Which is best cloudhost?

I am considering these. stormondemand,vps.net,rackspace.
Is there any other better one?

Hi,


Softlayer.com
rackspacecloud.com
enzu.com
vps.net
hivelocity.net

rackspace.
I have heard a lot of feedbacks of them, so I suppose they are believed the best cloud web host.

Well, I have found a cloud-hosting-providers(Dot)com for finding top cloud hosting companies. Hope this will help you.:)

I would prefer RackSpace to all, I've never heard about them but have heard many many good stuff about them from partners and other cloud hosting providers.

I would say SoftLayer is the best I have ever meet during my 10year hosting experience ...

Be sure to try
http://stormondemand.com/cloud-hosting/
Its owned by liquidweb who have quite a good reputation in webhostingtalk

You should try gigenet, you can find my review on this forum.

Cloud servers or cloud web site hosting?

I know Rackspace's cloud servers don't utilize failover which would be a big downside in my opinion.

try cloud.bg in Europe.

DediPower Managed Hosting are launching their Cloud on Monday 19th July 2010. However i believed its aimed at those who currently have or require multiple virtual servers as opposed to a single VPS.

Im currently using rackspacecloud.com for my VPS. Really great performance even on the cheapest packages. Only thing i wish they provided was a virtual load balance, or the ability to move IP addresses between the VPS instances.

I have heard some good reviews for the rackspace cloud hosting so might be they will be right option.

I have heard that Softlayer is one of best cloudhost company.

Softlayer's cloud is reliable, but the I/O performance of their cloud SAN is really low. Even standard single I/O operations (running rsync, copying a large file, performing a database dump) tend to stall the server in a massive IO wait.

As for the best cloud host? I don't think there is a "best" cloud host. Each cloud has its own unique blend of characteristics. A cloud that might work well for one application might prove insufficient for another. It's worth doing the following:

Look at the list of features each cloud offers and determine if it meets the need.
Get a test account or a temporary instance and benchmark your software on each cloud.


Speculation is good, but nothing beats a real test.

+1 for Rackspace. LB/elastic IPs are a miss. But it is a really stable and great performance cloud.

I would probably say between Liquid Web's Storm and VPS.net - those two seem to impress me the most out of all the clouds.

SingleHop.com is currently in the BETA stages of offering the cloud. You should seriously check them out, they have been amazing to work with! They come very highly recommended.

SingleHop.com is currently in the BETA stages of offering the cloud. You should seriously check them out, they have been amazing to work with! They come very highly recommended.

Thanks for the kind words! :)

Thanks for the kind words! :)

Just speaking from expierence! Just curious, when do you suspect that the cloud will be out of beta?

RackSpace and Google App Engine

I see vps.net recommended a lot at WHT.

I would recommend VPS.Net all the way... Ditlev and Thomas run a tight ship.

You could always check out Amazon's EC2.

Cloud servers or cloud web site hosting?

I know Rackspace's cloud servers don't utilize failover which would be a big downside in my opinion.

Isn't the point of cloud to offer failover?? :D

Just speaking from expierence! Just curious, when do you suspect that the cloud will be out of beta?

TBradely,

We're hoping to be out of beta with cascade by mid to late August. :)

TBradely,

We're hoping to be out of beta with cascade by mid to late August. :)

Thanks for the update Jacob!

Thanks for the update Jacob!

No problem, sorry it took me so long to get back to you. I just remembered that you asked and asked management. :)

Cheers,

I am not a user of cloud hosting but read a lot of positive reviews about rackspacecloud(Dot)com

I would probably say between Liquid Web's Storm and VPS.net - those two seem to impress me the most out of all the clouds.

In the past, we had extreme issues with VPS.Net and IOWait problems. Enough to absolutely cripple server performance repeatedly.

Ended up moving those "servers" to Softlayer with the rest of our stuff. All issues were instantly fixed by moving back to Softlayer.

I would never put anything critical on a VPS.Net system. I'm not saying it would be bad for everyone, but we had 8+ instances with them at one point, all of them suffering from similar issues.

In the past, we had extreme issues with VPS.Net and IOWait problems. Enough to absolutely cripple server performance repeatedly.

Ended up moving those "servers" to Softlayer with the rest of our stuff. All issues were instantly fixed by moving back to Softlayer.

I would never put anything critical on a VPS.Net system. I'm not saying it would be bad for everyone, but we had 8+ instances with them at one point, all of them suffering from similar issues.

Not a typical issue we hear -- I see one ticket from you about IOWait, but we never got a response from for permission to proceed further. We can still do some tests to see if there's anything we can do to improve the speeds. Let us know, and we'll make it happen.

Storage is where you can separate the strong cloud setups from the poor ones, and it is not trivial to run a cloud of the scale of VPS.NET. It took us a while to get it right, but we are there now, our SAN setup is really good now, and IO is not an issue anymore at VPS.NET.

