Liquidweb is launching a new cloud service
stormondemand.com

has anybody tried it yet?

Liquidweb is launching a new cloud service
stormondemand.com

has anybody tried it yet?

From what i have read, they have dedicated their 3rd datacentre to the cloud service. That is a lot of servers.

Pricing looks very attractive compared to their competitors. I like how they're not doing anything "small"; it's very honest of them because they're basically removing a lot of support on their side by not providing the very low end - where people may typically complain about poor performance and similar because their virtual server doesn't have enough RAM. (e.g. trying to run cPanel on a 256MB VPS - it works - but for large sites that actually require a VPS it's much better to have more RAM).

Details are a little thin on the site. Do you have to use Cpanel?

I'm sorry I haven't read up on liquidweb's offerings...but if anyone uses Cpanel on a 'cloud' product it's nothing more than a VPS with another name.

I'm sorry I haven't read up on liquidweb's offerings...but if anyone uses Cpanel on a 'cloud' product it's nothing more than a VPS with another name.

Its also what I'm thing about... no more, no left... just maketing...

I'm sorry I haven't read up on liquidweb's offerings...but if anyone uses Cpanel on a 'cloud' product it's nothing more than a VPS with another name.


FastServ, your claim is false.

I hate the names some of these places name stuff. i think about cell phones 90% of the time someone calls a place by name.

FastServ, your claim is false.Not exactly. A "cloud" server is still a VPS, although it has many fancy gimmicks which I generally see more issues than dedicated servers...

Not exactly. A "cloud" server is still a VPS, although it has many fancy gimmicks which I generally see more issues than dedicated servers...

As I started, its just a marketing sentense to boost sales...

As I started, its just a marketing sentense to boost sales...

Do you guys even know how cloud computing works? it either is one or isn't, it's not as abstract a term as you're making it out to be. It's not some marketing gimmick, as Kevin, a co-founder of a *competitor* was willing to point out (good to see honesty even if it helps the competition). Think that reflects well on Uptimehost.

Do you guys even know how cloud computing works? it either is one or isn't, it's not as abstract a term as you're making it out to be. It's not some marketing gimmick, as Kevin, a co-founder of a *competitor* was willing to point out (good to see honesty even if it helps the competition). Think that reflects well on Uptimehost.
Yes. Did you google on the cloud hosting providers? I see the outages being more common than dedicated servers.

Not exactly. A "cloud" server is still a VPS, although it has many fancy gimmicks which I generally see more issues than dedicated servers...

LaptopFreak, your claim above is also false.

An example off the top being www.newservers.com , I dont see any virtualization there.

My point being the term cloud has no more inherent meaning than hosting does... and the argument I generally make is, every hosting company is inherently a cloud hosting company, the cloud is essentially referring to the internet itself.

LaptopFreak, your claim above is also false.

An example off the top being www.newservers.com (http://www.newservers.com) , I dont see any virtualization there.

My point being the term cloud has no more inherent meaning than hosting does... and the argument I generally make is, every hosting company is inherently a cloud hosting company, the cloud is essentially referring to the internet itself.Fancy names only. I just checked out the website, it is nothing more than dedicated servers marketing as "cloud" with some of its gimmicks.

I'm sorry I haven't read up on liquidweb's offerings...but if anyone uses Cpanel on a 'cloud' product it's nothing more than a VPS with another name.

I wouldn't say that exactly. It is possible to install cPanel on an amazon EC2. The rightful definition of "cloud hosting" to me requires the ability to utilize CPU resources beyond one machine. Traditional VPS servers are scalable in their own way, but still limited to the maximum processing power of a single highend machine. A true cloud setup will be based on a grid of systems interlaced at the cpu level, thus allowing an instance to utilize 1, 2 even 1000 low end machines.

I wouldn't say that exactly. It is possible to install cPanel on an amazon EC2. The rightful definition of "cloud hosting" to me requires the ability to utilize CPU resources beyond one machine. Traditional VPS servers are scalable in their own way, but still limited to the maximum processing power of a single highend machine. A true cloud setup will be based on a grid of systems interlaced at the cpu level, thus allowing an instance to utilize 1, 2 even 1000 low end machines.

CPU scaling is only one part of the big picture. While the CPU may scale on-demand (without rebooting, ect), the storage and RAM most often will not. There is almost nothing cloud like about a bare metal OS running on any distributed infrastructure. The whole definition of cloud hosting extends far beyond the OS. True cloud hosting is more like shared web hosting (with scalable resources). A bare metal OS, although much more flexible in terms of what you can do with it, will never scale nearly as well as a true cloud based application pool.

CPU scaling is only one part of the big picture. While the CPU may scale on-demand (without rebooting, ect), the storage and RAM most often will not. There is almost nothing cloud like about a bare metal OS running on any distributed infrastructure. The whole definition of cloud hosting extends far beyond the OS. True cloud hosting is more like shared web hosting (with scalable resources). A bare metal OS, although much more flexible in terms of what you can do with it, will never scale nearly as well as a true cloud based application pool.

I guess it really depends on the user. There are users looking for cloud hosting that don't have issues with reboots and are looking for seemingly limitless expandability. I think in the future a lot of web hosting providers will turn to cloud based environments that allow them to replace a multitude of dedicated servers with a single cloud instance. SAN/NAS storage will need to improve, but eventually I think the technology will be ready.

A true cloud setup will be based on a grid of systems interlaced at the cpu level, thus allowing an instance to utilize 1, 2 even 1000 low end machines.

