Just wondering if anyone is aware of a provider in Canada (preferrably in Toronto) that has a preoper cloud server setup.

I really like the looks of what liquidweb is offering, but ideally would like something in Canada if I can get it... but i have searched these forums and google and not really come up with a solid offering anywhere?

I am looking at a good sized server probably 4GB ram, 1 full CPU at least and 200Gb storage, 100Mbit connection.


Thanks!

I don't know of any providers offering cloud services. There are quite a few offering VPS and dedicated servers however. Any reason why a VPS/Dedicated hybrid wouldn't work for you?

thanks for the reply, well i am currently on a Hybrid server and well I am now pushing its limits with just over 300 sites hosted on it. I think my main bottleneck is CPU power which I am not getting enough of at knownhost on their TOP Hybrid plan. So i will either go dedicatd but cloud looks very appealing to me, but am researching both at the moment.

I really dont want to have to worry about hardware which is why cloud seems very appealing for redundancy.

cheers!

Don't forget even cloud services go down (Google "Amazon Cloud Downtime" to see). I'd simply suggest getting a second server. It would likely be a lot more cost effective than any cloud system, chances are it will perform much faster as well. Clouds can have I/O issues since they use a shared storage device over a network. If the provider has a good uptime guarantee then I don't see a reason to not use a second dedicated or hybrid VPS.

Hi Ramprage,

thanks for your input it is much appreciated. I have read about these issues and and will take them into consideration, but i would not expect a great deal from amazons services really, its built for the masses and thus prone for more problems...

I read about the I/O issues but actually liquidweb runs the disk as local disks, not SAN somehow thus making the performance better but I do understand this to be a possible issue.

I guess if I go dedicated instead, I may look at prioritycolo, i've read good things about them. and they are only 5 hops from me which is nice :)

Hi Ramprage,

thanks for your input it is much appreciated. I have read about these issues and and will take them into consideration, but i would not expect a great deal from amazons services really, its built for the masses and thus prone for more problems...

I read about the I/O issues but actually liquidweb runs the disk as local disks, not SAN somehow thus making the performance better but I do understand this to be a possible issue.

I guess if I go dedicated instead, I may look at prioritycolo, i've read good things about them. and they are only 5 hops from me which is nice :)

Keep in mind that It's not a true "cloud" if the servers are using Disk on system rather than Network Attached Storage.

Network Attached Storage is what creates the high levels of redundancy. If a node fails, the image can be mounted right back up on another node. If a node fails with DAS in use, you need to get that node back online to get it's data off first.

Network Attached Storage is no problem provided it's done right iSCSI with Fiberchannel work work significantly better than DAS. You'd have much higher throughput, more hard disks, etc...

It's all about how much money you put into the infrastructure, in the end.

Look at Terremark -- they spent $1M on building their cloud computing control panel alone. (Then again, they are Terremark, and they have infinite pockets. )

Don't forget even cloud services go down (Google "Amazon Cloud Downtime" to see). I'd simply suggest getting a second server. It would likely be a lot more cost effective than any cloud system, chances are it will perform much faster as well. Clouds can have I/O issues since they use a shared storage device over a network. If the provider has a good uptime guarantee then I don't see a reason to not use a second dedicated or hybrid VPS.

Amazon's earlier outages were due to the operational/distribution layer not being redundant. When that died, the whole cloud would die. Nowadays there are technologies that are not prone to this problem.

Also, not all cloud's use shared storage devices over network. Some, quite a few actually, use local.

Keep in mind that It's not a true "cloud" if the servers are using Disk on system rather than Network Attached Storage.

Network Attached Storage is what creates the high levels of redundancy. If a node fails, the image can be mounted right back up on another node. If a node fails with DAS in use, you need to get that node back online to get it's data off first.

Network Attached Storage is no problem provided it's done right iSCSI with Fiberchannel work work significantly better than DAS. You'd have much higher throughput, more hard disks, etc...

It's all about how much money you put into the infrastructure, in the end.

