VDSes get more bandwidth at lower prices

News for the main page
User avatar
MasterSeal
A regular
A regular
Posts: 49
Joined: Wed Jan 22, 2014 4:47 pm
Location: Nebraska, USA
Contact:

Re: VDSes get more bandwidth at lower prices

Post by MasterSeal » Tue Aug 23, 2016 8:49 am

$atanic $pirit wrote:DJF-1975 does have a valid point here.

Maybe NFO do need to offer managed service on a lower core requirement than windows managed. Limiting everything to one IP, and a managed service for a Linux 2-3 core VDS can be attractive to customers, but at same time keeping the cost for NFO in check as well. Given that the performance guarantee have to be voided in this case, but its a good middle ground to retain the customers who are mad at Windows price hike. After all the only people who would complain are the ones running lower tier packages and to them windows cost is not justified.
Thank you. This idea is born out of people like me who enjoy having a clan, but don't need ridiculous amounts of machine power such as 3-4+ cores and craploads of memory to run just a few small game servers 8-10-12 slots of games like COD and other older ones that we're still interested in playing for a smaller clan and not have to rent several stand-alone servers, and have control over the box enough to install what's wanted, yet benefit from being an NFO customer long enough to keep paying for servers to play on.

I have a killer dedicated connection of 300Mbps/30Mbps down dedicated fiber with static IP, which allows me to host everything I rent here at my house stand alone without having to pay for servers. Now while that bandwidth it adequate for several smaller servers, if I ever (we as a clan rather) grow larger then to have a box already (VDS) with NFO makes sense as I can have it upgraded it later instead of constantly cancelling and switching stand alone servers around like I've been forced to do due to lack of funding from being a smaller clan, and take advantage of even more bandwidth BY using the smaller price point VDS servers, with convenience of managed hosting and actually be able to afford it when I'm already paying $150 a month for that kind of internet at home etc. (which won't change. if you could get downloads at 30+ MBps (NOT Mbps) per second like me why wouldn't you? )

I adore being an NFO customer and I have nothing but compliments for you guys, I'm certainly HAPPY that you're working on single-ip hosting solutions for VDS's That's REALLY good news!

Thanks for keeping dialogue with your customers and everything else you do for us NFO!

D
Relax, Reflect, RELOAD!
(Out Cast Snipers)
Jizzcord: discord.OutCastSnipers.com
Teamsqueak 3: ts3.OutCastSnipers.com

Image

User avatar
MoNeYINPHX
A semi-regular
A semi-regular
Posts: 17
Joined: Wed Jun 05, 2013 8:20 pm
Location: The Interwebz
Contact:

Re: VDSes get more bandwidth at lower prices

Post by MoNeYINPHX » Mon Sep 05, 2016 3:13 pm

What about for those of us who have an MSDN or similar enterprise subscription? Can we forgo the Windows cost and just use our own licencing?

axRhino
This is my homepage
This is my homepage
Posts: 78
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2012 10:48 am

Re: VDSes get more bandwidth at lower prices

Post by axRhino » Thu Oct 13, 2016 6:21 am

Re: VDSes get more bandwidth at lower prices

In all honesty this should read more bandwidth and higher or lower prices...but I understand the spin to make it look like a positive headline.

This didnt work out so well for us. (4 core windows vds on a 3 month payment cycle). We are now stuck (grandfathered) into our current setup. No ability to add or change resources unless we adopt the new payment/pricing model and a $15 per month price increase. So in closing what was billed as a price saving for customers was just the opposite for us. Time to look at more affordable, options for our small, self funded group.

User avatar
Edge100x
Founder
Founder
Posts: 12219
Joined: Thu Apr 18, 2002 11:04 pm
Location: Seattle
Contact:

Re: VDSes get more bandwidth at lower prices

Post by Edge100x » Thu Oct 13, 2016 9:50 am

axRhino, please read through the thread, as concerns have been discussed.

To recap, Microsoft is raising prices, and in an internal audit we found that Microsoft licensing was dominating our own costs. In response, we had to separate out the licensing fee and restructure services to better optimize Microsoft licensing. We coupled this with an overall price decrease and giving more bandwidth to help compensate for the change -- many saw a savings because of the price factor, and everyone benefited from the extra bandwidth. Those who didn't see a savings saw only a small price bump, and only if they chose to update to the latest pricing. (Linux customers, of course, see benefits all around.) The overall change for a 4-core service running Windows averaged out to $6.29 per month, not $15 a month.

I agree that you should consider switching to using Linux for your applications if cost is a significant factor. The main cons to Linux are that many people are not as familiar with it and that fewer game servers can run on it.

