Dear WHT-ers,
What would be the smallest VPS that makes sense? RAM and Disk wise? Bandwidth is also important, but secondary.
Printable View
Dear WHT-ers,
What would be the smallest VPS that makes sense? RAM and Disk wise? Bandwidth is also important, but secondary.
That's not really a complete question. Makes sense really depends on what you're doing with it, your skills and time to optimize/maintain, etc... I have plenty of 128 to 256MB VPS's for things like VPN, SSH port forwarding, small static websites, etc... Where some other sites require much more resources.
not really going to that but some of the customer requested custom spec with 64mb ram...mostly use for vpn
Can you install any OS with 64 MB or RAM?
of course. An example is my obsolete as in no longer produced nslu2 with 32mb runs debian 5 with no problems.
Thank you for the info, I thought that 128 MB is the smallest amount of RAM which could be used for Linux.
What about the drive space, do you think 500 MB makes sense at all?
I've made a few templates that idled at 8MB ram, I can see 64MB being useful for a few very simple uses.
Definatley, as you can shrink CentOS down to around 90MB for example, although most people would consider it "useless" due to what you have to strip out.
64 MB Ram / 5GB Disk Space is a sane small VPS. Fine for a small DNS server etc.
I've seen host offering 32 MB ram with 500 MB disk space. That is one tight VPS :\
A VPS can be any size in any ways, it just all depends on what your going to use the VPS for.
It all depends on what you want to host, but I personally would never go below 256mb ram, space is variable.
64M RAM/1GB HDD is reasonable minimum in case you need to have just linux box with several light applications.
With 128M you can run lighttpd more or less successful.