Good MC Hosts?
- Thread starter Lampbork
- Start date
- Status
PebbleHost
High performance, consistent uptime and fast support. Minecraft hosting that just works.
You say good but you have an extremely low budget by the looks of it. This is a diagram a friend used to use a lot, it is relative to car mechanics:
If you want a price of $2/GB or so, you will be sacrificing largely in terms of performance. What is your $/GB budget? That'd be more useful to get what you want rather than getting spammed with ads from a lot of summer hosts.
If you want a price of $2/GB or so, you will be sacrificing largely in terms of performance. What is your $/GB budget? That'd be more useful to get what you want rather than getting spammed with ads from a lot of summer hosts.
Last edited:
OVH isn't a performance host, it's a budget host. It's probably the best price/performance host around (as far as I know anyway, I don't deal much with budget hosts). It isn't made to have a premium network, support, or reliability. It can't offer a SLA or the guarantees something like InterNAP can.
I don't dispute OVH isn't one of the largest server providers. I also don't dispute that they're not a professional company. I wasn't aware, however, that they had a real SLA (https://www.ovh.com/us/dedicated-cloud/discover/sla.xml). Last time I used OVH, they did not.
OVH's DDoS protection isn't exactly dedicated DDoS protection, which is why it's included for free when, otherwise, the same amount of DDoS protection would run you into tens of thousands. OVH has invested millions into its infrastructure against DDoS attacks, as far as I'm aware. OVH's protection has two key points which makes it worse for game servers (and I believe their game server line fixes one of these points): 1. it's shared protection, this is their network capacity and 2. your IP is rerouted through their protected infrastructure when an attack is detected, not 24/7. the time to reroute is too late for a Minecraft server and iirc a large enough attack, nowhere near exceeding their network capacity, will take your server offline.
Regardless, OVH has never focused on competing against the likes of InterNAP, SingleHop and LiquidWeb, to name you a few performance hosts. OVH is price/performance, but couldn't beat the latter names I mentioned in terms of raw performance and it's also the reason why serious, larger companies use more of the 3 latter names I mentioned compared to OVH. OVH is subpar compared to a lot of the industry's standard. It offering a low price doesn't suddenly make it a performance provider.
Last time I used them (after their upgrades) I couldn't sustain an actual 20Gbps attack, even. And on 2, I didn't know that either, as I said I've only used them so much, definitely helps their case though. I remember I did inquire about that over the phone just over a year ago when we wanted to expand into budget ranges and they said they don't do that.
Not sure what you mean by InterNAP's server quality, a specification is a specification, they have a strong infrastructure and their network is superior to more or less anything I've used before. InterNAP's support is far superior as well, they have premium carriers and optimised routes, as well. SingleHop was a bad example since they focus more on managed hosting, but their network is better and have far better support (something OVH is pretty bad at, actually). LiquidWeb I used for colocation and their network was far superior, haven't used their servers but a specification is a specification. DDoS protection isn't typically integrated in large sizes with premium hosting providers, they prefer to invest in other things, and their average customer prefers external services for attack protection anyway. I had a sales contact when I used them and he was usually the person I went through if I needed anything, so support was prompt any time of the day really. I didn't use their standard options for support.
Either way, those 3 names I provided are generally better than OVH in terms of their service, without a doubt. That doesn't mean OVH is bad, but you can't argue that they compete in price/performance (and dominate, at that). They never tried to, nor do, compete against the likes of the 3 names I mentioned, for example, and many other performance hosts. OVH themselves would attest to that.
I don't know, the support seems quite rude and I personally don't like their support team, but in the underlying issue LiquidWeb is in the right. DDoS protection isn't guaranteed by LiquidWeb iirc, and lots of hosts don't offer a large amount of DDoS protection. When you're down due to DDoS it sucks, but there's not much LiquidWeb could've done for him. DDoS attacks *are* expensive to mitigate.
- Status
