Yes, I'm not affiliated with them at all; I just found the deal on LEB and opened a server and I just thought the price was fantastic for 1GB of RAM. In fact, it's the cheapest 1GB of RAM I've ever seen. I think they can manage it because they use Hyper-V dynamic RAM allocation. I've never seen that in practice, it's really interesting to see. A kernel driver actually sucks up the extra RAM you're not using if it's needed somewhere else.
I do see your point, but I think the little more time setting things up manually is worth it in the end rather than using more memory (or needing a higher tier VPS)
I'm not going to argue that everyone should use Virtualmin or any other control panel, and I'm sure if I were trying to fit my websites into a 64MB system I wouldn't be using a control panel. But, I do want to mention that Virtualmin itself can be configured to use approximately 11MB of RAM (though it is an application server that can cache libraries and modules, and can be as much as ~130MB, with about 20MB resident, in a large system with all caching features enabled). The services being managed are, by far, the biggest consumers of resources.
You can no more build a full-featured virtual hosting stack with email (and spam/AV scanning), web, databases, mod_fcgid or fastcgi with suexec, DNS, etc. in 64MB without a control panel than you could with a control panel. Likewise, if you just want web service, you can build one with Virtualmin in X+11 MB of RAM (where X is the amount of RAM the system and web server require).
Of course, Virtualmin (or cPanel or Plesk) are not targeted to very small deployments. They're for shared hosting, which tends to be on a larger system where a few MB for the control panel is of negligible impact.
I just want it to be clear that "control panel == memory hog" is not really accurate. It's probably all the stuff that users expect from a control panel-equipped system that makes it require more memory. ClamAV, for instance, requires more than 200MB. MySQL for a single moderately popular website can consume 300MB. Apache can grow as big as your imagination, because there are so many modules people can enable. A thoroughly stripped Apache isn't all that big, but the average Apache process is a couple hundred MB.
I'm running nginx, PHP-FPM, MySQL, NSD, exim, UnrealIRCD, ZNC, and thttpd for CGIs on my 128mb VPS, and it uses around 50mb RAM. It only goes up to over 64mb used when my file/database backup script is running. The only thing I don't run on the VPS is incoming email. (I use Google Apps's free version)
I'm a longtime fan of LowEndBox too. I've found some pretty good deals though there. If you bother to read the site you'll find that the author slams quite a number of hosts as being bad - or at least doubtful.
I have bothered to read the site and he makes good points. Thats not the issue. The issue is with the "Title", then article starts with a reference to WebHostingTalk, then near immediately followed with a link his affiliate page -(very cleverly disguised) All of those three things separately are NO BIG DEAL; but all together on HN is very frustrating. The reason for that is because, I have grown to trust HN links and this makes me question that trust. I love HN because of the trust I have for the destination of the links. Post such as these challenge that trust.
followed with a link his affiliate page -(very cleverly disguised)
You mean the page where he says So, here is a clearly marked affiliation link — do not click on it if you don’t want me to get referral rewards nor 10% off discount :)
I don't think you can get more ethical than that.
All of those three things separately are NO BIG DEAL; but all together on HN is very frustrating
I thought the information was detailed, useful, and I can personally attest to the trustworthiness of the site.
Personally I think this perfect for HN (and given that your account has been registered only ~250 days I think trying to lecture about how bad it is doesn't make much sense).
The Ethical debate belongs at a different venue.. but you must concede that these are two conflicting policies. but whatever.. its no big deal. I have no problem with folks making money off affiliate marketing.
-Im not even saying that he has a bad site. or a bad guy. Im not even saying that his post was incorrect. what I am saying is: 1) Provocative Title 2) Immediately references to a sketchy forum 3) affiliate link + ads -- these are usually the signs of link-bait.
*Im not even commenting on the merit of the article or whether it belongs on HN or not.. Im just commenting on how painful it is for me to see it on HN.
1) Provocative Title
---> As for a better title -- who knows..
the title: "Yes, You Can Run 18 Static Sites on a 64MB VPS" ---> it begs the question... "why wouldn't you be able to Run 18 Static Sites on a 64MB VPS?" -- So, you end up clicking on it. For this HN crowd - Im pretty sure that was going thru a lot of peoples head when they read the title.. (at least for me - but who knows)
2) Immediately references to a sketchy forum
WebHostingTalk is the biggest forum about webhosting in the world. It's pretty important if you work in that field*
---> That's debatable. I've worked in the web hosting industry for a very long time and I almost never go to that forum unless, im baited to it.
3) affiliate link + ads
Welcome to the internet.
I've got nothing against affiliates, or ads... heck - affiliate marketing is a very important part of the internet marketing ecosystem.
however, the very obvious absence of affiliates or ads on HN makes it a very nice place.
I don't want to start anything, but your tone comes across as pretty hostile. That kind of disrespect is more anathema to HN and worse for the community than an affiliate link contained on a linked page.
Yeah.. you are admit..
Looking at it in a sensible way.
1) Title was written and posted as such to draw flame
2) Post is quickly started with a discount
3) The page is littered with advert
The merit of the technical write up is not in question; its the specific intention to incite controversy. thats the problem.
Its obvious to this crowd that 64mb is plenty to run a 18 Static Sites.