If you're thinking that switching to another host would help, that's not the case. Nearly all hosts charge for Windows and base their price on what Microsoft charges them (we were one of the last holdouts); Microsoft charges everyone the same price per machine/core, so if someone else charges less, that's a red flag that their machines may be overloaded. High-quality Xen-based virtualized services also tend to be expensive, and we're on the low end, with or without the Windows licensing fee.

axRhino
This is my homepage
This is my homepage
Posts: 78
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2012 10:48 am

Re: VDSes get more bandwidth at lower prices

Post by axRhino » Fri Oct 14, 2016 5:57 am

Edge, I read through the story and several pages of the discussion before I posted. I simply stated that it did not work out for our benefit. I do understand why you had to do it.

Extra monthly bandwidth is only a benefit if a server goes over the old levels otherwise its not really a cost saving to most I would venture because many people never came close to needing more.

Second, as to linux, Arma is not well supported on Linux as best I can tell so that doesn't help us. I did inquire in the Bohemia forums and Exile mod forums. Nearly 100% concensus that Arma should be run on Windows at the server level. Numerous reports of issues, bug, slow support and slow updates for the linux version of the Arma 3 server.

The other downgraded option for is shared hosting which never requires a Windows liscence but obviously performace can be suspect unless you are running a small pop server.

Clearly we fall into the group that was not going to benefit from the change. That I didnt like the change was my point....but that doesn't mean I dont understand it.

User avatar
Edge100x
Founder
Founder
Posts: 12219
Joined: Thu Apr 18, 2002 11:04 pm
Location: Seattle
Contact:

Re: VDSes get more bandwidth at lower prices

Post by Edge100x » Fri Oct 14, 2016 9:09 am

I provided feedback to Microsoft that the changes hurt us and our customers, but we're relatively small to them and I do not think that they will undo them. I believe that they intend to push more people to their own "cloud" offering, where Microsoft doesn't have to pay for the licensing of its own products and enjoys a competitive advantage and larger profit margin.

To clarify, shared (standalone) game server hosting here offers the highest performance. We carefully monitor it to make sure that it does.

axRhino
This is my homepage
This is my homepage
Posts: 78
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2012 10:48 am

Re: VDSes get more bandwidth at lower prices

Post by axRhino » Sat Oct 15, 2016 5:03 am

Edge100x wrote:To clarify, shared (standalone) game server hosting here offers the highest performance. We carefully monitor it to make sure that it does.

Except that your Shared / Standalone option for an Arma 3 server , 64 man on a 3 month payment is approx $52 a month where as a 4 core vds with Windows is still less at approximately $42/month.

It must be on a much better performing hardware platform?

It'sRandinator
This is my homepage
This is my homepage
Posts: 97
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2015 10:56 pm

Re: VDSes get more bandwidth at lower prices

Post by It'sRandinator » Sat Oct 15, 2016 7:38 am

axRhino wrote:
Edge100x wrote:To clarify, shared (standalone) game server hosting here offers the highest performance. We carefully monitor it to make sure that it does.

Except that your Shared / Standalone option for an Arma 3 server , 64 man on a 3 month payment is approx $52 a month where as a 4 core vds with Windows is still less at approximately $42/month.

It must be on a much better performing hardware platform?

A dedicated server in itself or used to offer standalone servers is always going to be better than a VPS/VDS.

For the best performance always get a dedicated server.


By the way, why does Arma3 start at 64 slots? Perhaps a low slot count could be offered?

User avatar
Edge100x
Founder
Founder
Posts: 12219
Joined: Thu Apr 18, 2002 11:04 pm
Location: Seattle
Contact:

Re: VDSes get more bandwidth at lower prices

Post by Edge100x » Sat Oct 15, 2016 9:52 pm

It'sRandinator wrote:By the way, why does Arma3 start at 64 slots? Perhaps a low slot count could be offered?
This is due to the resource requirements of the game. Even small servers commonly use multiple CPU cores, and we have to factor that in.

axRhino
This is my homepage
This is my homepage
Posts: 78
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2012 10:48 am

Re: VDSes get more bandwidth at lower prices

Post by axRhino » Sun Oct 16, 2016 8:18 am

It'sRandinator wrote: A dedicated server in itself or used to offer standalone servers is always going to be better than a VPS/VDS.

For the best performance always get a dedicated server.
Obviously but a $129 / month for a dedi box vs a $45 vds isnt going to ever be a reasonable option for 3 or 4 guys self funding a server. Besides I would venture to say NFO and most server providers make more off vds and hosted rentals than they ever do of dedi boxes (given that a high percentage of hosted rentals are empty much of the time and not using resources) so its in their own best interest to keep competitive alternatives available.

axRhino
This is my homepage
This is my homepage
Posts: 78
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2012 10:48 am

Re: VDSes get more bandwidth at lower prices

Post by axRhino » Sun Oct 16, 2016 8:22 am

Edge100x wrote:
It'sRandinator wrote:By the way, why does Arma3 start at 64 slots? Perhaps a low slot count could be offered?
This is due to the resource requirements of the game. Even small servers commonly use multiple CPU cores, and we have to factor that in.
Is that really true? Everything I have seen about from Bohemia suggests that Arma server performance benefits most from high speed (Mhz) single core processors and fast memory than it does from multiple cores. Thus the constant complaints from players that Arma is never taking avantage of their systems.

