Re: Web + email hosting recommendations
I use Vultr.com with custom iso support for NetBSD, with the $5/month plan. Rock solid and have ipv4 and ipv6 working great (including reverse DNS). For mail, I self-host though there are many mail vendors that may fit the bill. If you're looking for everything bundled you may be searching for a needle in a haystack of questionable stability. Check out https://www.privacytools.io/ for privacy related vendors https://www.privacytools.io/providers/email/ for email providers specifically. Vultr is a good deal and their support is great, should you need it. I only had to use it once to reset my 2FA after I messed up. You'll probably not need vendor provided NetBSD support, honestly. Good luck! Chris On Tue, May 07, 2019 at 12:46:54PM +0100, Sad Clouds wrote: > Hello, could anyone recommend web hosting providers for the following cases: > > 1. Register domain while it is available and set up basic web + email. > This only needs to be an empty landing page and ability to > send/receive emails at the new domain. There are thousands of > providers out there and I could pick one at random, but would like to > find a BSD friendly provider, so that I don't have to migrate if I > need to upgrade to VPS or Co-location. > > 2. At some point in the future I would like to run NetBSD or FreeBSD > VPS, so would be good to have recommendations for this case. > > Also, I live in the UK, but not sure of hosting in Europe vs US. Are > there any recommendations against holding your data in US data > centres, i.e. DMCA issues, NSA spying, etc?
Re: Web + email hosting recommendations
On 08/05/2019 18:41, Christopher Pinon wrote: > Thanks for your extended comment, but I'm not sure that I would conclude > from it that "Debian is in pretty bad shape these days". (Or, if so, > then that every distribution is in pretty bad shape these days.) You've identified a contradiction in my spiel. I'll think about it and tighten up my argument. > Don't take this the wrong way, but: Adélie Linux? Really? Still at beta > with (I'm guessing) five users? It's my personal opinion. I think it's an excellent distribution and I am seeing it grow in popularity. > As for Void Linux, it's a rolling release, intended for those who like > to break and to recompile their system every weekend. I've never been a fan of rolling releasees and they break for me all the time too. But some people seem to know how to make them work reliably. > Debian stable isn't for everyone, and certainly not for those who want > to experiment with Btrfs. In this case, why would they include Btrfs in the default package repositories? > Sorry to hear about your networking issue with Debian stable, but you > didn't say what exactly the problem was. There's no need to apologise for my networking issue. I don't even blame Debian. Software is very, very difficult to get right. Sometimes I'm surprised that computers work at all. I didn't go into the details of the problem because they are irrelevant, boring, and it would take a very long time to accurately describe the issue. > In any case, we're already OT, > given that this is a NetBSD list. :-) Is this whole thread OT because it asks for web hosting recommendations instead of asking questions specifically about NetBSD? And I believe that my message was relevant to NetBSD in the sense that it's about the complexity of software generally. Some of you may think I'm drawing a long bow. I intend this to be my last message on the topic anyway (although I'm happy to continue to discuss off-list). Andrew -- OpenPGP key: EB28 0338 28B7 19DA DAB0 B193 D21D 996E 883B E5B9
Re: Web + email hosting recommendations
Andrew Luke Nesbit wrote: > On 08/05/2019 10:19, Christopher Pinon wrote: > > > Debian will never be as polished as CentOS or as shiny as Ubuntu, but > > it's pretty good in all other respects. > > I still think it's the best GNU/Linux distribution. It will be the gold > standard for a long time to come. I think Adélie Linux and Void Linux > are the future of Linux distributions, alongside Debian. Thanks for your extended comment, but I'm not sure that I would conclude from it that "Debian is in pretty bad shape these days". (Or, if so, then that every distribution is in pretty bad shape these days.) Don't take this the wrong way, but: Adélie Linux? Really? Still at beta with (I'm guessing) five users? As for Void Linux, it's a rolling release, intended for those who like to break and to recompile their system every weekend. Debian stable isn't for everyone, and certainly not for those who want to experiment with Btrfs. Debian testing or unstable is better for those who want to experiment with more recent software. Sorry to hear about your networking issue with Debian stable, but you didn't say what exactly the problem was. In any case, we're already OT, given that this is a NetBSD list. :-) C.