I am sorry for the issues you've seen in the past though, and I invite you on board for a free trial of our new san setup anytime...

:)
D

Storage is where you can separate the strong cloud setups from the poor ones, and it is not trivial to run a cloud of the scale of VPS.NET. It took us a while to get it right, but we are there now, our SAN setup is really good now, and IO is not an issue anymore at VPS.NET.

I am sorry for the issues you've seen in the past though, and I invite you on board for a free trial of our new san setup anytime...

:)
D

If you do a good look through our tickets list, you'll see quite a few that are all related to speed and reliability.

In the end, we're back to the reliability of Softlayer until our cloud computing network is fully operational and production ready :)

It's nothing against VPS.Net or you D, but in the end, we've seen a lot of performance issues that you and I have also spoken about personally in the past. I left VPS.Net and eventually did come back after you promised things would improve.

That didn't happen, we left again. It's as easy as that.

That is unfortunate to hear, but also a common complaint that I hear in Cloud. Shared storage is among the most common problem in many Cloud platforms, and independent studies have shown that Cloud's built using local storage (but of course fully redundant and high available) has resulted in better reliability and stability.

We've been hosting on Amazon EC2 & S3 since 2007 when it was in beta... It's worked out tremendously well, and from unofficial reports, much more reliable than the Rackspace Cloud.

As a bonus, Amazon keeps reducing pricing and finding ways to save us money on bandwidth and server instances.

DropBox.com and many other big companies all trust their hosting to Amazon as well. It's really a no-brainer.

Which is best cloudhost?

I am considering these. stormondemand,vps.net,rackspace.
Is there any other better one?
Would you be looking at a Do It Yourself cloud service or a managed one?

Thanks,

I would suggest Rackspace, its more important if you are an Enterprise because Rackspace has recently opensourced its code under a project called "OpenStack".

This solves biggest concern the Enterprise market have against cloud migration -- vendor lockin. which means that you can running your own cloud with little effort without making any major changes to your existing infrastructure.

I would suggest Rackspace, its more important if you are an Enterprise because Rackspace has recently opensourced its code under a project called "OpenStack".

This solves biggest concern the Enterprise market have against cloud migration -- vendor lockin. which means that you can running your own cloud with little effort without making any major changes to your existing infrastructure.

VPS.NET runs OnApp, which is now available to the public (http://onapp.com/onapp-overview).

Go for Rackspace.

My experience with Rackspace's cloud offering was less than impressive. To me it seemed to be a re-branded/re-worked version of Slicehost's offering, for the most part. Rackspace sure has a big name but that doesn't guarantee anything in regards to having superior service/technology.

In terms of raw performance the best cloud products I've used are from Gigenet and Voxel (both also feature true HA environments).

VPS.NET runs OnApp, which is now available to the public (http://onapp.com/onapp-overview).
Under what license? Heck, I can't even see a download option on their site, so I doubt your claim

Gary4gar, I can confirm that VPS.NET indeed is powered by the OnApp platform.
OnApp is a commercial cloud engine that is not available for public download.

:)
D

Gary4gar, I can confirm that VPS.NET indeed is powered by the OnApp platform.
OnApp is a commercial cloud engine that is not available for public download.

:)
D
Eming, Thanks for clarification.

No problemo :)

Hey, dudes

As you know, cloud hosting & computing is the future of hosting. Here are Top Cloud Hosting Providers:

RackspaceCloud (Mosso)
GoGrid Cloud
1 & 1 Dynamic Cloud
GoDaddy Mac OS X Cloud
ReliaCloud Cloud Hosting

Regards

<<signatures to be set up in your profile>>

There is not many as this is new, I would use Rackspace, they have good uptime and support.

Under what license? Heck, I can't even see a download option on their site, so I doubt your claim

$10 per CPU core, but you get 100 cores free for the first year plus free setup, integration and 15 minute SLA support. Here's their licensing page (http://onapp.com/onapp-pricing/) with all the details. They don't have a direct download, but all you have to do is schedule a webinar with them... I have one for tomorrow morning so I can offer more feedback after that.

$10 per CPU core, but you get 100 cores free for the first year plus free setup, integration and 15 minute SLA support. Here's their licensing page (http://onapp.com/onapp-pricing/) with all the details. They don't have a direct download, but all you have to do is schedule a webinar with them... I have one for tomorrow morning so I can offer more feedback after that.
Its still under closed source commercial license. Whereas rackspace, its opensource under Apache License which is most liberal license.

If fears vendor lock-in is your concern, Rackspace is way to

Its still under closed source commercial license. Whereas rackspace, its opensource under Apache License which is most liberal license.

If fears vendor lock-in is your concern, Rackspace is way to

To each their own, but I cater to corporate customers who don't tend to embrace open source. I was the IT Manager of a fortune 100 company and tried to get them to move to even small open source software products to save money and they wanted nothing to do with it... this is the way of the corporate world.

