Super User is a question and answer site for computer enthusiasts and power users. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

So right now, I'm running an old box with a 2TB HDD in it. I use this as a file server for the home network, as well as a box for downloading large files which are synced via Dropbox. Lots of other tinkering things, too.

Basically, I'm sick of paying extra for the power and having to worry about drive failures and whatnot. I'd rather get a remote server, let someone else manage it and provide access from the Internet.

So, I've been looking for a Windows VPS that would give me access to install things and tinker, and I'm having a problem finding a host that offers more than 100GB of hard drive space. If they do offer a package with 100GB of storage, everything else is waaayyyy more than what I actually need.

The idea is to create a permanent VPN connection from the cloud server to my home network to provide a transparent solution so I'm not having to go to lengths to transfer files or whatnot. I think a VPS solution will allow me to do this.

I would like 1TB of storage space, minimum 100Mbps Internet connection, minimum 250GB bandwidth, admin access.

Anyone have anything? Or am I being unreasonable? If I am, why?

share|improve this question
Have you considered using Amazon's S3 service. The vast majority of VPSes are setup to ensure data can be quickly moved around, and not for backup / bulk storage. You might want to combine it with a smaller windows vps to tinker with, and ensure data is being backed up. Also you might want to look into a "seed box", but again, I am not sure if that is exactly what you are looking for. – Alex Jun 27 '11 at 0:07
I have seen S3, but the prices, even for non-redundant backup, are quite pricey for a TB. At $0.093/GB, a TB is still $93 a month :O – CamronBute Jun 27 '11 at 2:49

You could get it, but quite frankly, for those specs, running your own seems cheaper. you could probably extend it with something like backblaze for backups

If you have to go cloud, you'd likely want to use something like amazon s3 or rackspace cloud for disk space, and mount the disks with something like gladinet or jungledisk.

from random poking around numbers, it'll cost you something like 150-200 USD for what you want using that - which will cover the cost for a new fileserver in 2-3 months.

share|improve this answer
That's unfortunate... Any explanation as to why it is so expensive? It doesn't make sense how I can buy out hardware and power it for less than renting it. Wasn't the point of the cloud and server virtualization to make it more cost effective for these kinds of things, or is it so expensive for me simply due to markup? – CamronBute Jun 27 '11 at 4:32
well, its more cost effective than enterprise grade hardware and hosting, if you have very variable traffic needs or If you wanted to serve files out to lots of people, with very good, scalable performance, as opposed to backups. A single, home server + backblaze (for backups - at about 4 dollars a computer a month) will likely be a better idea for home users. – Journeyman Geek Jun 27 '11 at 5:45

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.