An inexpensive VPS is most often understood as a virtual machine running on GNU/LinuxToday we'll check if there's life on Mars. Windows: Budget offers from domestic and foreign providers were included in the testing list.
Virtual servers on a commercial OS Windows usually cost more than cars on Linux due to licensing fees and somewhat higher computing power requirements. For projects with a light workload, we needed a low-cost solution. WindowsSolution: Developers often need to create an infrastructure for testing applications, and using powerful virtual or dedicated servers for this purpose is quite expensive. On average, a minimally configured VPS costs around 500 rubles per month and up, but we found options on the market for less than 200 rubles. It's hard to expect miracles of performance from such inexpensive servers, but it was interesting to test their capabilities. As it turns out, finding suitable candidates for testing is not so easy.
Search options
Ultra-budget virtual servers with Windows At first glance, this seems quite sufficient, but once you actually try to order them, difficulties immediately arise. We reviewed nearly two dozen offers and were able to select only five: the rest turned out to be less affordable. The most common scenario is when the provider claims compatibility with Windows, but doesn't include the cost of OS license rental in their pricing plans and simply installs a trial version on the server. It's a good thing this fact is noted on the website; hosting providers often don't emphasize it. Licenses are offered for purchase or rent at a hefty price—from several hundred to a couple thousand rubles per month. A typical conversation with the hosting provider's support team goes something like this:
This approach is understandable, but the need to independently purchase a license and activate the trial Windows Server It renders the whole idea pointless. The software rental cost, which exceeds the price of the VPS itself, also doesn't seem enticing, especially since in the 21st century we're used to receiving a ready-made server with a legal copy of the operating system immediately after a couple of clicks in our personal account, without expensive additional services. As a result, almost all hosting providers were discarded, and companies with honest, ultra-budget VPS services entered the race. WindowsZomro, Ultravds, Bigd.host, Ruvds, and Inoventica services. These include both domestic and international providers with Russian-language technical support. We see this limitation as entirely natural: if Russian-language support isn't important to a client, they have plenty of options, including industry giants.
Configurations and prices
For testing, we took the cheapest VPS options on Windows We compared their configurations based on price with several providers. It's worth noting that the ultra-budget category includes single-processor virtual machines with mid-range CPUs, 1 GB or 512 MB of RAM, and a 10, 20, or 30 GB hard drive (HDD/SSD). The monthly fee also includes pre-installed Windows Server, usually versions 2003, 2008, or 2012—this is likely due to system requirements and Microsoft licensing policies. However, some hosting providers offer older versions.
The leader in terms of prices was immediately determined: the cheapest VPS on Windows Offered by Ultravds. It costs 120 rubles with VAT on a monthly basis, or 1152 rubles (96 rubles per month) when paid for annually. It's cheaper for free, but the hosting provider also allocates a meager 512 MB of storage, and the guest machine will be managed by Windows Server 2003 or Windows Server Core 2019. The last option is the most interesting: for a nominal fee, it allows you to get a virtual server with the latest OS version, albeit without a graphical environment—we'll look at it in more detail below. We found the offers from Ruvds and Inoventica services equally interesting: although they are approximately three times more expensive, you can get a virtual machine with the latest version. 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
Час
Free testing
No
1 Week
1 day
3 day
No
Price per month
$2,97
₽120
₽362
₽366
₽325+₽99 for server creation
Discounted price when paying for the year (per month)
$ 31,58 ($ 2,63)
₽1152 (₽96)
₽3040,8 (₽253,4)
₽3516 (₽293)
no
CPU
1
1*2,2GHz
1*2,3GHz
1*2,2GHz
1
RAM
1 GB
512 MB
1 GB
1 GB
1 GB
Disk
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
It's hard to expect instant program loading and fast GUI response from minimally configured virtual machines. However, interface responsiveness is far from the most important parameter for a server, and given the low cost of the service, you'll have to live with the lag. It's especially noticeable on configurations with 512 MB of RAM. It also turned out that an older OS version is recommended. Windows Server 2012 on single-processor machines with a gigabyte of RAM makes no sense: it will work very slowly and sadly, but this is our subjective opinion.
