SSD Nodes is a bootstrapped cloud hosting provider I've been working on since 2011. Our servers are 90% lower cost than DigitalOcean, Vultr, and Linode when you commit to 1 or 3 years in advance.
We recently launched a Performance line of servers leveraging NVMe technology that boasts millions of IOPS and up to 6,400MB/s disk throughput, while still being 75% lower cost than what you would pay with at competitors.
SSD Nodes is a bootstrapped cloud hosting provider I've been working on since 2011. Our servers are 90% lower cost than DigitalOcean, Vultr, and Linode when you commit to 1 or 3 years in advance.
We recently launched a Performance line of servers leveraging NVMe technology that boasts millions of IOPS and up to 6,400MB/s disk throughput, while still being 75% lower cost than what you would pay with at competitors.
Thanks for reaching out and sorry to hear about the issues you’re experiencing. We use several different services for managing fraud, and one of them flagged your IP. Not sure why since everything else looks fine, so we reviewed and approved your order.
We also use Stripe for payment processing, so we never see your credit card details.
Kind of strange considering I'm at work, it's a static IP, and work is a Fintec company owned by a bank. Anyway thanks for quickly resolving the issue; The server is up and I'm SSHed in.
For those of you looking for competitive prices with servers in the U.S., take a look at SSD Nodes—a bootstrapped hosting provider I've been working on since 2011. I'm the founder and CEO, so I'm a little biased, but we're offering 16GB of RAM plus KVM for a price that's more than competitive with Hetzner, and have clients posting excellent benchmarks, like 1.1 GB/s throughput and 480K IOPS[0].
two things kill it for me - annual commitment - I'm just playing around and I have so many options to choose from without the commitment.
Mind you, we're spending $10k+ on AWS right now, but it all started with a free tier.
Another thing is we're based in Europe and you only have servers in the US.
Good luck in the ultra competitive market.
Totally understand, and thank you for taking the time to provide feedback.
In most cases our annual price is equivalent to 1-3 months of a competitor's monthly price. You mentioned AWS so I'm going to use them as an example, even though it's not an apples to apples comparison. Their m5.xlarge is similar to our X-Large plan (16GB RAM + 4vCPUs). I'll ignore that it doesn't include storage or bandwidth, for simplicity. The m5.xlarge (with no storage or bandwidth) costs $140/month on-demand, which exceeds the annual price of the X-Large plan. If you reserve an m5.xlarge for 1 year (paid upfront) with AWS, the cost is a little less than $1K, which is close to 10X the cost of our X-Large.
If customers cancel their server with us after the 14-day refund period, we provide a prorated credit for the remainder of their billing cycle[0]. So if someone cancels after 2 months, they get the remaining 10 months as credit. They can use that towards renewals, new services, etc. I totally respect it's not for everyone, but the cost savings can be substantial for those who are able to use our services.
We are also expanding to Europe in the near future.
It's super easy. Just log into the dashboard and select your server, then "Upgrade" to see the options. From there, choose the package you want and your KVM server will be automatically scaled up (with zero downtime).
The 16/32GB RAM options are actually the lowest we offer. We did the side deal thing in the past, but having different pricing on the main site and a landing page just made things more complicated and led to unhappy customers.
We're definitely planning on offering Windows in the future. There are some licensing headaches, and it also means having people on staff that are experts in both Linux AND Windows (for customer queries, etc). So it's a bit more involved than just having a Windows install, but we're working on it.
I lurk on here and don't really contribute (mostly due to time constraints). I keep coming back because of the quality of comments and discussions and the positive way people treat each other.
I'm the founder of SSD Nodes, Inc., which is a bootstrapped SSD-based hosting provider for startups that I've been working on since 2011. Some of our clients have posted benchmarks showing great performance, such as 800MB/s+ throughput and 292K IOPS: https://lowendbox.com/blog/ssdnodes-high-ram-ssd-vps-startin...
If I would be able to downvote you, I would. My benchmark/review is about hourly billing providers where I am able to spin up a server within a minute, which is not the case for your company. You are simply one of the 10000 companies that offer regular Virtual Private Servers.
Thanks for taking the time to respond, really appreciate it. You mentioned hourly billing, but the OVH plans you reviewed are monthly[0], and all the pricing you listed on the site is monthly.
We're trying to go in a different direction from hourly, and instead offer very deep discounts for annually. So customers can get 8GB RAM for $6.49/month ($77.99/year) and have stellar performance with a provisioning time of about 10 seconds.
