Comment by MontyCarloHall
14 hours ago
The individual plan says:
— $20/month
— 25 VMs
— 2 CPUs
— 8GB RAM
— 25GB disk
— 100GB bandwidth
Is this 2 CPUs/8GB RAM per VM (in other words, 50 CPUs/200GB RAM)? If so, this is an unbelievable bargain (too good to be true?); other cloud providers charge hundreds of dollars per month for an equivalent VM.
If, OTOH, it's 2 CPUs/8GB total, Hetzner offers an equivalent VM for about $5/month (with much more disk and bandwidth), and I'm not sure what the exe.dev value proposition is. (I'm also not sure why one would want to split 25 VMs across so few shared CPUs/such little memory.)
No I apologize for the confusion (exe.dev person here). What is different about this service is you get dedicated resources that you share between your VMs. The initial allocation is conservative, we want to give people more (or drop the price).
The goal is to reduce the marginal cost of creating a VM to zero. Instead of installing a container manager or using Unix users, just make another VM.
(I will get a better version of this table online tonight.)
You guys really need to work on simplifying your communication on your website. I was also very confused about how the 8GB - whether it is per VM, shared etc.
> dedicated Are plan CPUs pinned/reserved (dedicated) or time-shared with other customers under load, and what contention should I expect?
>Instead of installing a container manager or using Unix users, just make another VM.
What is the advantage of this? Unless you need something exotic like different kernel configurations per instance, what's the problem with using containers on the same instance?
BTW, a Hetzner dedicated server with 2 CPUs/8GB RAM that would let me run my own hypervisor is about $14 USD/month. For anyone who's a big enough power user to care about the distinction of running distributed workflows on VMs versus containers, I'm not sure that an extra $5/month is worth your "hypervisor as a service." But then again, HN commenters infamously poopooed Dropbox [0], so what do I know? :-)
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9224
Containers aren’t enough for me. I like to do things like create TUN devices, run docker compose, etc. I believe the VM is a fundamentally better abstraction.
Consider this: sometimes when you are using a VPS, you start a new project and say to yourself, "I should put this on a new VPS." Not all the time, but it does happen. And when it does, we are faced with the problem that starting a new project immediately costs us $X/month. I would like a new project to initially cost nothing.
1 reply →
The docs remark “VMs share the resources allocated to the user” so I interpret as resources allocated to your account, VMs provisioned within those limits.
The value proposition appears to be CLI cred.
That's decent value considering the price of a vps is close for much more work.
The only difference is the bandwidth: vps in europe givr you 10 tiles that, unmeterred.
Very cool for training: I can make people log into those vm and deploy nginx just for learning.
It's not actually a VM - it's a container, and they are fundamentally different. This feels like false advertising.
I guess the question is: can I run systemd services ob their VMs? If not, then yeah that’s false advertising.
But my perception from the homepage is you can. Am I wrong?