It'sRandinator
This is my homepage
This is my homepage
Posts: 97
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2015 10:56 pm

Re: VDSes get more bandwidth at lower prices

Post by It'sRandinator » Sun Oct 16, 2016 9:53 am

axRhino wrote:
It'sRandinator wrote: A dedicated server in itself or used to offer standalone servers is always going to be better than a VPS/VDS.

For the best performance always get a dedicated server.
Besides I would venture to say NFO and most server providers make more off vds and hosted rentals than they ever do of dedi boxes
Yeah.. if they overload it.

User avatar
Edge100x
Founder
Founder
Posts: 12219
Joined: Thu Apr 18, 2002 11:04 pm
Location: Seattle
Contact:

Re: VDSes get more bandwidth at lower prices

Post by Edge100x » Sun Oct 16, 2016 1:40 pm

ArmA3 gobbles down as much single-core performance as it cans and likes very fast CPUs. It also spreads out onto a couple of other cores, at least for some missions and when AI is involved. So, it is sort of intensive all around.

VDS and full machine server pricing is less complicated for us because we dedicate specific resources to each customer. This results in high, predictable performance, but it's also a bit wasteful, because it means that resources go unused (a VDS customer that doesn't use all of the CPU cores or memory means that the same price is paid). Standalone (shared) game servers are more efficient, but more difficult to price because the cost to us depends not just on the resource requirements of the server when full and empty, but the percentage of customers that actually fill up their servers, and how customers customize the servers. (It's particularly difficult with less popular games, where we just don't have enough data.) We try our best to predict and measure usage and to set prices fairly across the board.

It'sRandinator
This is my homepage
This is my homepage
Posts: 97
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2015 10:56 pm

Re: VDSes get more bandwidth at lower prices

Post by It'sRandinator » Mon Oct 17, 2016 6:50 am

Edge100x wrote:ArmA3 gobbles down as much single-core performance as it cans and likes very fast CPUs. It also spreads out onto a couple of other cores, at least for some missions and when AI is involved. So, it is sort of intensive all around.

VDS and full machine server pricing is less complicated for us because we dedicate specific resources to each customer. This results in high, predictable performance, but it's also a bit wasteful, because it means that resources go unused (a VDS customer that doesn't use all of the CPU cores or memory means that the same price is paid). Standalone (shared) game servers are more efficient, but more difficult to price because the cost to us depends not just on the resource requirements of the server when full and empty, but the percentage of customers that actually fill up their servers, and how customers customize the servers. (It's particularly difficult with less popular games, where we just don't have enough data.) We try our best to predict and measure usage and to set prices fairly across the board.
Have you looked into a hourly pricing model? Where leading to the monthly price of $31.99 the customer would be charged hourly until they hit the full month, so if they don't use all their cores and ram they wouldn't be charged the full $31.99.

Even standalone pricing could be bundled where a customer pays for 24 slots and can choose to switch to certain games. As well as pay for their server daily. Some ideas.

User avatar
Edge100x
Founder
Founder
Posts: 12219
Joined: Thu Apr 18, 2002 11:04 pm
Location: Seattle
Contact:

Re: VDSes get more bandwidth at lower prices

Post by Edge100x » Mon Oct 17, 2016 10:39 am

It'sRandinator wrote:Have you looked into a hourly pricing model? Where leading to the monthly price of $31.99 the customer would be charged hourly until they hit the full month, so if they don't use all their cores and ram they wouldn't be charged the full $31.99.
When I say a dedicated machine or VDS is less efficient in terms of the resources, what I mean is that each customer has dedicated CPU and memory resources whenever the server is active. If they don't use them, those resources can't be used by another customer. A different pricing model would not help with this, as it's inherent to the use of dedicated resources.

And that's fine. Dedicated resources also have advantages in terms of performance, and pricing is simpler to calculate, and fair.
Even standalone pricing could be bundled where a customer pays for 24 slots and can choose to switch to certain games. As well as pay for their server daily. Some ideas.
I don't think that making the pricing model more complicated is going to make our costs simpler to predict or make anything less expensive on the standalone server front.

If a customer wishes to run many servers for different games, a managed VDS is a better option than trying to convert one server between them.

We have considered standalone daily rentals and that's not a direction we will take for regular customers using the normal order page (there's not enough demand for it to justify it). There is a possibility that it will be offered through an API for developers who wish to spin up and down a large number of servers.

Locked