Please point me to the cloud provider that offers this. Thanks!

Till now I had not tried.. Is it very good?

I guess it really depends on the user. There are users looking for cloud hosting that don't have issues with reboots and are looking for seemingly limitless expandability. I think in the future a lot of web hosting providers will turn to cloud based environments that allow them to replace a multitude of dedicated servers with a single cloud instance. SAN/NAS storage will need to improve, but eventually I think the technology will be ready.

The primary limitation is MySQL. The biggest cloud providers (and their users) are still struggling with MySQL and other database replication issues. Enough so that standard VPS and dedicated server offerings are much more viable for database-heavy sites. Even when you've got it all working, it's not going to be as reliable, at least not today or in the near future. The only thing I see clouds excelling at today is static html. Yep that's pretty much it...same thing CDN's have been doing for years except better than clouds LOL.

The primary limitation is MySQL. The biggest cloud providers (and their users) are still struggling with MySQL and other database replication issues. Enough so that standard VPS and dedicated server offerings are much more viable for database-heavy sites. Even when you've got it all working, it's not going to be as reliable, at least not today or in the near future. The only thing I see clouds excelling at today is static html. Yep that's pretty much it...same thing CDN's have been doing for years except better than clouds LOL.

this is very true but easy to resolve. you run a seperate san dedicated to sql transaction that is built out bad to the bone for performance but not size and you keep the regular file service on the main san. Most of the large commodity cloud offerings are not going to do this since its expensive to do.

found this in twitter:

LiquidWeb

Storm On Demand is LIVE and accepting new customers! Sign up now and provision your first server in minutes

Guys, aside from opinions on cloud hosting in general, does anybody have experience with LW's offerings?
I'm interested in the IO subsystem, as their website is a bit too light on details

;6605079']Guys, aside from opinions on cloud hosting in general, does anybody have experience with LW's offerings?
I'm interested in the IO subsystem, as their website is a bit too light on details

I don't want to interrupt you asking the WHT community but I just wanted to point out that we have sales standing by 24x7 to answer any detailed questions that you might have about our new product.

Or you could put up some more details online.
I'll ask your sales

Wanna try it but their entry level cost at least $50.00 and they do not provide free trial ( asked sales for that ).

I'm playing right now with my first node with VPS.net and just emailed VPShive (http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showpost.php?p=6631206&postcount=4) for a free trial too as their price are also hight ( from $45.00 ) compare to VPS.net ( only 20 bucks ) with amazing and free stuff...

;6605079']Guys, aside from opinions on cloud hosting in general, does anybody have experience with LW's offerings?
I'm interested in the IO subsystem, as their website is a bit too light on details

We've been benchmarking LW's full line of cloud servers including IO and CPU. They use local storage for their cloud servers (i.e. storage located directly on the host server, not an external SAN). This resulted in very good performance. They also offer a very diverse range of CPU options offering varying levels of performance.

http://blog.cloudharmony.com/2010/06/disk-io-benchmarking-in-cloud.html
http://blog.cloudharmony.com/2010/05/what-is-ecu-cpu-benchmarking-in-cloud.html

Anyone else want to comment on this? I'm thinking of migrating my vBulletin sites from one VPS account to one Cloud account, but I'm not sure if a dedicated server would be better for me.

no, I didn't tried this. Can you tell me what is special in this.

Local storage isn't a cloud.

Local storage isn't a cloud.
There's some software out there that essentially combines the local storage of each HV creating a pseudo redundant SAN arrangement. I think that's a bit sloppy though, and would prefer to use a true dedicated SAN setup.

There's some software out there that essentially combines the local storage of each HV creating a pseudo redundant SAN arrangement. I think that's a bit sloppy though, and would prefer to use a true dedicated SAN setup.

Pseudo? Sloppy? Elaborate please. :eek:

Wow, revived a year old/6 month old thread with two spam posts. Sweet.

Odd that a SAN backed VPS provider would make such an assertion. By the measure that local storage as an option is not cloud would infer quite directly that Amazon EC2 is also not cloud. Ridiculous.

There are benefits to each approach. The focus of our cloud is on performance and on minimizing potential for contention and avoiding complete reliance on any centralized devices. SAN is a much better fit for VPS like clouds where I/O performance is less than critical.

We run very low density, distributed environments. Our environments are intended to replace traditional servers and performance is just on that level in all regards.

Cloud harmony is a great 3rd party resource if you wish to compare our performance to that of any other provider. We are consistently at the top for a reason.

http://blog.cloudharmony.com/2010/05/what-is-ecu-cpu-benchmarking-in-cloud.html

http://blog.cloudharmony.com/2010/06/cloud-server-benchmarking-part-4-memory.html

LW, is your cloud hosting like a reseller, where the provider manages server patches/security,

or is like a vps, where the customer does the patching/securing?

Hi Liquidweb,

I wasn't have ago at your solutions specifically, just the general assertion that a vps that's 'stuck' on a physical node, without automated recovery from physical server failure or the ability to migrate work loads in real time to new physical servers is a 'cloud' in the first place. I would contest it is not, it's just a multi-tenant dedicated server / vps.

EC2 on it's own is exactly the same, but add EBS and it starts becoming more 'cloud'.

Cloud is a terrible word, but the feature set is what customers are coming to expect, and HA, autorecovery and machine hotmigration are a few of those required features that people 'assume' they are getting when a provider uses the word cloud.