An inexpensive VPS is most often understood as a virtual machine running on GNU/Linux. Today we will check if there is life on Mars Windows: the testing list includes budget offers from domestic and foreign providers.
Virtual servers running commercial Windows OS typically cost more than Linux machines due to the need for licensing fees and slightly higher computer processing power requirements. For projects with a small load, we needed a cheap Windows solution: developers often have to create an infrastructure for testing applications, and it is rather expensive to take powerful virtual or dedicated servers for this purpose. On average, a VPS in the minimum configuration costs about 500 rubles per month and more, but we found options on the market for less than 200 rubles. It is difficult to expect performance miracles from such cheap servers, but it was interesting to test their capabilities. As it turned out, candidates for testing are not so easy to find.
Search options
At first glance, ultra-budget virtual servers with Windows are quite enough, but as soon as practical attempts to order them are reached, difficulties immediately arise. We looked at almost two dozen proposals and were able to select only 5 of them: the rest turned out to be not so budgetary. The most common option is when the provider claims compatibility with Windows, but does not include the cost of renting an OS license in its tariff plans and simply installs a trial version on the server. Well, if this fact is noted on the site, hosters often do not focus on it. It is proposed to either buy licenses on your own or rent them at a rather impressive price - from several hundred to a couple of thousand rubles a month. A typical hoster support dialog looks something like this:
This approach is understandable, but the need to independently purchase a license and activate a trial Windows Server deprives the idea of ββany sense. The cost of renting software that exceeds the price of the VPS itself also does not look attractive, especially since in the XNUMXst century we are used to getting a ready-made server with a legal copy of the operating system immediately after a couple of clicks in your personal account and without expensive additional services. As a result, almost all hosters were discarded, and companies with honest ultra-budget VPS on Windows took part in the "run": Zomro, Ultravds, Bigd.host, Ruvds and Inoventica services. Among them there are both domestic and foreign ones with Russian-speaking technical support. We see such a limitation as quite natural: if support in Russian is not important for a client, he has many options, including industry giants.
Configurations and prices
For testing, we took the cheapest Windows VPS options from several providers and tried to compare their configurations, taking into account the price. It is worth noting that single-processor virtual machines with not the highest-end CPUs, 1 GB or 512 MB of RAM and a 10, 20 or 30 GB hard drive (HDD / SSD) fell into the ultra-budget category. The monthly fee also includes a pre-installed Windows Server, usually versions 2003, 2008 or 2012 - this is probably due to system requirements and Microsoft's licensing policy. However, some hosters offer systems of older versions.
The leader in terms of prices was immediately determined: the cheapest VPS on Windows is offered by Ultravds. If paid monthly, it will cost the user 120 rubles including VAT, and if paid immediately for the year, it will cost 1152 rubles (96 rubles per month). Cheaper only for nothing, but at the same time, the hoster does not allocate memory a lot - only 512 MB, and the guest machine will run Windows Server 2003 or Windows Server Core 2019. The latter option is the most interesting: for symbolic money, it allows you to get a virtual server with the latest version OS, albeit without a graphical environment - below we will consider it in more detail. No less interesting were the offers of Ruvds and Inoventica services: although they are about three times more expensive, you can get a virtual machine with the latest version of Windows Server.
