Page 4 of 11 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast
Results 76 to 100 of 258
  1. #76
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,409
    Quote Originally Posted by AdmoNet View Post
    Ditlev-

    The cloud is just what you want it to be. Everything is so fluffy in the cloud. :-P
    the term is not helping anyone - at some stage hopefully we all will stop caring about it. God knows that our clients, the end users, doesn't care. In a few years the cloud is no longer the cloud, but just how stuff is done...can't wait for that.


    D
    Ditlev Bredahl. CEO,
    OnApp.com + Cloud.net & CDN.net

  2. #77
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Kansas City, Missouri
    Posts
    462
    Can we all just coin the term "In the SKYNET" hehe....
    =>Admo.net Managed Hosting
    => Managed Hosting • Dedicated Servers • Colocation
    => Dark Fiber Access to 1102 Grand, Multiple Public Providers
    => Over •Sixteen• Years of Service

  3. #78
    Quote Originally Posted by eming View Post
    the term is not helping anyone - at some stage hopefully we all will stop caring about it. God knows that our clients, the end users, doesn't care. In a few years the cloud is no longer the cloud, but just how stuff is done...can't wait for that.


    D
    If you recall, there were actually other words for this before cloud. Grid computing, utility computing. I believe those words never caught on because you could define them, they could potentially mean something. Actually meaning something killed those terms. It's a big no-no for marketers, after all, you can't call something "utility computing" if it clearly isn't. Utilities are something average people understand, so you can't just BS and call everything "utility". On top of that obvious problem, the actual definition for "what is utility?" "what is grid?", had a technical answer... another big no-no in marketing. Then a breakthrough happened: let's just call everything cloud! gmail is cloud computing, amazon is cloud computing, grid and utility and paas and everything, EVERYTHING is cloud computing. And it can be, because the term means nothing at all. I say we call it fog computing. Fog Computing: because you can't tell what the heck is going on when you're computing in the fog.
    IOFLOOD.com -- We Love Servers
    Phoenix, AZ Dedicated Servers in under an hour
    ★ Ryzen 9: 7950x3D ★ Dual E5-2680v4 Xeon ★
    Contact Us: sales@ioflood.com

  4. #79
    The definition of cloud is simple. You take virtualization and add a shared backend storage that the nodes (ie chassis) can all access. Then you can float from one to another seamlessly while live, hence the term "cloud" when your software can float across the hardware. Shared storage takes regular old virtualization into "cloud". It really is that simple.

    Now what OnApp is doing IS game changing. You've already got all those chassis anyway with at least some on board disk controller and bays for drives. To be able to harness the power of all those controllers and space for all those disks into a shared storage solution is great. Packaging it so that now to get all the "cloud" features of their product without the complexities of building/buying your own shared backend storage is genius and game changing. Assuming it lives up to it's promises

    We asked for this last year around the time when their trial was ending but we referred to solutions like gluster. That is why we never jumped on board because we didn't want the hassle of the shared storage build out and decided to stay with just our virtualization solution. With just virtualization and local storage repositories you can't "float" and have to shut down to move nodes and don't get the true "high availability" cloud offers.
    Last edited by THWTM; 04-19-2012 at 10:41 PM.

  5. #80
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    7,325
    Quote Originally Posted by eming View Post
    In a few years the cloud is no longer the cloud, but just how stuff is done...can't wait for that.


    D
    Yes, can't agree more.

  6. #81
    Quote Originally Posted by THWTM View Post
    The definition of cloud is simple. You take virtualization and add a shared backend storage that the nodes (ie chassis) can all access. Then you can float from one to another seamlessly while live, hence the term "cloud" when your software can float across the hardware. Shared storage takes regular old virtualization into "cloud". It really is that simple.

