Forum: Ruby on Rails a good vps?

Announcement (2017-05-07): www.ruby-forum.com is now read-only since I unfortunately do not have the time to support and maintain the forum any more. Please see rubyonrails.org/community and ruby-lang.org/en/community for other Rails- und Ruby-related community platforms.
david (Guest)
on 2007-02-16 22:25
hi, i need a good vps for my site (with full root access and under
gentoo, or maybe debian, what do you suggest?), i've looked at
http://www.railshostinginfo.com/ and i like these two:

OCS Solutions - Plan: Platinum VZ
Virtual platform: OpenVZ
Transfer (GB): 512 GB
Storage: 20 GB
Memory: 512 MB
OS: linux (gentoo)
Monthly cost: 44.95

VPSLink - Plan: Link-4
Virtual platform: OpenVZ
Transfer (GB): 500 GB
Storage: 20 GB
Memory: 512 MB
OS: linux (gentoo)
Monthly cost: 33.29

what do you think ? do you suggest something else (less than 50$
monthly)
thanks :)
Rick O. (Guest)
on 2007-02-16 22:39
(Received via mailing list)
On 2/16/07, david <removed_email_address@domain.invalid> wrote:
> OS: linux (gentoo)
> what do you think ? do you suggest something else (less than 50$
> monthly)
> thanks :)

Slicehost, Vpsland.  I have clients on both and have no complaints.

--
Rick O.
http://weblog.techno-weenie.net
http://mephistoblog.com
Jon G. (Guest)
on 2007-02-16 22:41
(Received via mailing list)
I've been using rimuhosting.com for personal and work projects, and have
been very satisfied.
Peter De Berdt (Guest)
on 2007-02-16 22:44
(Received via mailing list)
+1 on Rimuhosting, both for VPS and dedicated server

On 16 Feb 2007, at 21:40, Jon G. wrote:

> I've been using rimuhosting.com for personal and work projects, and
> have
> been very satisfied.



Best regards

Peter De Berdt
david (Guest)
on 2007-02-16 22:52
Jon G. wrote:
> I've been using rimuhosting.com for personal and work projects, and have
> been very satisfied.

i looked rimuhosting, but i thing it's quite expensive: $49.95 for just
288MB ram, bandwidth 75GB and disk 4GB....


about slicehost they have for 38$ 512 mb ram, 20 gb hard disk and just
200 gb bandwidth, that i think it's quite low :(

about vpsland for 59$ (51$ year): 512 mb ram, 20 gb hard disk, 550 gb
bandwidth...quite good, but expensive compared with ocs and vpslink :(
david (Guest)
on 2007-02-16 22:55
> about vpsland for 59$ (51$ year): 512 mb ram, 20 gb hard disk, 550 gb
> bandwidth...quite good, but expensive compared with ocs and vpslink :(

vpsland has xen instead of openVZ, and i think it's good ^^
Andy T. (Guest)
on 2007-02-16 22:57
(Received via mailing list)
I've had good experience with vpslink.com  They're pretty cheap and
you're able to scale up to a bigger plan in a couple minutes.  My
site survived the front page of digg and reddit after upgrading the
plan. I don't have any rails experience with them but you definitely
can compile it and use it if you want.

Andy
Jeff P. (Guest)
on 2007-02-17 01:20
Peter De Berdt wrote:
> +1 on Rimuhosting, both for VPS and dedicated server
>
> On 16 Feb 2007, at 21:40, Jon G. wrote:
>
>> I've been using rimuhosting.com for personal and work projects, and
>> have
>> been very satisfied.
>
>
>
> Best regards
>
> Peter De Berdt

+= 10 on Rimu if you are somebody who needs some help with the IT side
of things.  I'm a good programer but I suck as an admin.  I've never
found any other ISP who would even acknowledge my emails.  Rimu actually
DOES things for me that are quick and easy for them and would take me
hours of googling and trial and error.  Then they tell me exactly what
they did so I can learn as I go.  No other ISP on the planet even comes
close when it comes to customer service.

jp
Vishnu G. (Guest)
on 2007-02-17 09:41
(Received via mailing list)
+1 to Slicehost.com

Vish
snacktime (Guest)
on 2007-02-17 09:47
(Received via mailing list)
I also like rimuhosting.  Responsive support and they also have a very
nice dns management interface.

