KS-5 or KS-7 ?

Discussion in 'Hosting Advice' started by Hango, Aug 7, 2018.

  1. I'm planning on rehosting my server. I have a hub, survival and creative server. Playerbase only 20-30online. Possibly wanting room for small Factions server as well. Which option would be better?

    KS-5 AMD Opteron 4122 4c/4t 2.2GHz 16GB DDR3 1333 MHz 2TB 100 Mbps /128 €13.99 ex. VAT
    KS-7 Intel i3-2130 2c/4t 3.4GHz 8GB DDR3 1333 MHz 2TB 100 Mbps /128 €14.99 ex. VAT
  2. Id go for the ks-7, purely for the higher clockspeed.
    When you have enough concurrent players to consider spreading out to factions later youll probably have enough to get a bigger SYS dedi by then.
    #2 simgar98, Aug 7, 2018
    Last edited: Aug 7, 2018
  3. I'd recommend to take a shared hosting if you just need 3 servers, would be a lot less complicated.
    • Funny Funny x 1
  4. But more expensive and with less options (like hosting your website/forum and databases on the same machine)
    • Agree Agree x 1
  5. More expensive?
    I could get the 8GB for 8€ with a much better CPU, SSD instead HDD and DDR4. Many hosts also offer webhosting from already 1€.

    Means for 9€ I could already have a much better setup.
  6. "better cpu" "8GB"
    On a shared oversold node, yes.
    Theres a full extra layer of a company inbetween with its costs that also wants to make money. Shits oversold and therefore a gamble, with a dedi you get what you pay for: dedicated performance.
    • Agree Agree x 2
  7. lol, sadly I'm not allowed to advertise here in Text, but that's just fun and not true, the company I meant for reference is the opposite.
  8. are you hinting at your signature?
    Either theyre overselling or their dedicated offerings are very very mispriced.
    Since a dedi has less overhead costs (no setup effort, no multicraft licensing, etc) it should be cheaper to rent out than its minecraft equivalent, right? Yet if you take their cheapest dedi, a 64GB node with worse specs (HALF the threads/cores and a slightly lower clockspeed) being 79eur a month, and you take their "basic" minecraft hosting, it just does not add up.
    64 * 1eur = 64eur. which would be ignoring overhead in hosting the site, multicraft, setup, databases, whmcs, support, etc.
    Why would they sell a service that'd cost them less for 79eur and sell out the same hardware with higher upkeep for only 64eur?

    Ah, right, overselling.
    Literally the only way this would make sense to do is with overselling, not awarding people what they pay for, renting out, say, 100GB on a 64GB node. Which is fine in 99% of the cases, since no one uses the full amount of RAM they use 24/7, but it's still overselling. And in the only 3 or so weeks that I've been back and active on spigotmc I've seen at least 3 threads that had their server crashing due to not being able to allocate memory on shared hosts (not necessarily the host in your signature), hence the "gamble".

    ALSO, if you want to take into account the actual hardware theyre advertising to use for the basic minecraft hosting, that's a dedi they rent out for 119eur a month, they'd have to rent out almost double the ram excluding overhead described above to make equal profit on minecraft hosting as on dedicated hosting. So unless they want to squeeze out less profit on minecraft than on renting out dedis of course, which seems very odd to me, since it takes more effort etc.
    • Funny Funny x 1
  9. You realize the hardware is owned and therefore there is no fixed cost for dedicated? Also, a dedicated machine obviously comes with more fixed costs.

    Let me fix that for you, its called overallocating and not overselling, overselling is pretty impossible as the node would crash at some point.
    I've been in that industry for quite some while, and I'm not aware of any host not doing any kind of a bit overallocation, as it would be stupid because the said reasons you said.

    They rent nothing, its owned hardware.
    • Funny Funny x 1
  10. Since when is it called overallocation? I've always seen it being called overselling. Which fits the given definition by google and the first couple online dictionaries google pops up.
    Youre selling more than exists. Sell 100 GB worth of ram where physically only 64GB exists, youre selling more than can be delivered physically.
    Besides, googling overallocation does not get you a lot of results with useful definitions, sounds like a very sporadically used term.

    And it was clear that they are using their own hardware, reselling dedicateds gets you a lot of flak and sounds like a pain with panels etc, but that is besides the point. Whether they have the hardware or rent the hardware, renting out a big chunk without setup etc due to lower overhead should be cheaper than selling it out in smaller chunks with higher overhead, period.

    I feel like you missed my point entirely, either I wrote some vague af sentences (which, to be fair, I know I sometimes do), or you did not read it all, could you maybe give that a shot? If it's not clear after that, that's fine, my bad :p
    • Agree Agree x 2
  11. For quite a long time, overselling is considered as selling more even if you can't deliver at all, means the node is already swapping for example.
    Also, it says that its more sold that can be provided if I buy 4GB those 4GB can be provided, that's the concept of shared hosting.

    Well, the main point was that you said the performance would be bad because everything would be oversold like shit, that's not true, in his case it would be cheaper and more efficient to take a shared host, whichever host. Also, I would not call that dedicated as reliable as a shared host.

    To answer the OP's question, I would not take any of them.
  12. joehot200


    @FusionStyleFX It is overselling because your example of 4GB can be provided, but not at all times, as there are times when other users are using those resources.

    Even theoretically, if the users could utilize more than is available, it is overselling.

    @Hango Go for the KS7, due to the much better CPU. I would highly recommend ignoring advice about using shared hosting, as the quality of shared hosts is always questionable. And non-shared hosts do not have a higher price.
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  13. I know this is a few days old and you probably already decided but this hardware you listed is God awful especially at that price. Look into ovh vps. Way better quality hardware for roughly the same price.
    • Agree Agree x 2