Look at Terremark -- they spent $1M on building their cloud computing control panel alone. (Then again, they are Terremark, and they have infinite pockets. )

Cloud can have local storage and does not need to be external SAN/NAS devices to be cloud. Local storage can be "pooled" into "virtual SAN's" to create fully redundant and high available storage device.

If you are not hurry and can't wait a bit, iweb will launch a cloud service this years.

Thanks UH, I actually want to try and get this done in the next month or so unfortunately.

cloudweb, thanks as well. Do you have any input in the issues of security related to all this pooled hard disk space such as what is discussed in these articles below. Basically suggesting if a hacker can get in they could take down the whole cloud and not just the one server?

Thanks everyone!

http://www.darkreading.com/securityservices/security/app-security/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=218102139

http://gcn.com/articles/2010/03/18/dark-cloud-security.aspx

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9131998/Cloud_computing_a_security_nightmare_says_Cisco_CEO

If you are not hurry and can't wait a bit, iweb will launch a cloud service this years.

will be live soon from what I hear...

Thanks UH, I actually want to try and get this done in the next month or so unfortunately.

cloudweb, thanks as well. Do you have any input in the issues of security related to all this pooled hard disk space such as what is discussed in these articles below. Basically suggesting if a hacker can get in they could take down the whole cloud and not just the one server?

Thanks everyone!

http://www.darkreading.com/securityservices/security/app-security/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=218102139

http://gcn.com/articles/2010/03/18/dark-cloud-security.aspx

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9131998/Cloud_computing_a_security_nightmare_says_Cisco_CEO

Here's a good way to think of it. Have you ever driven down the road and seen those rentable storage containers (garages basically). You usually pass the first security clearance just to drive into the whole area, then each storage area is physically locked out and only an authorized user can access the particular storage area they have access to.

In a proper cloud environment, this is how it is. On a technical level, each application in a cloud has a virtualized (completely segmented) storage device. It can only see that storage device and nothing else, because to that application that is all that exists. The same goes for the whole system. Ie: cpu, ram, networking, etc. You can't go and set the nic promiscuous inside of an application on a cloud and see all the traffic flowing. The nic is virtual, so it can only see what it is programmed to see so you will not see the other traffic. If you're only permitted to use 25% of one core worth of CPU.. then that's all you can use no matter if you run a 50.00 load average all day.

Now I'm sure there are improper cloud installations like anything else, and it could be a security nightmare but in the past 3 years since we're been using Xen heavily, I've yet to have a single hack (sure, we've had some customer cloud applications hacked.. I can't control what all my customers do. haha) ever cause a problem with a host machine, or "bleed" over into something else. It's just a completely separate layer just as it is with physical machines, but in this case it's virtualized.

Security really is not that bad in a cloud, but it does require some different thinking which is why the scare. Use the right technologies, think security in mind when building applications and you're good to go.

Try vps-hosting.ca. They have a pretty good VMWARE setup there.

Telus operates a cloud aimed more so at corporate customers, but may be worth giving them a call.

thanks for everyones input!

cloudweb, i have found all your posts on this forum to be incredibly helpful and knowledgeable.

Do you have any opinion on how liquidweb has their cloud sysetm setup/quality etc?

thanks for everyones input!

cloudweb, i have found all your posts on this forum to be incredibly helpful and knowledgeable.

Do you have any opinion on how liquidweb has their cloud sysetm setup/quality etc?

Do you mean storm on demand? If so, not a whole lot. I know they use Xen for the virtualization layer, and from what I can tell their infrastructure seems to be built off of high-availability installations that allow you to run VM's (or VPS's). Ie: I would call it "Dedicated VPS". Is it cloud? Well it does sound like it based on their marketing.. but the vertical scaling limitations seem to be what one physical server can do as that is as far as they go on their website. In the "truest of true" cloud environment's a single application can be scaled, built, managed, and run off many servers. I am not sure of the technical limitations, backend infrastructure, networking, etc that make up their offering but liquidweb does have a good reputation.