with the $2.50, it's still more and any expansion costs money down the road, too. The break even point is around 25GB. Anything bigger than 25GB, storage instance is cheaper.
At the $5 inflection point... you can get the 25GB instance on SSD anytime, the 20GB local + 25GB SAN instance in special cases where it is one of your two VMs, or the 125GB SATA instance. The window in which the SAN is the cost leader is tiny. It's a sliver between the standard instances on one side and the SATA on the other.
But this again also assumes you're only running 1 system. To me, the flexibility still outweighs the cost. Plus, you will most likely never get a storage instance in a data center that's even remotely close to you. And, are you able to dynamically grow the storage like you can with either a regular instance or block storage? That really locks people or companies into specific instances. Plus, if they're never available, you can't ever grow anyway.
Other way around. It's only assuming that you are running one system (or two) that you can get the prices you are using. Go beyond that and more costs get added.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Vultr Storage Instances:
@stacksofplates said in Vultr Storage Instances:
@scottalanmiller said in Vultr Storage Instances:
@stacksofplates said in Vultr Storage Instances:
@scottalanmiller said in Vultr Storage Instances:
Remember that you need a server to consume it, as well. So a storage instance of 125GB, it is $5.
To use the separate block storage (SAN) option it is $17.50 (you can only get a maximum of 2 $2.50 instances across all your systems, so isn't useful for calculations). That's way more than triple the cost of the storage instance. I realize it is faster and has some nice benefits. But they aren't even remotely close in cost.
If you're only running 1 VM it's very useful for calculations. But also that's if you actually use 100% of 125 GB. Anything not being used is wasted. So if you purchase a storage instance and only use 50% since 125 is the smallest, you could do the same thing with block storage and pay the same price.
Even at 50%, even if you only used a single instance with the $2.50, it's still more and any expansion costs money down the road, too. The break even point is around 25GB. Anything bigger than 25GB, storage instance is cheaper.
At the $5 inflection point... you can get the 25GB instance on SSD anytime, the 20GB local + 25GB SAN instance in special cases where it is one of your two VMs, or the 125GB SATA instance. The window in which the SAN is the cost leader is tiny. It's a sliver between the standard instances on one side and the SATA on the other.
But this again also assumes you're only running 1 system. To me, the flexibility still outweighs the cost. Plus, you will most likely never get a storage instance in a data center that's even remotely close to you. And, are you able to dynamically grow the storage like you can with either a regular instance or block storage? That really locks people or companies into specific instances. Plus, if they're never available, you can't ever grow anyway.
Other way around. It's only assuming that you are running one system (or two) that you can get the prices you are using. Go beyond that and more costs get added.
For that exact scenario it would be $7.50. Plus you still have the limitations of data center location (latency), flexibility, growth, etc. So again, the benefits outweigh the costs in my opinion.
-
@stacksofplates said in Vultr Storage Instances:
@scottalanmiller said in Vultr Storage Instances:
@stacksofplates said in Vultr Storage Instances:
@scottalanmiller said in Vultr Storage Instances:
@stacksofplates said in Vultr Storage Instances:
@scottalanmiller said in Vultr Storage Instances:
Remember that you need a server to consume it, as well. So a storage instance of 125GB, it is $5.
To use the separate block storage (SAN) option it is $17.50 (you can only get a maximum of 2 $2.50 instances across all your systems, so isn't useful for calculations). That's way more than triple the cost of the storage instance. I realize it is faster and has some nice benefits. But they aren't even remotely close in cost.
If you're only running 1 VM it's very useful for calculations. But also that's if you actually use 100% of 125 GB. Anything not being used is wasted. So if you purchase a storage instance and only use 50% since 125 is the smallest, you could do the same thing with block storage and pay the same price.
Even at 50%, even if you only used a single instance with the $2.50, it's still more and any expansion costs money down the road, too. The break even point is around 25GB. Anything bigger than 25GB, storage instance is cheaper.
At the $5 inflection point... you can get the 25GB instance on SSD anytime, the 20GB local + 25GB SAN instance in special cases where it is one of your two VMs, or the 125GB SATA instance. The window in which the SAN is the cost leader is tiny. It's a sliver between the standard instances on one side and the SATA on the other.
But this again also assumes you're only running 1 system. To me, the flexibility still outweighs the cost. Plus, you will most likely never get a storage instance in a data center that's even remotely close to you. And, are you able to dynamically grow the storage like you can with either a regular instance or block storage? That really locks people or companies into specific instances. Plus, if they're never available, you can't ever grow anyway.
Other way around. It's only assuming that you are running one system (or two) that you can get the prices you are using. Go beyond that and more costs get added.
For that exact scenario it would be $7.50. Plus you still have the limitations of data center location (latency), flexibility, growth, etc. So again, the benefits outweigh the costs in my opinion.
Depends, for most use cases, I doubt that that stuff matters very much. We use the storage instances a lot and don't see any benefits to switching to the block storage for the use cases where the storage instances make sense. The cost difference is quite large. You are assuming that those benefits always outweight the benefits in the other direction. At best, it's an evaluation. In the real world, we've yet to see that evaluation favour the block storage. There are certainly cases where it would, but what we tend to see is if you need capacity the SATA instances are just too good of a deal. And if you don't, the extra storage isn't needed.
-
Sold Out again.....