Chris
Nic (Guest)
on 2007-02-17 10:47
We've used OCS and VPSLink. No complaints with either and all our new
hosting is going to OCS.

Nic.

david wrote:
> hi, i need a good vps for my site (with full root access and under
> gentoo, or maybe debian, what do you suggest?), i've looked at
> http://www.railshostinginfo.com/ and i like these two:
>
> OCS Solutions - Plan: Platinum VZ
> Virtual platform: OpenVZ
> Transfer (GB): 512 GB
> Storage: 20 GB
> Memory: 512 MB
> OS: linux (gentoo)
> Monthly cost: 44.95
>
> VPSLink - Plan: Link-4
> Virtual platform: OpenVZ
> Transfer (GB): 500 GB
> Storage: 20 GB
> Memory: 512 MB
> OS: linux (gentoo)
> Monthly cost: 33.29
>
> what do you think ? do you suggest something else (less than 50$
> monthly)
> thanks :)
Marston A. (Guest)
on 2007-02-17 12:49
(Received via mailing list)
+1 www.slicehost.com, they totally rock.
nick (Guest)
on 2007-02-26 13:07
hi, i'm choosing gentoo as distros, do you suggest a good vps, with
maybe a compiling farm ? (i saw something time ago, but they had only 80
mb ram)
nick (Guest)
on 2007-02-26 13:14
nick wrote:
> hi, i'm choosing gentoo as distros, do you suggest a good vps, with
> maybe a compiling farm ? (i saw something time ago, but they had only 80
> mb ram)

found.... bytemark:
http://bytemark.co.uk./page/Live/hosting/prices/vi...
but they have just 100 mbps bandwidth :( do you know something like
that?
Helder O. (Guest)
on 2007-02-26 13:49
well if you want some good vps, you dont want gentoo, you want CentoOS,
i know what i am talking about cuz i am a getoo user and tried gentoo
vps b4
Peter De Berdt (Guest)
on 2007-02-26 16:03
(Received via mailing list)
On 26 Feb 2007, at 12:07, nick wrote:

> hi, i'm choosing gentoo as distros, do you suggest a good vps, with
> maybe a compiling farm ? (i saw something time ago, but they had
> only 80
> mb ram)

Please, take my word for it, don't use Gentoo as a production server,
I've heard horrid stories about it. I'd recommend Ubuntu (my personal
favorite) or CentOS (which is used on most hosting environments, but
I don't like the way the OS is going forward, and if you google
around, I'm not the only one).

Choosing the best VPS depends on a few things, but here we go:
• Bytemark.co.uk: very good VPS, but only use them if you're a good
linux sysadmin or have someone who is able to decently set up your
server for you. Most people I know on Bytemark use it for Java apps.
• Rimuhosting: my personal favorite, a bit more expensive, but their
excellent support just makes up for the extra few dollars spent,
their servers just kick ass. If you put "Please install the Rails
stack" when you register, they'll set up your server with everything
needed to deploy your applications with ease. If you're not too
confident about configuring your server, their support is just great:
each time I asked them something (and I'm fairly good at
administrating a linux server myself, so my questions were quite
technical), they sent me a mail containing the exact procedure with
very accurate information and a message that they already did my work
for me.
• Railsmachine: I've heard great things about them (and considering
the server admins are quite active on the list and the rails
community, they'll figure out the most efficient way of deploying for
you).

This said, there's been an active discussion on the topic over the
last few weeks, so if you search the forums, you'll find hundreds of
similar questions and very similar answers too ;-)


Best regards

Peter De Berdt
Jordan E. (Guest)
on 2007-02-26 16:09
(Received via mailing list)
> Please, take my word for it, don't use Gentoo as a production server, I've
> heard horrid stories about it. I'd recommend Ubuntu (my personal favorite)
> or CentOS (which is used on most hosting environments, but I don't like the
> way the OS is going forward, and if you google around, I'm not the only
> one).