Zomro
Ultravds
bigd.host
Ruvds
Inoventica services
Tariff plan
VPS/VDS "Micro"
UltraLite
start win
Billing
1/3/6/12 months
Month year
1/3/6/12 months
Month year
Π§Π°Ρ
Free testing
No
1 Week
1 day
3 day
No
Price per month
$2,97
β½120
β½362
β½366
β½325+β½99 for server creation
Discounted price when paying for the year (per month)
$ 31,58 ($ 2,63)
β½1152 (β½96)
β½3040,8 (β½253,4)
β½3516 (β½293)
no
CPU
1
1*2,2GHz
1*2,3GHz
1*2,2GHz
1
RAM
1 GB
512 MB
1 GB
1 GB
1 GB
ΠΠΈΡΠΊ
20 GB (SSD)
10 GB (HDD)
20 GB (HDD)
20 GB (HDD)
30 GB (HDD)
IPv4
1
1
1
1
1
OS
Windows Server 2008 / 2012
Windows Server 2003 or Windows Server Core 2019
Windows Server 2003 / 2012
Windows Server 2003/2012/2016/2019
Windows Server 2008/2012/2016/2019
First impression
There were no particular problems with ordering virtual servers on the providers' websites - they are all made quite conveniently and ergonomically. With Zomro, you need to enter captcha from Google for authorization, which is a little annoying. In addition, Zomro does not have technical support by phone (it is provided only through the ticket system in 24 * 7 mode). I would also like to note a very simple and intuitive personal account for Ultravds, a beautiful modern interface with animation for Bigd.host (it is very convenient to use it on a mobile device) and the ability to configure a firewall external to client VDS for Ruvds. In addition, each provider has its own set of additional services (backup, storage, DDoS protection, etc.) with which we did not particularly understand. In general, the impression is positive: earlier we worked only with the giants of the industry, which have more services, but the management system for them is much more complicated.
Tests
It makes no sense to carry out expensive load testing due to a fairly large number of participants and rather weak configurations. Here it is best to limit ourselves to popular synthetic tests and a superficial check of network capabilities - this is enough for a rough comparison of VPS.
Interface Responsiveness
From virtual machines in a minimal configuration, it is difficult to expect instant loading of programs and a quick response of the graphical interface. However, for a server, the responsiveness of the interface is far from the most important parameter, and given the low cost of services, you will have to put up with delays. They are especially noticeable on configurations with 512 MB of RAM. It also turned out that it makes no sense to take an OS version older than Windows Server 2012 on single-processor machines with a gigabyte of RAM: it will work very slowly and sadly, but this is our subjective opinion.
Against the general background, the option with Windows Server Core 2019 from Ultravds stands out favorably (primarily at the price). The lack of a full-fledged graphical desktop significantly reduces the requirements for computing resources: access to the server is possible via RDP or WinRM, and the command line mode allows you to perform any necessary actions, including launching programs with a graphical interface. Not all admins are used to working with the console, but this is a good compromise: the customer does not have to use an outdated version of the OS on weak hardware, thus software compatibility issues are resolved.
The desktop looks ascetic, but if you wish, you can finish it a little by installing the Server Core App Compatibility Feature on Demand (FOD) component. It is better not to do this, because you will immediately lose a fair amount of RAM in addition to the one already used by the system - about 200 MB out of the available 512. After that, it will be possible to run only some lightweight programs on the server, but it does not need to be turned into a full-fledged desktop: after all, the Windows Server Core configuration is intended for remote administration through the Admin Center and RDP access to the working machine should be disabled.
Itβs better to do otherwise: use the key combination βCTRL + SHIFT + ESCβ to call the Task Manager, and start Powershell from it (the installation kit also includes the good old cmd, but it has fewer features). Then, using a couple of commands, a shared network resource is created, where the necessary distributions are uploaded:
New-Item -Path 'C:ShareFiles' -ItemType Directory
New-SmbShare -Path 'C:ShareFiles' -FullAccess Administrator -Name ShareFilesWhen installing and running server software, sometimes there are difficulties associated with a stripped down configuration of the operating system. As a rule, they are surmountable and, perhaps, this is the only option when Windows Server 2019 behaves well in a virtual machine with 512 MB of RAM.