    Now what OnApp is doing IS game changing. You've already got all those chassis anyway with at least some on board disk controller and bays for drives. To be able to harness the power of all those controllers and space for all those disks into a shared storage solution is great. Packaging it so that now to get all the "cloud" features of their product without the complexities of building/buying your own shared backend storage is genius and game changing. Assuming it lives up to it's promises

    We asked for this last year around the time when their trial was ending but we referred to solutions like gluster. That is why we never jumped on board because we didn't want the hassle of the shared storage build out and decided to stay with just our virtualization solution. With just virtualization and local storage repositories you can't "float" and have to shut down to move nodes and don't get the true "high availability" cloud offers.
    Absolutely. If I wanted to go all-ssd, I could cram 6 SSDs into a $100 1u case if I wanted to, or 4x 3.5" drives into a $250 1u case. You need that server running regardless, so being able to use those ports and bays is fantastic. Then, realistically for cloud, if you're connecting to a SAN anyway, each server needs at least 1 and preferably 2 gige ports. Well, it's pretty reasonably priced to get 1 or 2 extra gige ports onto a server, so that's easy enough. With a centralized SAN, you're needing 10g ports and cards to get that working, so that jacks up the price of your network layer dramatically. Then with a centralized SAN, say you're supporting 24 servers and you've got two SAN boxes that have 24 disks each in case one of the SAN boxes fail. Well, those servers aren't cheap, you've got a $1000 raid card and a $1000 chassis and a $1000 10g network card in each of those, and that's before you buy the server itself (at least another $500), and you need two of those, so a total of $7000 minimum off the bat. Your network switch then needs to have a couple 10g ports minimum, and preferably 4 of them. That's going to add another thousand bucks, or probably more like twice that much. Then because you're using hardware raid, you need raid edition drives, you can't use WD blacks, so that jacks up the price of the drives a good 50% right there. So for 48 drives if you're adding $50 - $100 / drive because you're having to use TLER enabled drives, that's another $2500 - $5000 in drive costs that you wouldn't otherwise have. Then how do you scale it? Very carefully... and very expensively. And you know, supporting 24 servers with a total of 48 drives, that's not a lot. Even the cheapest server cases can handle two drives, so essentially pay no premium whatsoever to put those drives into the hypervisor servers.

    So you add all this up, and going to this storage method, you're going to save at least $10k right off the bat for supporting 24 servers there, and quite possibly saving $15k. When you consider that your hypervisors might only be $1000 servers in the first place, I mean, that drops your total cost by a third or more. A third! It's not every day you can do that. If dropping the cost of cloud by a third, while also making it simpler and easier to set up and more reliable, if that doesn't count as a game changer I don't know what does.
    IOFLOOD.com -- We Love Servers
    Phoenix, AZ Dedicated Servers in under an hour
    ★ Ryzen 9: 7950x3D ★ Dual E5-2680v4 Xeon ★
    Contact Us: sales@ioflood.com

  7. #82
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    PA, USA
    Posts
    5,143
    backend iSCSI SAN is not needed to get a cloud. Applogic, for example, uses direct attached/local storage. A data on a node for a particular VM will be mirrored to another node on the same grid. Thus, any one node can go down, but the VM can still have access tot he data on another node.

    After working with iSCSI SAN or years, we find iSCSI SAN has its shortcomings. Not only does the network give you additional latency, but most iSCSI SAN is still limited to 1-2 Gbps backend. Furthermore, with more and more VMs sharing the same shared storage, each VMs may be fighting for IOPS on that iSCSI SAN.