Sorry to push in. What have you heard about Gentoo? Just wondered as
I'm a Gentoo user who's currently trying to choose between Gentoo and
Ubuntu for a VPS :)

Cheers,
Jord
Lionel B. (Guest)
on 2007-02-26 16:19
(Received via mailing list)
nick wrote the following on 26.02.2007 12:07 :
> hi, i'm choosing gentoo as distros, do you suggest a good vps, with
> maybe a compiling farm ? (i saw something time ago, but they had only 80
> mb ram)
>
>

Linode is OK for me. They are hosting my Gentoo server for 2 years now
and I had very few problems (some electrical and network outages one
year ago). The people there are highly technical and this makes for a
really good client support.

I'm using the smallest server they propose: 128 MB, 4GB and 50GB/month
and I'm happy with it (at the beginning it was only a 64MB, 3GB and
25GB/month, but they upgrade the old accounts when they update their
pricing which is quite nice).

Expect longer compile times (gcc and glibc take their time) and pay
attention to the space available in /var/tmp/portage for these long
compilations.

I've not yet installed a Rails application on it (in fact the only
application I could put on it is an evil beast with hundreds of
thousands of rows in the database so I'm cautious).

Lionel
Peter De Berdt (Guest)
on 2007-02-26 16:37
(Received via mailing list)
On 26 Feb 2007, at 15:08, Jordan E. wrote:

> Sorry to push in. What have you heard about Gentoo? Just wondered as
> I'm a Gentoo user who's currently trying to choose between Gentoo and
> Ubuntu for a VPS :)

The main concern the people I talked with concerning Gentoo is
related to the Gentoo philosophy of updating as much as possible.
In fact, Gentoo doesn't have stable releases, as everything is
centered around fast, incremental updates. Gentoo encourages you to
update as much as possible (it's all over their documentation) and
when updating the system, a profile update will try to replace your
system. A profile update will mess around with your configuration
files and even alter them, which means a reboot can lead to your
server just being offline for hours because the update has broken
your setup. If you add to that the time it usually takes to get your
Gentoo server completely set up the way you want it and you'll have
to go through all these time-consuming steps over and over again,
it's just not a very effective system for servers, but it's a great
system for people who like to play around with just about everything
there is in Linux.

My Ubuntu experience has been: install it, configure it in a few
hours and then just install the security updates as they come along.
And if I update, I do it with peace of mind that everything will keep
on running as smooth as a baby's bottom :-)


Best regards

Peter De Berdt
Jordan E. (Guest)
on 2007-02-26 17:19
(Received via mailing list)
Ok, thanks. I'm leaning towards Ubuntu :)
Lionel B. (Guest)
on 2007-02-26 18:04
(Received via mailing list)
Peter De Berdt wrote the following on 26.02.2007 15:37 :
> The main concern the people I talked with concerning Gentoo is related
> to the Gentoo philosophy of updating as much as possible.

?! Why is it that I have several production servers on which I only
applied security updates for anywhere between 8 and 18 months?
What you call "Gentoo philosophy" is probably "a subset of Gentoo's
users philosophy". Some seem to think that only because they can update
they must.

> In fact, Gentoo doesn't have stable releases, as everything is
> centered around fast, incremental updates. Gentoo encourages you to
> update as much as possible (it's all over their documentation)

Where exactly? I'm not reading Gentoo manuals each evening, but for 2
years I seem to have missed these encouragements...

> and when updating the system, a profile update will try to replace
> your system. A profile update will mess around with your configuration
> files and even alter them, which means a reboot can lead to your
> server just being offline for hours because the update has broken your
> setup.

1/ a profile update is not automatic, you have to choose to update your
profile (you can only be reminded that your profile is going to become
obsolete). From past experience, a profile is supported for at least one
year and a new one appears each 6 months.
2/ configuration files are next to never updated without the admin's
intervention which is helped in doing so by merging utilities like
dispatch-conf. For baselayout config files, old config formats are
usually supported by new versions of init scripts in order to avoid
problems with early reboots.