Re: Web + email hosting recommendations
On Wed, May 08, 2019 at 05:48:10PM +0100, Andrew Luke Nesbit wrote: > I don't like systemd but I accept it and I embrace > it. And I think it will get better. I am trying to > learn how to operate it. Bingo. I agree completely with everything you say about Debian, the systemd wars (which are SO OVER) and Redhat. It's unusual to see such a high degree of basic mental health on open display here on these lists, by which I mean both NetBSD and Debian. Uncharacteristically, for me, I will keep this short, adding only that if you are a working capitalist, and understand that running a business entails costs, you may be very glad to give Redhat some dollars so you can rely on their products and support to keep you in the black. Real world. (And, no, I am not now, nor have I ever been, a working capitalist, but I have had the benefit of being from time to time on several of their payrolls.) Thank you. -- In our age there is no such thing as 'keeping out of politics'. All issues are political issues, and politics itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred, and schizophrenia. George Orwell "Politics and the English Language" (1946)
Re: Web + email hosting recommendations
On 08/05/2019 09:09, Mayuresh wrote: > BTW what is the downside of having IPV6 only? Isn't it the future anyway? I am trying to go IPv6-native. It's been very difficult so far. The worst thing is when an ISP doesn't support IPv6. How does one work around this? Andrew -- OpenPGP key: EB28 0338 28B7 19DA DAB0 B193 D21D 996E 883B E5B9
Re: Web + email hosting recommendations
On 08/05/2019 10:19, Christopher Pinon wrote: > Sijmen J. Mulder wrote: > >> U'll Be King Of The Stars wrote: >>> Debian is in pretty bad shape these days. >> >> At risk of getting OT here, but in what way? Not trying to debate, just >> curiousity. > > I can't say what ullbeking was thinking of, but some were disappointed > by Debian's decision (for Debian 8) to adopt systemd. I don't like systemd but I accept it and I embrace it. And I think it will get better. I am trying to learn how to operate it. But I feel that a lot of the anti-systemd sentiment comes from people not liking change. Systemd is here to stay; the world of computing is one of the fastest-changing things in the, er, world. If you want to stay relevant (if you are a professional) then you have to make at least some effort to accept changes you don't like or don't agree with. There are MANY other modern technologies that I dislike more than systemd. Systemd is the least of my concerns. Yes, systemd HAS complicated the operating system and I don't really understand how it's supposed to be used. With the benefit of hindsight, had Debian or Red Hat gone on a campaign to explain what systemd is; how it is different; where it is better than the old init system; and, most importantly, _how to use it_; then I think we wouldn't have such negative sentiment towards to it. Unfortunately I think many grass roots developers see Red Hat as an untrustworthy corporate enterprise these days. I think they are angry that Red Hat forced systemd onto them, thus signifying the start of an era where Linux development is no longer a community effort. So it is true I prefer to use systems that don't use systemd. But that's not the core of the issue here. I boycotted Debian for a few months some time ago out of frustration because a bug had turned one of my machines into a rogue host and caused my entire network configuration to collapse. When I was venting my frustrations, people were automatically assuming that systemd was to blame (it wasn't) and I hated systemd. I didn't and I don't hate systemd, although I prefer OS'es that don't have it. I do agree that systemd exacerbated this bug, which was already present. And I believe that the complexity and unusability of systemd made it difficult to understand what the problem was and how to contain it, before it was too late. Nevertheless, I think Debian made the right move in adopting systemd. It's important that we have a distribution with a decent ethical framework that can stay competetive against Red Hat (in some abstract way that I am finding it difficult to articulate). Having said THAT, I actually enjoy using CentOS and RHEL. I also think they have decent documentation even though it's not as good as BSD's. In summary, systemd is correlated with increasing complexity and increasing numbers of quality issues. I am not anti-systemd because I don't think it's the _cause_ of the kinds of issues I have been having during the past couple of years. > At the same time, the truth is that for any Debian release in its > history, you can find people saying that Debian is in pretty bad shape, > so unless more is said, it's hard to know what is meant. I have a lot of respect for the Debian project -- its ethics and its technical quality. All Linux distributions have major flaws. This is software we're discussing, after all. I have been using Debian since the late 1990's, and I know that if I were to trade it in for something else I'll just get a whole new set of issues to cope with. (Disclaimer: I am currently spending more and more time with Adélie Linux and intend to move more of my end user Linux machines to Adélie.) The main problem with Debian is one that I sympathise with greatly. For many years I have felt that the size and complexity of the project is out of control. It's an under-resourced project, despite the best efforts of a lot of talented developers who often have to make difficult (and sometimes unpopular) decision. THIS is causing the kinds of defects that hit me the other day. It caused problems on my network that took weeks to fix. Problems like this are happening more and more frequently as time goes by. There's just far too much software to nurse along, but the Debian developers have been doing a great job given the difficult circumstances. Another issue, which I think is quite serious, is the outdated Stable kernel that is continually recieving back-patches. I know there are real reasons for this, and I don't have a better solution. Regardless, this causes extremely subtle and mysterious problems that are almost impossible to predict or detect, excpect for the fact that "my computer is acting weirdly when I use this program that has very strict requirements of correctness" (such as flashrom). These old kernels also make it impossible to run things like Btrfs reliably. Btrfs generally requires as recent a kernel as one is able to deploy, at least 4.14.