Synthetic test GeekBench 4
Today it is one of the best utilities for testing the computing capabilities of computers running Windows. In total, she conducts more than two dozen tests, divided into four categories: Cryptography, Integer, Floating Point and Memory. The program uses various compression algorithms, checks work with JPEG and SQLite, as well as HTML parsing. Recently, the fifth version of GeekBench became available, but many did not like the serious change in algorithms in it, so we decided to use the proven four. Although GeekBench can be called the most comprehensive synthetic test for Microsoft operating systems, it does not affect the disk subsystem - it had to be tested separately. For clarity, all results are summarized in a common diagram.
Windows Server 2012R2 was installed on all machines (except UltraLite from Ultravds - it has Windows Server Core 2019 with the Server Core App Compatibility Feature on Demand component), and the results were close to expected and correspond to the configurations declared by providers. Of course, a synthetic test is not yet an indicator. Under a real workload, the server may behave completely differently, in addition, a lot depends on the workload of the physical host on which the client guest system will be. Here it is worth looking at the Base Frequency and Maximum Frequency values ββthat Geekbench gives out:
Zomro
Ultravds
bigd.host
Ruvds
Inoventica services
Base frequency
2,13 GHz
4,39 GHz
4,56 GHz
4,39 GHz
5,37 GHz
Maximum Frequency
2,24 GHz
2,19 GHz
2,38 GHz
2,2 GHz
2,94 GHz
On a physical computer, the first parameter must be less than the second, and on a virtual one it is often the other way around. This is probably due to quotas on computing resources.
CrystalDisk Mark 6
This synthetic test is used to evaluate the performance of the disk subsystem. The CrystalDiskMark 6 utility performs sequential and random write / read operations with a queue depth of 1, 8 and 32. We also summarized the test results in a diagram, which clearly shows some performance scatter. In low-cost configurations, most providers use magnetic hard disk drives (HDDs). Zomro has a solid-state drive (SSD) in its Micro plan, but according to test results, it works no faster than modern HDDs.
* MB/s = 1,000,000 bytes/s [SATA/600 = 600,000,000 bytes/s] * KB = 1000 bytes, KiB = 1024 bytes
Speedtest by Ookla
To evaluate the network capabilities of VPS, let's take another popular benchmark. The results of his work are summarized in the table.
Zomro
Ultravds
bigd.host
Ruvds
Inoventica services
Download, Mbps
87
344,83
283,62
316,5
209,97
Upload, Mbps
9,02
87,73
67,76
23,84
32,95
Ping,ms
6
3
14
1
6
Results and conclusions
If we try to form a certain rating based on our tests, then the best results were shown by VPS providers Bigd.host, Ruvds and Inoventica services. With good computing capabilities, they use fairly fast HDDs. At the same time, the price is significantly higher than the 100 rubles stated in the title, and Inoventica services also added the cost of a one-time service for ordering a car, there is no discount when paying for a year, but the billing is hourly. Ultravds offers the cheapest VDS tested: with Windows Server Core 2019 and an UltraLite tariff for 120 (96 when paid for a year) rubles, this provider is the only one who managed to get closer to the initially declared threshold. Zomro was in last place: VDS at the Micro tariff cost us β½203,95 at the bankβs rate, but showed rather mediocre results in tests. As a result, the standings look like this:
Place
VPS
Computational power
Drive performance
Communication channel bandwidth
Moderate price
Good value for money
I
Ultravds (UltraLite)
+
β
+
+
+
II
bigd.host
+
+
+
β
+
Ruvds
+
+
+
β
+
Inoventica services
+
+
+
β
+
III
Zomro
+
β
β
+
β
There is life in the ultra-budget segment: such a machine is worth using if the cost of a more productive solution is inappropriate. It can be a test server without serious workloads, a small ftp or web server, a file archive, or even an application server - there are a lot of use cases. We chose UltraLite with Windows Server Core 2019 for 120 rubles per month from Ultravds. In terms of capabilities, it is somewhat inferior to more powerful VPS with 1 GB of RAM, but it costs about three times cheaper. Such a server copes with our tasks, if we do not turn it into a desktop, so the low price has become a determining factor.
Source: habr.com