> If you add to that the time it usually takes to get your Gentoo server
> completely set up the way you want it and you'll have to go through
> all these time-consuming steps over and over again,

Usually you only do it once and make a so-called stage4 image with your
own basesytem utilities and custom configuration. Then installing a
Gentoo is probably quicker than any other distribution (one tar xf... is
usually far more efficient than multiple packages installation).
Granted, it takes time and probably half a dozen installs to get more
efficient than a Debian/Ubuntu admin (unless she uses the same tar
method which is in no way out of the reach of a competent Linux admin).

If you use production systems you should have a staging farm on which to
build your stage4 when you want it to have updated packages and test
updates before applying them to production systems (which . The only
time spent is the one the computer spends compiling, the amount of time
of the admin is roughly the same (and given that you don't have to hunt
in various repositories for the soft you need or package it yourself, it
usually is less than the time spent on other distributions).

> it's just not a very effective system for servers, but it's a great
> system for people who like to play around with just about everything
> there is in Linux.
>

It's great for both, you just don't use it in the same way if you are a
sysadmin of a big farm or use your own computer.

> My Ubuntu experience has been: install it, configure it in a few hours
> and then just install the security updates as they come along. And if
> I update, I do it with peace of mind that everything will keep on
> running as smooth as a baby's bottom :-)
>

My Ubuntu experience has been: install it, configure it in a few
minutes, then upgrade to the next major release, see it break badly
(meaning missing core libraries) and spend an afternoon fetching the
pieces.
I had the bad luck of installing Ubuntu 5 just before the Ubuntu 6
release and so I was still a newbie in respect of Ubuntu's (Debian's in
fact) apt / aptitude and such package management utilities. I don't
resent Ubuntu for that, just my lack of knowledge of the utilities. I
probably went outside the safe path without knowing it.

Don't mistake lack of expertise of the admin with the distribution
defaults. Gentoo probably asks for more investments than other
distributions but usually big investments like these are a good sign for
productivity on the long term.

Lionel.
Luke I. (Guest)
on 2007-02-26 18:08
(Received via mailing list)
On 2/26/07, Lionel B. <removed_email_address@domain.invalid> wrote:
[snip]

Thank you so much for writing this: I've been looking for exactly
something
like this.  I figured that there was an easy way to use Gentoo once you
became an experienced admin, and I am definitely not... this was exactly
the
information that I needed.

Note: I am not the OP... just wanted to thank Lionel.
Carl L. (Guest)
on 2007-02-26 18:26
(Received via mailing list)
I like thegridlayer.com

Very scalable and redundant.

On 2/26/07, Luke I. <removed_email_address@domain.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>  >
>


--
EPA Rating: 3000 Lines of Code / Gallon (of coffee)
Tom M. (Guest)
on 2007-02-26 19:18
(Received via mailing list)
On Feb 26, 2007, at 6:03 AM, Peter De Berdt wrote:

> environments, but I don't like the way the OS is going forward, and
> if you google around, I'm not the only one).

I couldn't disagree with this more strongly, though I think I
understand the spirit of the comment.

I think I would say: Don't use Gentoo for production unless you
really know what you're doing, in which case, don't use anything
else. :-)

--
-- Tom M., CTO
-- Engine Y., Ruby on Rails Hosting
-- Reliability, Ease of Use, Scalability
-- (866) 518-YARD (9273)
Ezra Z. (Guest)
on 2007-02-26 21:51
(Received via mailing list)
On Feb 26, 2007, at 6:37 AM, Peter De Berdt wrote:

> centered around fast, incremental updates. Gentoo encourages you to
> everything there is in Linux.
>
I have to disagree here ;) I'm currently running over 150 production
Rails servers on Gentoo and could not be more happy with our choice
of distro. It definitely takes more work to get setup right. But once
it is setup right no other distro can touch it for flexibility and
tunability.