Re: Web + email hosting recommendations
Sad Clouds wrote: > Hello, could anyone recommend web hosting providers for the following cases: I've been happy with TransIP. Official support for OpenBSD and FreeBSD but not NetBSD. Based in the Netherlands. Sijmen
Re: Web + email hosting recommendations
Sad Clouds wrote: > On Wed, May 8, 2019 at 9:40 AM Christopher Pinon > wrote: > > > In my experience, nowadays, KVM and NetBSD play pretty well together, > > but yes, it's always possible for obscure KVM-related issues to arise. > > > > I've not used NetBSD that much on KVM, but I've had network and disk > performance issues with NetBSD VMs on ESXi and VirtualBox, perhaps > lack of optimized drivers in NetBSD guest? If I remember correctly, > Linux guests were significantly faster doing network and disk I/O. > NetBSD on Xen is supposed to be supported quite well, but not sure > about KVM. So I take it in your case, you had no issues whatsoever and > you're happy with network and disk performance? I wouldn't necessarily draw conclusions based on VirtualBox about KVM. Several years ago, I recall having problems with OpenBSD on VirtualBox but not having problems with OpenBSD on KVM at a particular provider. But, as always: YMMV. In general, I would relativize KVM to "KVM VPS as offered by a particular provider" because (yes) differences can and do arise among providers with respect to KVM and *BSD. (Especially concerning NetBSD and OpenBSD; FreeBSD tends to be less of a potential issue. Again, in my experience.) As for the guest drivers on KVM, I would recommend using VirtIO for both the network and the disk. Nowadays, these tend to be the default choices anyway. (But you can set these in the control panel.) As I said, my experience running NetBSD at Inception Hosting (and earlier at Vultr) has been positive, also in terms of network and disk performance, hence my recommendation. This said, it may well be that Linux performs a bit better on KVM -- I haven't made an explicit comparison -- so if replicating Linux performance is a priority, one may be disappointed. (But, forget KVM in particular: in general, if one wants to replicate Linux performance, one probably doesn't opt for NetBSD or OpenBSD in the first place.) At these prices, you can always just try it for a month if you're interested and determine for yourself whether the performance is sufficiently good. :-) (Again, YMMV.) C.
Re: Web + email hosting recommendations
On Wed, May 8, 2019 at 9:40 AM Christopher Pinon wrote: > In my experience, nowadays, KVM and NetBSD play pretty well together, > but yes, it's always possible for obscure KVM-related issues to arise. > I've not used NetBSD that much on KVM, but I've had network and disk performance issues with NetBSD VMs on ESXi and VirtualBox, perhaps lack of optimized drivers in NetBSD guest? If I remember correctly, Linux guests were significantly faster doing network and disk I/O. NetBSD on Xen is supposed to be supported quite well, but not sure about KVM. So I take it in your case, you had no issues whatsoever and you're happy with network and disk performance?
Re: Web + email hosting recommendations
Sijmen J. Mulder wrote: > U'll Be King Of The Stars wrote: > > Debian is in pretty bad shape these days. > > At risk of getting OT here, but in what way? Not trying to debate, just > curiousity. I can't say what ullbeking was thinking of, but some were disappointed by Debian's decision (for Debian 8) to adopt systemd. At the same time, the truth is that for any Debian release in its history, you can find people saying that Debian is in pretty bad shape, so unless more is said, it's hard to know what is meant. Debian will never be as polished as CentOS or as shiny as Ubuntu, but it's pretty good in all other respects. C.