OpenStack is also a very young open source project, and trying to make sense of all of the data and information on their website isn't exactly easy. OnApp is a turn-key solution with full SLA support. For someone that wants a production environment up in a few short months OnApp is probably the choice for me (I'll know for sure tomorrow).

Most businesses have no problem paying for software if it does the job it was designed to well and if they can get support when they need it... look at the business reliance on Microsoft products.

Gary4gar - could you explain your concerns regarding vendor lock-in? And why there would be a difference between OnApp and OpenStack?

:)
D

I think what he means is he fears that rackspace has a reason they are doing this , and its not for the ultimate benefit of the community , but to benefit their bottom line. Openstack is a platform to build your cloud application , onapp s more of a cloud service provider software vendor.

Gary4gar - could you explain your concerns regarding vendor lock-in? And why there would be a difference between OnApp and OpenStack?

:)
D
with Onapp; I think there are constraints on what can be done with the cloud infrastructure and there might be restriction of access to the original source code & its modification. plus there might be interoperability issues, moving to another platform might have substantial switching costs.Webhosts will be fully Dependant on onapp for providing security updates,bug fixes etc.

Sure its seems great product but before setting up a large cloud infrastructure, I would better do some planning instead of going for turn-key solution.

Unless it is specifically written for OnApp (using our API's), your application really doesn't know if it is running in an OnApp powered or Rackspace/gogrid/etc powered cloud - or if it is running in a cloud environment at all. A cloud server typically presents a bunch of resources to the (web)application, none of that is cloud-related though, and moving from one cloud to another is just like moving from one dedicated server to another (so, no interoperability issues).

Also, what constraints do you think there are? What would you like to do that OnApp can't?

:)
D

What are criteria to say this cloud host is better than other?

Softlayer.com is one of the best for cloud hosting

Thank you for advice, I'll let know what I think about it.

I've used Gandi and found it very good but rather pricy.

What exactly makes the service package from companies like Softlayer "cloud computing"? It simply looks like VPS hosting to me, re-branded as cloud computing.

When someone talks about cloud computing, Amazon EC2 style hosting is what I expect.

What exactly makes the service package from companies like Softlayer "cloud computing"? It simply looks like VPS hosting to me, re-branded as cloud computing.

When someone talks about cloud computing, Amazon EC2 style hosting is what I expect.

As a provider I'm always curious to hear feedback from consumers such as yourself so I can improve marketing and materials to help those better understand.

Can you elaborate on exactly what you think cloud computing is, and what features and methods of EC2 that you feel make that so.

As a provider I'm always curious to hear feedback from consumers such as yourself so I can improve marketing and materials to help those better understand.

Can you elaborate on exactly what you think cloud computing is, and what features and methods of EC2 that you feel make that so.

It's easier to say what I don't think it is, such as VPS or Virtual Host systems where marketing folks have bastardized the term Cloud Computing or Cloud Hosting to capitalize on the hype.

I'm currently experimenting with VPS.net (who as far as I know) have a real cloud system.

Nodes bundled together for scalability and complete redundancy.

Other "clouds" tend to simply be VPS providers.

Other "clouds" tend to simply be VPS providers.

Not all - there's plenty of 'real' clouds -

http://www.gigenetcloud.com
http://www.voxel.net/products-services/voxcloud
http://www.cartikacloud.com

Not all - there's plenty of 'real' clouds -

http://www.gigenetcloud.com
http://www.voxel.net/products-services/voxcloud
http://www.cartikacloud.com

Yes I realize that there are other providers - but as previously mentioned by someone else, a lot of providers are building up on the marketing hype.

There are several hosting companies out there.
<<snipped>>

There are cloud enablers, IaaS, PaaS, Hybrid, Private Clouds etc..

I'd say Amazon AWS is the best most complete package at this time. It's a barebones offering but incredibly powerful. If you're looking to develop and run apps then this is the place to go. If you require to simply run a website or two than Rackspace - Cloud site is good. You have your Cpanel and all the simple bells and whistles.

I've been working with Amazon EC2 for many months on Windows system and can concur with the idea that EC2 is a true-cloud. However, it is not suitable for everyone.

EC2 instances are more like nodes, instances are disposable in every way possible. If your application is a fully cluster enabled that has no single point of failure, then EC2 works well. Examples I can think of is a single site based on Apache.

However, if you want to treat EC2 instance as a physical server, then EC2 falls way short of that requirement. While other cloud providers may look like VPS hosters, for as long as they offer redundancy and automatic failover of instances, I'd consider them semi-Cloud.

As for the best cloud host? I don't think there is a "best" cloud host. Each cloud has its own unique blend of characteristics. A cloud that might work well for one application might prove insufficient for another.

What cloud would be best for a search engine with 250 million searches per day?

Which is best cloudhost?

I am considering these. stormondemand,vps.net,rackspace.
Is there any other better one?

Been with rackspace for more than 15 months now. No problems at all. Support is very responsive.