Cheers-
-- Ezra Z.
-- Lead Rails Evangelist
-- removed_email_address@domain.invalid
-- Engine Y., Serious Rails Hosting
-- (866) 518-YARD (9273)
Peter De Berdt (Guest)
on 2007-02-26 22:03
(Received via mailing list)
On 26 Feb 2007, at 20:50, Ezra Z. wrote:

>   I have to disagree here ;) I'm currently running over 150 production
> Rails servers on Gentoo and could not be more happy with our choice
> of distro. It definitely takes more work to get setup right. But once
> it is setup right no other distro can touch it for flexibility and
> tunability.

OK, I take back my words, after all, it was just what I was
recommended by friends who did run on Gentoo servers. I like to call
myself fairly knowledgable when it comes to Linux, but not an expert,
maybe that's also the reason they recommended me to stick with
Ubuntu. That said, I'm really happy with ubuntu as a production server.


Best regards

Peter De Berdt
Jordan E. (Guest)
on 2007-02-26 22:18
(Received via mailing list)
> I have to disagree here ;) I'm currently running over 150 production
> Rails servers on Gentoo and could not be more happy with our choice
> of distro. It definitely takes more work to get setup right. But once
> it is setup right no other distro can touch it for flexibility and
> tunability.

Do you find all the compiling an issue? I've heard quite a few people
express that as a problem (coming from a desktop gentoo user).
Tom M. (Guest)
on 2007-02-27 01:05
(Received via mailing list)
On Feb 26, 2007, at 12:18 PM, Jordan E. wrote:

>> I have to disagree here ;) I'm currently running over 150 production
>> Rails servers on Gentoo and could not be more happy with our choice
>> of distro. It definitely takes more work to get setup right. But once
>> it is setup right no other distro can touch it for flexibility and
>> tunability.
>
> Do you find all the compiling an issue? I've heard quite a few people
> express that as a problem (coming from a desktop gentoo user).

Since I work with Ezra, I'll answer this one. :-)

Setting up a new system takes a lot of time, but then you can maintain
your own binary distribution from that point forward.

When we install new packages at Engine Y., there's rarely any
compiling
involved, only for new versions, and once it's compiled once, it's not
compiled again.

And each and every thing we build is 100% optimized for our environment,
just the way we want it.

--
-- Tom M., CTO
-- Engine Y., Ruby on Rails Hosting
-- Reliability, Ease of Use, Scalability
-- (866) 518-YARD (9273)
mix (Guest)
on 2007-02-27 01:15
Tom M. wrote:
> On Feb 26, 2007, at 12:18 PM, Jordan E. wrote:
>
> When we install new packages at Engine Y., there's rarely any
> compiling
> involved, only for new versions, and once it's compiled once, it's not
> compiled again.
>

may i ask you what do you use to manage a lot of servers in the same
moment ? for example updates (cron?), hard disk failure, and other
things....
i'm thinking about gentoo but i don't know if it's simple to manage,
maybe with a lot of servers
Tom M. (Guest)
on 2007-02-27 01:28
(Received via mailing list)
On Feb 26, 2007, at 3:15 PM, mix wrote:

> i'm thinking about gentoo but i don't know if it's simple to manage,
> maybe with a lot of servers

This question is very general so I'll probably not answer it entirely.

We utilize a SAN, so I cannot speak to hard drive failures in a more
typical configuration.

Suffice it to say, however, that I don't believe that Gentoo is lacking
anything in the way of management, with exception, of course, to the
commercial offerings that may be included in commercial distributions.

--
-- Tom M., CTO
-- Engine Y., Ruby on Rails Hosting
-- Reliability, Ease of Use, Scalability
-- (866) 518-YARD (9273)
mix (Guest)
on 2007-02-27 01:41
Tom M. wrote:
> On Feb 26, 2007, at 3:15 PM, mix wrote:
>
>> i'm thinking about gentoo but i don't know if it's simple to manage,
>> maybe with a lot of servers
>
> This question is very general so I'll probably not answer it entirely.
>
> We utilize a SAN, so I cannot speak to hard drive failures in a more
> typical configuration.
>
> Suffice it to say, however, that I don't believe that Gentoo is lacking
> anything in the way of management, with exception, of course, to the
> commercial offerings that may be included in commercial distributions.
>

ok, thanks :)
maybe can you just write which packages do you use? if you can and
want... :)
This topic is locked and can not be replied to.