    Currently we use Dell EqualLogic PS5500E (48x1 TB drives) as our backend storage. This iSCSI SAN is shared by some 95-100 VMs, but we will be moving with applogic setup where we will have some 20 nodes grid with six to eight SAS 10K rpm drives per node. That should boost up disk throughput and IOPS.
    Fluid Hosting, LLC - Enterprise Cloud Infrastructure: Cloud Shared and Reseller, Cloud VPS, and Cloud Hybrid Server

  8. #83
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,409
    Quote Originally Posted by FHDave View Post
    backend iSCSI SAN is not needed to get a cloud. Applogic, for example, uses direct attached/local storage. A data on a node for a particular VM will be mirrored to another node on the same grid. Thus, any one node can go down, but the VM can still have access tot he data on another node.
    I've always been impressed with 3Tera/Applogic's way of dealing with storage, but I honestly don't know the system that well. A few questions:
    - Does it support deduplication ?
    - Thin provisioning? I think it does, right?
    - Can you define the level of redundancy per account? So, like a $99/mo client would have less redundancy than a $999/mo client?
    - Can you guarantee IO per drive/account/VM? So, like a $99/mo client would have less IO's guaranteed than a $999/mo client?
    - How does it deal with network IO, do you need 10g or multipath gig's for it to do well?
    - Does it have QoS? Like, can you automatically allocate the most access files to the fastest drives?
    - How does it deal with cache? Can you allocate specific drives (like SSD/FusionIO) to act as cache?
    - Does it have an object storage (S3 compatible) interface as well?
    - Does it support snapshots with a time-machine like filebased functionality?
    - Can you define a read-local, write distributed rule to ensure performance in low-throughput scenarios?


    D
    Ditlev Bredahl. CEO,
    OnApp.com + Cloud.net & CDN.net

  9. #84
    Quote Originally Posted by eming View Post
    I've always been impressed with 3Tera/Applogic's way of dealing with storage, but I honestly don't know the system that well. A few questions:
    - Does it support deduplication ?
    - Thin provisioning? I think it does, right?
    - Can you define the level of redundancy per account? So, like a $99/mo client would have less redundancy than a $999/mo client?
    - Can you guarantee IO per drive/account/VM? So, like a $99/mo client would have less IO's guaranteed than a $999/mo client?
    - How does it deal with network IO, do you need 10g or multipath gig's for it to do well?
    - Does it have QoS? Like, can you automatically allocate the most access files to the fastest drives?
    - How does it deal with cache? Can you allocate specific drives (like SSD/FusionIO) to act as cache?
    - Does it have an object storage (S3 compatible) interface as well?
    - Does it support snapshots with a time-machine like filebased functionality?
    - Can you define a read-local, write distributed rule to ensure performance in low-throughput scenarios?


    D
    haha nice I am assuming this list encompasses some of the features OnApp Storage will provide?

  10. #85
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    PA, USA
    Posts
    5,143
    yea, sounds like advertising to me
    Fluid Hosting, LLC - Enterprise Cloud Infrastructure: Cloud Shared and Reseller, Cloud VPS, and Cloud Hybrid Server

  11. #86
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,409
    Really? I have not mentioned OnApp at all - and I won't be dragged into a whole feature war discussion in public, that's also why I have not replied all the questions in this thread...
    No, I am actually curious about the functionality of Applogic - so please, could be great to hear more.


    D

  12. #87
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    PA, USA
    Posts
    5,143
    Yeah, really Can you tell me which of those list OnApp does not support?

    And btw, I was not comparing applogic with onapp too

    Since this is about onapp SAN, I won't plague the thread with applogic discussion. I was simply addressing the claim that backend shared storage is necessary for cloud setup. This was not necessary with applogic.
    Fluid Hosting, LLC - Enterprise Cloud Infrastructure: Cloud Shared and Reseller, Cloud VPS, and Cloud Hybrid Server

  13. #88
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,409
    Quote Originally Posted by FHDave View Post
    Yeah, really Can you tell me which of those list OnApp does not support?
    nope, that would be advertising
    Quote Originally Posted by FHDave View Post
    Since this is about onapp SAN, I won't plague the thread with applogic discussion. I was simply addressing the claim that backend shared storage is necessary for cloud setup. This was not necessary with applogic.
    fair enough, I've asked over here instead: http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?t=1145151
    Ditlev Bredahl. CEO,
    OnApp.com + Cloud.net & CDN.net

  14. #89
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,143
    A question I cant see answered and I have been wondering.. Will it be possible to migrate running onapp clouds to the onapp storage? - without downtime.

