[ALUG] Digital Ocean

mick mbm at rlogin.net
Sat Nov 19 18:31:54 GMT 2016

On Fri, 18 Nov 2016 09:45:21 +0000
Jonathan McDowell <noodles at earth.li> allegedly wrote:

> On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 09:57:01PM +0000, Mick wrote:
> > Now Tor operators tend to be a suspicious, sometimes paranoid,
> > bunch, but given that DO now has a substantial proportion of the
> > Tor network on its ASs that suspicion may, just may, be justified.
> > I still use DO because I get huge bandwidth for bugger all money
> > (15 dollars a month, compared to the 12 quid I (happily) pay
> > Bytemark for my mail/webserver). But I would not, and do not, use
> > DO for anything I care about in personal terms (such as mail, or
> > XMPP messaging).
> I've got a single VM with DO that handles my parents' email (so
> running exim/dovecot/roundcube and little else). Not had any issues
> with them (and in terms of the traffic stuff you mentioned and I
> snipped I suspect that people like me hardly using their allowance
> are averaging out with people like you using a lot. Bandwidth in well
> connected datacentres has got scarily cheap). Like you my personal
> stuff (such as the machine which hosts this list) is with Bytemark.

I don't think that would work. Consider, I alone am using the total
network allowance of about 10 other $5.00 VM users. And there are a lot
of users like me who have signed up to DO simply because of the high
bandwidth available. And if bandwidth is /really/ that cheap a
commodity, why don't other VM providers offer it? Bytemark for example
give me 1TB of transfer on my VM. They would charge me £20 for each
additional 1TB of transfer. That means that the service I get at DO for
$15 (about the same as the 12 quid I pay bytemark) would cost me £192
pcm (9 * £20 plus the original £12) with bytemark. Other VM suppliers
are the same. I have used a lot of different suppliers over the past
8-10 years and all have used a model of charging for additional
bandwidth over and above the base level. Sure, the base allowance has
crept up over the years, but no-one other than DO has this weird model
where they don't seem to care if you chew up a lot of bandwidth. 

I would /love/ to use bytemark for all my VMs. I can't afford that.

> > Most importantly from my (admittedly somewhat paranoid viewpoint)
> > the VM allows me to choose my own kernel to go with the OS of my
> > choice. DO don't do that. You get to "choose" one of their kernels
> > underneath your installed OS.
> This has changed; when I started I was limited to the DO provided
> kernels, but my Debian VM with them is now using Debian provided
> kernels I installed - they've got a "grub" option in the web
> interface now which then boots a kernel from the VM image.

Ah. I hadn't spotted that option (right down at the bottom of the
kernel list). Thanks. I'll give it a try.


 Mick Morgan
 gpg fingerprint: FC23 3338 F664 5E66 876B  72C0 0A1F E60B 5BAD D312


More information about the main mailing list