Re: Web + email hosting recommendations
Mayuresh wrote: > On Wed, May 08, 2019 at 08:04:05AM +, Christopher Pinon wrote: > > When I ran NetBSD on Vultr over a year ago, the $2.5/m plan included a > > dedicated IPv4 address, but alas this is no longer the case. (That plan > > was also difficult to get, because they were nearly always "sold out".) > > I still own one from that lot! Yes those were difficult to get and now no > more offered. Besides IPV4 they had 20GB HDD and 1TB BW. In retrospect, I regret giving up that old plan that I had with them! > Now $2.5 is available with 10GB HDD, 500GB BW and IPV6 only. You get IPV4 > for $3.5. Both these are regularly available (unlike older 2.5 plan that > was not easy to get. I've just checked and I couldn't easily see that either the $2.5 or the $3.5 plan was currently available, but perhaps I missed something. > BTW what is the downside of having IPV6 only? Perhaps interacting with your IPv4-only friends? ;-) More seriously, I believe that GitHub was IPv4-only, but this may have changed since their acquisition by Microsoft. There are a lot of sites that are still IPv4-only. (The last time that I checked, sdfeu.org, which is the EU deployment of SDF, was still IPv4-only, for no particular reason, as far as I could tell.) > Isn't it the future anyway? It depends on who you ask. :-) Yes, it's the future, but there were predictions a decade ago that IPv6 would have taken over the world by now, which is still far from being the case. C.
Re: Web + email hosting recommendations
Mark Carroll wrote: > On 08 May 2019, mayur...@acm.org wrote: > > > What could be NetBSD-specific issues that would require provider's help? I > > have faced none till now. Just curious. > > At least for VPS sometimes one suffers from the imperfect imitation > provided by the virtualization platform where kernel- or driver-specific > issues arise. For example, I may now be misremembering details but I > /think/ that with Bytemark I was running into weird timing issues with > OpenBSD but not NetBSD and the problem turned out to be specific to the > version of KVM that they were running (and there was a KVM config option > that could work around it). The bug centered on the emulation of local > APIC in repeated mode: commands like "sleep 1" would take increasingly > long, the longer the server was up! In those cases, having a provider > who knows what the BSDs are and has other customers using them (so they > can confirm issues, try moving to different nodes, prioritize for > virtualization platform adjustment or upgrade, etc.) is welcome. It's certainly the case that it helps if the provider is knowledgeable about *BSD, but unfortunately, this tends to be the exception. In my experience, nowadays, KVM and NetBSD play pretty well together, but yes, it's always possible for obscure KVM-related issues to arise. C.
Re: Web + email hosting recommendations
U'll Be King Of The Stars wrote: > Debian is in pretty bad shape these days. At risk of getting OT here, but in what way? Not trying to debate, just curiousity. Sijmen
Re: Web + email hosting recommendations
Niels Dettenbach (Syndicat IT & Internet) wrote: > if runned with typical, "well" dimensioned and configured business server > hardware (i.e. HP DL or IBM etc. - what many think about if they think > "servers") on top IP uplink with skilled support personal without any > possible restrictions such prices are not to held. But the very most of such > products have "bottlenecks" otherwhere (compared to "less cheap" products) > and/or are driven on much cheaper PC hardware (what could makes sense in some > apps). Another option / version are "hidden" costs in pratical usage. > > I.e. "shared CPU" could mean everything and could act as a bottleneck if > "required" from hosters side (if you are getting "to expa|ensive"). > > Usually first customers are happy as they get the most resources at their > time - and these are most important from a marketing view... > > This doesnt mean that such products did not have any applications with any > sense - but you have to be very clear about (if you rely on that service / > resources in any way). > > just my two cents... I've taken a look at your site: I would classify you among the premium providers. :-) I would agree that one has to be cautious with respect to lower-cost providers: it helps to inquire about them and to look for recommendations. There have been many lower-cost providers that have deadpooled within a couple of years of their launch. This said, there are a number of reliable, lower-cost providers out there if one wants to save some money. C.