OVH offers hourly and monthly billing. The hourly billing is a bit more expensive but it is there. The pricing is monthly to get a better overview and be able to compare it better.
I understand your direction and it makes sense, but please don't advertise in a post that is reviewing providers with a specific use case (hourly billing) that you don't offer. Thanks.
Hi, I really liked your post and your comments about your experience with each provider, but I totally disliked your answer and the one below. I didn't see anywhere that your benchmark was only about hourly billing providers so I find your reply disrespectful. Maybe you should update the title or the text if you want to take such stance?
Moreover, to me, regular VPS == openvz and not hourly billing (openvz would also disqualify ssdnodes).
If your review is supposed to be about hourly billing providers, shouldn't you actually mention that in the review? Because you didn't say a single thing about that in the review. Neither did you say in your review that it was about being able to spin up a server within a minute.
As it is, your original response comes off as more than slightly rude, and your subsequent response was very rude.
Interesting. Why did you choose OpenVZ? OpenVZ makes me think of fly-by-night, oversold VPS providers that are barely even adequate for a personal site. Another concern is that with OpenVZ, any Linux kernel privilege escalation vulnerability can be used to escape the virtual server. So I hope you stay on top of kernel security updates. But of course, that requires the host to be rebooted.
Hey there, those are great questions! First to answer your security questions. We're using KernelCare, which is like Ksplice. It keeps all our host kernels updated with no reboots needed.
OpenVZ, when used properly, provides us with massive performance gains along with the flexibility of "live scaling." Since we're providing containers, our customers can scale up to a larger plan with zero downtime. Their RAM and disk resources are available immediately after choosing the next package (additional cores require a reboot).
I'm the founder of SSD Nodes, Inc., which is a bootstrapped SSD-based hosting provider for startups that I've been working on since 2011. We have several locations which are great for VPNs: NYC, Dallas, Seattle, and Montreal. We're really good about curbing abuse, so our IPs usually don't have any issues (there's also a 14-day refund if it doesn't work out, we're very generous with refunds).
Have you considered charging by number of fans per outlet, instead of a flat $1/credit? Seems to me the value is in the blog's reach, similar to CPM in advertising. It goes against the simplicity of your platform, so you could make it very simple: $5 for high traffic, $3 for medium, $1 for low (or a variation of that).
I think there's a risk of this becoming a payola or pay-to-play sort of situation. I don't know that you're wrong, but it makes the model seem more predatory of musicians.
Here's what I like about the very small flat fee:
1. It is small enough for even modestly successful musicians to cover it. It isn't a monetary barrier to entry.
2. It is likely large enough to prevent the shotgun approach. This is one of the bigger problems of finding new talent for record labels and music writers, especially in the digital age when emailing or messaging someone a link to your song approaches zero cost...you can't realistically listen to every unsolicited track, so you have to filter somehow. This, at least, insures you don't get a bunch of stuff in genres you don't care about or know anything about. People have to choose a little more carefully.
3. It provides an incentive for writers and musicians to form a relationship so they'll work together again (with the blogger getting tipped again and the artist getting more coverage or useful feedback); it starts out as a monetary transaction, but once they've connected up and like each other, they could work toward building a scene (and the network that comes with that). In music, a scene is a force multiplier for everyone involved (e.g., Seattle grunge, Madchester, Atlanta dirty south).
Increasing the fee for big sites looks more like payola than merely a filtering tool to determine who has gone to the trouble to figure out the best handful of writers or labels to reach out to. If the profit of the site begins to come from the musicians they're reviewing, their incentives start to get lopsided in the wrong direction. I'm not saying all bloggers would do it, but there would be incentive to boost stats (with clickbaity stuff), and to get as many submissions as possible. Incentives should, IMHO, be directed toward increasing quality, maximizing the time a writer can spend on the artists they choose to cover, and providing the best feedback for the artists.
Anything that gives incentive to cheat the system will break it and reduce the quality of the network...likely even killing it. If there's even a slight notion that people are scamming musicians with this, it will (maybe deservedly) die.
If you're concerned about the overhead of an SSL handshake, another option is simply using '//embed.example.com' so it automatically chooses http/https based on the main site.
SSD Nodes is a bootstrapped cloud hosting provider I've been working on since 2011. Our servers are 90% lower cost than DigitalOcean, Vultr, and Linode when you commit to 1 or 3 years in advance.
We recently launched a Performance line of servers leveraging NVMe technology that boasts millions of IOPS and up to 6,400MB/s disk throughput, while still being 75% lower cost than what you would pay with at competitors.