PRICES.. IM CONFUSED!

Im confused about the pricing.. I see it charges me everytime I deploy something but it says monthly charges I only want to use the instances for like an hour or so will it still charge me monthly?

Comments

  • You are charged hourly up to $X.00 per month depending on plan.

    So if you have an instance being billed at $0.01 per hour and use just 5 hours at end of month you will be billed $0.05. 10 instances during month running at $0.01 for an hour each would still be $0.10.
  • okay so im not charged for monthly no like a flat rate fee.
    I really wanna use the 272$ but I don't wanna run it for 5 hours and be charged 272$ at the end of the month!
    thank you for responding.
  • @NIKEDUCK Just to confirm, you're only charged the hourly price * the amount of hours you use it for, not the full month price. Just keep in mind there is price rounding.
  • Think something must be getting lost in translation. Even Vultr most expensive plan currently showing would only be $3.81 for 5 hours.

  • edited May 2015
    @nightshade I think he sees the charges listed as hourly and monthly, and is thinking the monthly charge is a flat-fee 'subscription' *on top* of the hourly fee.

    @NIKEDUCK : As @nightshade and @BensDaMan say, you are just billed hourly.

    There is no flat fee. It says "monthly charges" as a guide to how much it would cost if you did use it a full month, but for practical purposes, just go by the hourly rate: I.E. each instance is charged rounded up to the next full hour, not full month.

  • WOW helped a ton, I owe everyone of you this helps a lot! very good prices! what do you guys think about vultr honestly?
    and also im looking for the plan with the best internet speed and performance.
  • If you want to bench their internet speed, use:
    https://www.vultr.com/faq/#downloadspeedtests
  • @NIKEDUCK I don't want to come across as a fanboy (also don't want them to get too smug!) but they have exceeded my expectations in price, hardware, and network.

    Even my nodes at locations marked full haven't had performance issues. @DaveA is always keen to emphasise that they don't oversubscribe nodes, and the evidence certainly shows this.

    I've also found the staff to be knowledgeable, flexible, and approachable. Seeing their interactions in the forums shows that they aren't simply corporate employees staring at the clock waiting to go home. You can tell they are passionate about the job, and are willing to listen to any sensible suggestions.

    I'm continually impressed by their network, both latency, and bandwidth.

    As things stand, I have no interest in going elsewhere, although I may open a backup node somewhere else, simlly because I currently have all my hosts in Vultr, and the phrase 'all your eggs in one basket' comes to mind. Saying that, their different sites are fully autonomous, and problem tickets seem to be picked up quickly at all sorts of hours.

    Damn, this sounds like such a suckup! So, on to the negatives: (and bear in mind I can only go on what I've experienced or witnessed, so others may have valid gripes that I don't mention)

    1) Server reboots and upgrades are done at short notice, with not much warning - they don't appear to go through long term planning (and I'm not just referring to obviously time-critical/zecurity patches) - Having said that, I don't feel there's a problem with downtime in general - it's a very rare occurance.

    2) Specification/price changes on new instances. I'm torn on this one. When this happened recently, there were many complaints about not being warned, but I don't agree - I realise someone planning something to a strict budget could have problems, but I feel that companies are free to change offers/prices of new instances any time they like, and don't have to warn of a sale about to start, or about to end. They have that right to remain competively in business.

    Having said that, I was surprised when the CPU's were changed from 3.4/3.6 to 2.4Ghz - I realise why now (the lower speed CPU's can address loads more memory - something critical for any shared resource, as memory can't as easily be shared as the CPU (I know about ballooning [I don't know how much vultr rely on that, if at all], but whilst that can help, it's no silver bullet))

    But I do feel they should have tried harder to still have the 3.4Ghz option available. As it is, it's an effective reduction in capability for those wanting to expand existing services that are reliant on single cores)

    3) Package flexibility: I'd love some options where you could chose disk space/ram/cpu separately, with more, and smaller increments. I'm guessing this would make hardware provisioning more difficult, but I'd be happy to use such a scheme on a monthly rather than hourly plan.

    4) Spam/DOS mitigation. Firstly, I'm 100% behind Vultrs policies here, and have defended them against accusations of being too draconian. However, in the past, reaction to issues has been excessive. This was addressed by @DaveA at the time, and comments were taken on board, and things are a lot better now, but I'm still weary about responses not being proportional - if I ever get hacked and my machines start spamming (not possible, as I'm such a l33t c00l unix hxor guru!) I understand the instance would be shutdown. If I was away on holiday, on walkabout or sunbathing up Everest) what would happen after that?

    Of course Vultr need to look after their systems and reputation, (and selfishly, it's in my and your interests as users too) but I'd like some sort of trust/'honour'/reputation based response. -- If a new user has a node that starts spamming, sure, shut it down pending response. If a user who has many nodes and has been a customer for years has a problem, why not just simply firewall port 25, and don't go panicing if they don't get back to you 5 seconds after you alert them!

    Customers can be the victim too!

    To be honest, maybe things are flexible in ways like this - the point is, it's not really clear.

    5) Seeing as no-one is still reading at this point.... DOUGHNUTS! (or 'donuts' on vultr's side of the pond).. We want free doughnuts!!!

    Ok, that's it.

    Time for my medication! :-)
  • I would also enjoy some doughnuts.
  • @Arffeh heehee let's start a petition!
  • @jamie

    The problem with no 2 was that at the time it wasn't clear if this was *only* for new instances or across the board...
  • @ac000 ok, that's a fair comment
  • I need the fastest speed server in windows anyone care to help?
  • edited June 2016
    Hi
    I am new to this, so I hope this question is not considered into the stupid class. I have a $5 plan, 1000GB Bandwidth. Does this mean that up until 1000GB will cost $5 maximum.
    For example, say I use 50GB for the whole month, will this also be $5 maximum as the minimum charge.
  • Benny, I think (if I follow your line of thought) that you are rught. Up to the maximum amount of bandwidth, the $5 plan will cost $5. If you go over your maximum bandwidth, then it might cost more. You have the option of disabling your VPS if bandwith gets to its limit to avoid extra charges.
Sign In or Register to comment.