It is the very fact of challenging the ability to run 18 static sites on 64mb via a VPS is ridiculous. Now, if the article asked the question of "how quickly can you max out 64mb VPS and tactics to avoid it" -then, it would be less inflamatory.
Have a look at this thread - http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?t=765561 . The title of the blog post retorts what is generally said in that thread (No, you can't run 18 static sites on a 64mb VPS). It's a (more detailed) reply - nothing more. The offers (which, LEA most likely doesn't make money on - just the sidebar ads) were there about a month or so before the post. So, what else is wrong with it?
Like previously stated - theres nothing wrong with the technical write-up. though, it shouldve stated that any VPS running any control panel (like plesk or cpanel) can host 18 static sites (even without any optimization). The problem is that its flamebait. you can even see that on it the comments -- and subsequently on webhostingtalk. Just saying saying
As for the $$ im sure he does fine. Affiliate payouts in the webhosting indutry is huge.
Of course any VPS can host 18 static sites. The main point is even one with as little memory as 64mb can host static sites, whilst the majority opinion over at WHT is that it wasn't possible. I'm sure the OP of the WHT post wasn't intending to put out 'flamebait,' merely ask a simple question which the majority said nei. I don't believe LEA (the admin) had a WHT account, so he made a writeup via his blog. Who knows if he gets affiliates? The providers would have to make it though the promotional codes that are directly emailed to him (he does not post direct affiliate links that I can see), but the offers posted on WHT would get no affiliate income. I do see money being made via the side banner adds however. Some see it as 'flame bait,' others see it as an disproving article. I guess no one can win, ne?
Nope, just a community fan. I'm sure you/others would do the same to defend this site if it came under attack for something you deem as non-valid. There is only one person who works for LEB and that is LEA.
Its pretty clear.. that you are a SHILL (or a community fan of LowEndBox) as you phrase it... whatever you want to call it. your impact is still negative and the same.
I find it highly suspicious that your ACCOUNT STARTED the SAME TIME this was posted.
You are FAR too sensitive to deem comments as an ATTACK on the site; or deem it as non-valid. Frankly, there is nothing for you to defend. As I stated; theres nothing wrong with his technical write-up. I just highly question the motivations of being posted on HN with such a title, promo code, ads, etc.
FRANKLY, what you are doing text book 'Gaming HN'. And Heres WHY: 1) You just started your account today for this post 2) You have your comments upvoted and down vote dissenting comments by your confederates 3) You keep on telling people to go to " BuyVM .net" which by the way has LowEndBox.com as its biggest advocate 4) You have a very intimate knowledge of how LowEndBox operates, (if he does affiliate links, or has a WebHostingTalk account, or if he makes money from his ads) Come on you can tell me if you are Francisco Dias - the guy that runs BuyVM and markets almost exclusively at LowEndBox (You just got caught!)
"Its pretty clear.. that you are a SHILL (or a community fan of LowEndBox) as you phrase it... whatever you want to call it. your impact is still negative and the same."
Open community, ne?
"I find it highly suspicious that your ACCOUNT STARTED the SAME TIME this was posted."
Of course, I found that this site/post even existed through a community.
"You are FAR too sensitive to deem comments as an ATTACK on the site; or deem it as non-valid. Frankly, there is nothing for you to defend. As I stated; theres nothing wrong with his technical write-up. I just highly question the motivations of being posted on HN with such a title, promo code, ads, etc."
I'm just defending the 'questionability' part - there is nothing questionable about this article being posted here, nor is it complete spam.
"FRANKLY, what you are doing text book 'Gaming HN'."
It's not a very fun game, if a game at all.
"And Heres WHY: 1) You just started your account today for this post"
Yes. I only found out that this place existed through a community.
"2) You have your comments upvoted and down vote dissenting comments by your confederates"
Sure, someone else might have been voting me up, but I don't have access to downvote anyone. Please try again. (I've also upvoted some other members of HN's group here - eh)
"3) You keep on telling people to go to " BuyVM .net" which by the way has LowEndBox.com as its biggest advocate"
It's only the "biggest advocate" because it won a voting contest - if another company won the vote they would be listed.
"4) You have a very intimate knowledge of how LowEndBox operates, (if he does affiliate links, or has a WebHostingTalk account, or if he makes money from his ads)"
It's kind of easy to figure out if you actually visit the/any site often. Who doesn't make money from ads?
"Come on you can tell me if you are Francisco Dias - the guy that runs BuyVM and markets almost exclusively at LowEndBox (You just got caught!)"
Nope. I'm not Francisco, sorry. I'm just a satisfied client.
"Please stop trying to Game HN and HN users."
There is no "game," sir, I don't know what you're trying to play.
Agreed. Using apache on a lowendbox is not a smart idea. Lighttpd serving static sites takes ~5MB in practise. That's also including a SSHd and other services.
The title at the top was because (if you read the article) the blog post spurred from a post on WebHostingTalk asking the community if it was possible to host 18 static sites on a 64MB VPS. A lot of people said no, so this post was made to disprove them.
This article is more aimed to the type of user who would use a command line interface. If they require cpanel, they should look elsewhere. Negating this article because of a potential user deficiency is ludicrous.
