Many of you were eagerly awaiting it, and it's now official: the new generation of OVHcloud VPS is now available!
Whether you're launching a personal project, hosting a critical web application, or setting up your own testing environment, we've redesigned our offers to give you even more performance and flexibility, always at the best price/performance ratio.
Highlights of this new line:
Boosted performance: Take advantage of a modernized architecture with NVMe disks for ultra‑fast response times.
Simplified scalability: Your project grows? So does your VPS. Upgrade to a higher configuration with a few clicks, directly from the manager.
Essentials included: Unlimited traffic, standard integrated Anti‑DDoS protection, and a wide selection of distributions and pre‑installable applications (Linux, Windows, Docker, cPanel...).
Since we've just launched this new discussion space, it's the perfect opportunity to kick off technical discussions:
What do you think of these new configurations?
What will be the very first project you host on it?
Feel free to share your feedback, your initial benchmarks, or ask your questions directly in response to this topic. We can’t wait to read your posts!
I get the feeling that there's a mismatch between CPU/RAM threads on one side and disk space on the other.
A VPS4 can host a lot of sites/activities… But with 200 GB of disk space, that limits what you can put on it.
And I'm not a fan of additional disks: first, they're pricey; second, it seems to be an RZO disk; third, it's another disk, a specific mount point, etc.
Aside from that, the pricing is very aggressive; I haven't really done competitive monitoring recently, but wow, when I see the price it's sold at and the theoretical capacity side by side, what's currently available on the market is quite impressive.
And especially, when you compare that to the "Public Cloud" tier, the price shoots up quickly; it's quite incomprehensible. Unless you accept the idea that in the VPS tier, resources are absolutely not guaranteed, unlike the Public Cloud tier.
The work you’ve done on this new lineup is evident. As an engineer, what I like most is:
NVMe drives in all models, even the smallest one. The I/O jump compared to previous SSDs is huge.
Daily automatic backup included at no extra cost. That used to be optional and now it’s standard, very well thought out.
One‑click scalability without manual migration. Scaling resources without stopping the service is great when a project grows.
Unlimited traffic with bandwidth up to 1.5 Gb/s on the VPS‑4. Perfect for traffic spikes or game servers.
I have a couple of technical questions, if you could clarify them:
Regarding downgrades, I understand it isn’t straightforward. Do you have something planned to make reducing resources easier, or will we always have to purchase a new VPS and migrate?
In Local Zones I’ve noticed that some options like Windows, Plesk, or Docker are missing. Is that by design, or could it change in the future?
Migration from the previous generation – is there a tool on the way, or does it have to be done manually?
Overall the lineup seems very competitive in price and what it includes. For new projects it’s a crystal‑clear option. And if you ever want to share a guide for migrating from older VPSs, that would be great.
Hi @TTY and thanks for your interest in the processors
The hardware composition varies from one server to another and we can’t guarantee in advance which CPU will be assigned to each client. To date, more than 16 different CPU models are deployed in our infrastructure. We focus on overall performance and service availability rather than the exact CPU model.
To ensure compatibility during live migrations, we always expose the oldest CPU model present in the pool. This way, clients see a generic model in their operating system, which allows us to move virtual machines without hardware‑compatibility constraints.
Feel free to ask any questions, best regards,
JLam
I find it quite disappointing as a configuration compared to the major German competitor.
One major point is that OVH offers a basic backup included, which is generally not provided by other providers. In the end, this pushes the overall rating up for the others. But, as mentioned earlier, for example, it remains very, very lightweight in terms of disk space.
And that’s probably why a smaller disk space was chosen, since they need to offer the equivalent for backups. I think it’s a marketing mistake; it might appeal to small startups that are aware of the importance of a backup system, but most people are unaware when they purchase—no need to remind them of the disaster that happened back then and all the servers that had no backup… OVH wants to be proactive, probably, but for me it remains the client’s responsibility.
The issue you’re raising here is figuring out who the intended customers for VPS should be.
In my view (and I think it’s specified in the terms and conditions), you need to have the technical skills to manage a VPS (and therefore understand the importance of backups). But OVH needs to operate at scale, and under those conditions it has to target a large, competent, well‑informed customer base.
Consequently, OVH, as the European market leader, should offer a “backups included” plan.
Moreover, as you remind me, there was a fire in the past, so OVH doesn’t want to take any risks and systematically backs up every VPS for safety. With this offering, OVH simply passes that cost on to the customer.
As for the competition, generally, from what I’ve been able to test (I haven’t tried every provider), OVH’s VPS performance is often more appealing, and the price‑to‑performance ratio is often more attractive. I prefer to pay a little extra (especially since OVH’s prices are already “broken”) and have something a bit more stable and performant.
Personally, the problem I have with Ionos is that it’s really hard to know/understand what you’ll actually end up paying after 1, 6 or 12 months… I think that’s pretty borderline as a commercial practice.
And then there are ads everywhere in their manager… When you’re working, it’s really tiring.
I think there are many people who manage their VPS only through a web‑based control panel, enable a backup that actually saves only locally on the same disk, and have NO other external or remote backups. So for that case, you need at least a full copy of the remote disk—even if it isn’t incremental and even if it means freezing the VPS for a few minutes during the export—it’s still better than nothing.
Doesn’t want to take any risk? I’ll remind you that many companies had a backup system and it wasn’t clearly stated that it was in the same data center, which helped them win lawsuits. Now they state it clearly:
But the risk remains the same: if your VPS burns and your backup fails. So, in my opinion, if it’s for this kind of service, it’s better not to include the backup service and instead offer a better configuration, letting people choose to set up their own system. Because it’s not only about fire hazards; it can go wrong with many other things, like the internet going down in that region, the datacenter’s power, etc… A backup and your VPS that can go down at the same time, personally, is something that really needs to be taken into consideration.
Also note that in case of a security vulnerability for manager access, a hacker could erase everything, server and backup, so you lose everything completely. It’s also a good idea to have a backup with another hosting provider (Scaleway or other).
Highlights of this new line:
Check out all the specifications and find the VPS that fits your needs here: Nouvelle Gamme VPS OVHcloud
Your turn!