Re: Web + email hosting recommendations
On Wed, May 08, 2019 at 08:04:05AM +, Christopher Pinon wrote: > When I ran NetBSD on Vultr over a year ago, the $2.5/m plan included a > dedicated IPv4 address, but alas this is no longer the case. (That plan > was also difficult to get, because they were nearly always "sold out".) I still own one from that lot! Yes those were difficult to get and now no more offered. Besides IPV4 they had 20GB HDD and 1TB BW. Now $2.5 is available with 10GB HDD, 500GB BW and IPV6 only. You get IPV4 for $3.5. Both these are regularly available (unlike older 2.5 plan that was not easy to get.) BTW what is the downside of having IPV6 only? Isn't it the future anyway? Mayuresh
Re: Web + email hosting recommendations
Mayuresh wrote: > On Wed, May 08, 2019 at 07:19:05AM +0100, Sad Clouds wrote: > > UK-SSD-KVM-1024 > > 2 CPU Core (Equal Share) > > 1024 MB Ram > > 10 GB Pure NVMe SSD Disk space > > 1000 GB Bandwidth @ 1 gbit (shared) > > 1 x IPv4 address > > 1 x /64 IPv6 > > Full daily backup > > > > Price is 2.50EUR per month and no setup fees, which sounds rather cheap. > > I was thinking Vultr to be the cheapest in the low end space. Vultr low > end plan is 1core/512MB/10GB/500GB/no IPV4/1xIPV6/no backup for $2.5. So > above is lot better. When I ran NetBSD on Vultr over a year ago, the $2.5/m plan included a dedicated IPv4 address, but alas this is no longer the case. (That plan was also difficult to get, because they were nearly always "sold out".) Now you need to pay $3.5/m for the cheapest plan with a dedicated IPv4 address, but I suspect that it's also often "sold out". (I haven't checked recently.) > But on the link given I didn't notice custom ISO. Do they support? Yes. (See my previous email.) C.
Re: Web + email hosting recommendations
Sad Clouds wrote: > On Tue, 07 May 2019 21:20:57 + > Christopher Pinon wrote: > > > For a small, reliable UK-based provider (who offer both web hosting > > and VPSes), I can recommend https://inceptionhosting.com/ . I > > currently run a small NetBSD VPS with them. > > > > C. > > Hi, thanks for the link. This is one of their low-end VPS offerings: > > UK-SSD-KVM-1024 > 2 CPU Core (Equal Share) > 1024 MB Ram > 10 GB Pure NVMe SSD Disk space > 1000 GB Bandwidth @ 1 gbit (shared) > 1 x IPv4 address > 1 x /64 IPv6 > Full daily backup > > Price is 2.50EUR per month and no setup fees, which sounds rather cheap. > Last time I looked into web hosting was about 15 years ago, so maybe > prices have come down this much. For such a small price, do they really > offer a reasonable service, or is there something I'm not aware of? The plan above is exactly the plan that I currently have. :-) A lot has changed in the hosting/VPS market over the past 15 years. For one, 15 years ago, there were no VPS providers offering KVM. But even web hosting has become much more affordable. Nowadays, a typical web hosting service includes a cPanel interface to your web space with Softaculous for installing web applications (WordPress, etc.). The underlying OS is CentOS or RHEL. Back to Inception Hosting: No, no hidden surprises, I think. Perhaps just to clarify that the full daily backups are made by the provider for an unforeseen event on their side -- users don't have access to these backups, which means that you should also keep a backup of any files important to you. Inception Hosting use SolusVM as their control panel, which allows the user to perform all the basic functions with their VPS (reboots, reinstalls, etc.) without asking the provider to intervene. One thing that SolusVM doesn't allow the user to do is to upload ISOs. Inception Hosting already offer quite a few ISOs (including NetBSD-8.0 i386, because I requested it :-) ), but if there's an ISO that you would like that isn't offered (e.g., NetBSD-8.0 amd64), just make a request via a ticket and they will upload it (assuming that the request is reasonable: the ISO should be publicly available.) (To clarify: I'm just a satisfied customer of Inception Hosting and am recommending them based on my current and past experience, especially because you mentioned a preference for the UK. I don't work for them!) C.