Against the general background, the option with stands out favorably (primarily in terms of price) Windows Server Core 2019 from Ultravds. The lack of a full-fledged graphical desktop significantly reduces computing requirements: the server can be accessed via RDP or WinRM, and the command line mode allows for any necessary actions, including launching programs with a graphical interface. Not all admins are accustomed to working with the console, but this is a good compromise: the client won't have to use an outdated OS version on weaker hardware, thus resolving software compatibility issues.
The desktop looks austere, but you can customize it a bit by installing the Server Core App Compatibility Feature on Demand (FOD). It's best not to do this, as you'll immediately lose a significant amount of RAM beyond what the system already uses—about 200 MB of the available 512 MB. After that, you'll only be able to run lightweight programs on the server, but there's no need to turn it into a full-fledged desktop: after all, the configuration Windows Server Core is designed for remote administration via Admin Center, and RDP access to the work machine should be disabled.
It’s better to do otherwise: use the key combination “CTRL + SHIFT + ESC” 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, difficulties sometimes arise due to the limited operating system configuration. These are usually surmountable, and this is perhaps the only option when Windows Server 2019 runs well on a virtual machine with 512 MB of RAM.
Synthetic test GeekBench 4
Today, this is one of the best utilities for testing the computing capabilities of computers running Windows Computers. It runs over two dozen tests, divided into four categories: Cryptography, Integer, Floating Point, and Memory. The program uses various compression algorithms, tests JPEG and SQLite performance, and HTML parsing. The fifth version of GeekBench was recently released, but many were not pleased with the significant algorithm changes, so we decided to use the tried-and-true four. Although GeekBench can be considered the most comprehensive synthetic test for Microsoft operating systems, it doesn't cover the disk subsystem—we had to test it separately. For clarity, all results are summarized in a single diagram.
All cars were equipped with Windows Server 2012R2 (except UltraLite from Ultravds - it has Windows Server Core 2019 with the Server Core App Compatibility Feature on Demand), and the results were close to expectations and match the configurations declared by the providers. Of course, a synthetic test is not a reliable indicator. Under a real-world workload, the server may behave completely differently, and much depends on the workload of the physical host where the client guest system is located. Here, it's worth looking at the Base Frequency and Maximum Frequency values reported by Geekbench:
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 were to create a ranking based on our tests, the best results were achieved by VPS providers Bigd.host, Ruvds, and Inoventica services. They offer decent computing capabilities and use fairly fast HDDs. The price, however, is significantly higher than the 100 rubles stated in the title, and Inoventica services adds a one-time service fee for ordering a machine. There's no discount for annual payment, but hourly billing. The cheapest of the tested VPS providers is offered by Ultravds: Windows Server Core 2019 and the UltraLite plan for 120 rubles (96 rubles if paid annually) were the only provider that came close to the initial stated price. Zomro came in last: VDS with the Micro plan cost us 203,95 rubles at the bank's exchange rate, but showed rather mediocre results in tests. As a result, the league table looks like this:
Place
VPS
Computational power
Drive performance
Communication channel bandwidth
Moderate price
Good value for money
I
Ultravds (UltraLite)
+
+
+
+
II
bigd.host
+
+
+
+
Ruvds
+
+
+
+
Inoventica services
+
+
+
+
III
Zomro
+
+
There's life in the ultra-budget segment: such a machine is worth using if the cost of a more powerful solution isn't justified. This could be a test server without serious workloads, a small FTP or web server, a file archive, or even an application server—there are plenty of use cases. We chose the UltraLite with Windows Server Core 2019 for 120 rubles per month from Ultravds. Its capabilities are somewhat inferior to more powerful VPS servers with 1 GB of RAM, but it costs about a third as much. This server is sufficient for our needs, as long as we don't convert it to a desktop, so the low price was the deciding factor.
Source: habr.com