Re: Web + email hosting recommendations
On 08 May 2019, mayur...@acm.org wrote: > What could be NetBSD-specific issues that would require provider's help? I > have faced none till now. Just curious. At least for VPS sometimes one suffers from the imperfect imitation provided by the virtualization platform where kernel- or driver-specific issues arise. For example, I may now be misremembering details but I /think/ that with Bytemark I was running into weird timing issues with OpenBSD but not NetBSD and the problem turned out to be specific to the version of KVM that they were running (and there was a KVM config option that could work around it). The bug centered on the emulation of local APIC in repeated mode: commands like "sleep 1" would take increasingly long, the longer the server was up! In those cases, having a provider who knows what the BSDs are and has other customers using them (so they can confirm issues, try moving to different nodes, prioritize for virtualization platform adjustment or upgrade, etc.) is welcome. -- Mark
Re: Web + email hosting recommendations
On Wed, May 08, 2019 at 07:23:29AM +, Christopher Pinon wrote: > Nevertheless, depending on the provider and the question, sometimes > they're willing to help with certain questions regarding well-known > Linux distributions. For example, if your question is "How do I set up > IPv6 on Debian?", a lower-cost provider may be willing to help (despite > the fact that the VPS is unmanaged), whereas if your question is "How do > I set up IPv6 on NetBSD?", you're really on your own simply because most > lower-cost VPS providers don't have (much) experience with *BSD. I see your point. But, unless the question is very specific to cloud provider's setup I think most people would ask in forum such as this. But basically, I guess, those who opt for BSD consciously are likely to already have used BSD before for a while and may not face too many questions. [Contrary to newbies opting for Linux because it's more widely used.] Mayuresh
Re: Web + email hosting recommendations
Mayuresh wrote: > On Tue, May 07, 2019 at 09:20:57PM +, Christopher Pinon wrote: > > but naturally the downside is that the provider won't be able to help > > with NetBSD-specific issues. > > What could be NetBSD-specific issues that would require provider's help? I > have faced none till now. Just curious. I probably should have expressed myself more clearly. All that I meant is that lower-cost VPS providers (including Vultr) sell *unmanaged* services, so you're expected to manage your VPS. Nevertheless, depending on the provider and the question, sometimes they're willing to help with certain questions regarding well-known Linux distributions. For example, if your question is "How do I set up IPv6 on Debian?", a lower-cost provider may be willing to help (despite the fact that the VPS is unmanaged), whereas if your question is "How do I set up IPv6 on NetBSD?", you're really on your own simply because most lower-cost VPS providers don't have (much) experience with *BSD. C.
Re: Web + email hosting recommendations
Am 8. Mai 2019 08:19:05 MESZ schrieb Sad Clouds : >Price is 2.50EUR per month and no setup fees, which sounds rather >cheap. >Last time I looked into web hosting was about 15 years ago, so maybe >prices have come down this much. For such a small price, do they really >offer a reasonable service, or is there something I'm not aware of? Prices did not come down really for such low level mass products - typically the (written) resources per product grown (bandwidth, memory) as typical customers look onto that (only). similiar prices exist i.e. 10 or 15 years ago on the market. we never stepped into that segment... if runned with typical, "well" dimensioned and configured business server hardware (i.e. HP DL or IBM etc. - what many think about if they think "servers") on top IP uplink with skilled support personal without any possible restrictions such prices are not to held. But the very most of such products have "bottlenecks" otherwhere (compared to "less cheap" products) and/or are driven on much cheaper PC hardware (what could makes sense in some apps). Another option / version are "hidden" costs in pratical usage. I.e. "shared CPU" could mean everything and could act as a bottleneck if "required" from hosters side (if you are getting "to expa|ensive"). Usually first customers are happy as they get the most resources at their time - and these are most important from a marketing view... This doesnt mean that such products did not have any applications with any sense - but you have to be very clear about (if you rely on that service / resources in any way). just my two cents... niels. -- Niels Dettenbach Syndicat IT & Internet https://www.syndicat.com
Re: Web + email hosting recommendations
On Wed, May 08, 2019 at 07:19:05AM +0100, Sad Clouds wrote: > UK-SSD-KVM-1024 > 2 CPU Core (Equal Share) > 1024 MB Ram > 10 GB Pure NVMe SSD Disk space > 1000 GB Bandwidth @ 1 gbit (shared) > 1 x IPv4 address > 1 x /64 IPv6 > Full daily backup > > Price is 2.50EUR per month and no setup fees, which sounds rather cheap. I was thinking Vultr to be the cheapest in the low end space. Vultr low end plan is 1core/512MB/10GB/500GB/no IPV4/1xIPV6/no backup for $2.5. So above is lot better. But on the link given I didn't notice custom ISO. Do they support? Mayuresh
Re: Web + email hosting recommendations
On Tue, 07 May 2019 21:20:57 + Christopher Pinon wrote: > For a small, reliable UK-based provider (who offer both web hosting > and VPSes), I can recommend https://inceptionhosting.com/ . I > currently run a small NetBSD VPS with them. > > C. Hi, thanks for the link. This is one of their low-end VPS offerings: UK-SSD-KVM-1024 2 CPU Core (Equal Share) 1024 MB Ram 10 GB Pure NVMe SSD Disk space 1000 GB Bandwidth @ 1 gbit (shared) 1 x IPv4 address 1 x /64 IPv6 Full daily backup Price is 2.50EUR per month and no setup fees, which sounds rather cheap. Last time I looked into web hosting was about 15 years ago, so maybe prices have come down this much. For such a small price, do they really offer a reasonable service, or is there something I'm not aware of?