    Say i have 10 onapp servers with just the internal drives, and I want to add onapp storage. Can i - by moving guests to other servers, shut down one server, deploy the onapp storage and then rejoin -> migrate to the new box with onapp storage and keep going through my servers one by one?
    /maze

  15. #90
    Quote Originally Posted by FHDave View Post
    backend iSCSI SAN is not needed to get a cloud. Applogic, for example, uses direct attached/local storage. A data on a node for a particular VM will be mirrored to another node on the same grid. Thus, any one node can go down, but the VM can still have access tot he data on another node.

    After working with iSCSI SAN or years, we find iSCSI SAN has its shortcomings. Not only does the network give you additional latency, but most iSCSI SAN is still limited to 1-2 Gbps backend. Furthermore, with more and more VMs sharing the same shared storage, each VMs may be fighting for IOPS on that iSCSI SAN.

    Currently we use Dell EqualLogic PS5500E (48x1 TB drives) as our backend storage. This iSCSI SAN is shared by some 95-100 VMs, but we will be moving with applogic setup where we will have some 20 nodes grid with six to eight SAS 10K rpm drives per node. That should boost up disk throughput and IOPS.
    Try a scale out HP P4000/Lefthand SAN with 10Gb upgrade kits. You can scale out the storage, IOPs, and bandwidth (up to 320Gbits/sec on a single cluster!) as you add nodes.

    We have found this iSCSI solution to scale extremely well with many, many VMs. We have not had any performance issues since we got our Lefthands (over a year ago).

  16. #91
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    942
    Quote Originally Posted by funkywizard View Post

    So you add all this up, and going to this storage method, you're going to save at least $10k right off the bat for supporting 24 servers there, and quite possibly saving $15k. When you consider that your hypervisors might only be $1000 servers in the first place, I mean, that drops your total cost by a third or more. A third! It's not every day you can do that. If dropping the cost of cloud by a third, while also making it simpler and easier to set up and more reliable, if that doesn't count as a game changer I don't know what does.
    Yes, you save on capital investment... but they are charging a monthly per-GB price. Our typical SAN unit will hold 40TB RAID-10. We charge $0.15/GB/mo. I'm not sure what OnApp SAN will cost, lets assume between $0.01 to $0.05 GB/mo. For 40TB that's low end $414/mo ($14,904 over 3 years) to high end $2048/mo ($73,728 over 3 years). The $10k saved on hardware suddenly doesn't seem like that much. It might work IF it can perform as well as a standard SAN, though most SANs use SSD/NVRAM to increase read/write performance of SATA drives. We will see soon enough when their beta starts.

    Of course, the good side of per-GB monthly billing is you only pay out if you're making revenue off of the storage, which may be better for some but over the years it will definitely cost more. Assuming it performs well this would let us put up 5-6 cloud PoPs up around the world for the same capital costs as putting up 1 PoP with traditional SAN.
    Matt Ayres - togglebox.com
    Linux and Windows Cloud Virtual Datacenters powered by Onapp / Xen
    Instant Setup, Instant Scalability, Full Lifecycle Hosting Solutions

    www.togglebox.com

  17. #92
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    5,662
    I look forward to more of the technical details on how data replication occurs and how failures, snapshotting, backups, etc are handled.

  18. #93
    Quote Originally Posted by TheWiseOne View Post
    Yes, you save on capital investment... but they are charging a monthly per-GB price. Our typical SAN unit will hold 40TB RAID-10. We charge $0.15/GB/mo. I'm not sure what OnApp SAN will cost, lets assume between $0.01 to $0.05 GB/mo. For 40TB that's low end $414/mo ($14,904 over 3 years) to high end $2048/mo ($73,728 over 3 years). The $10k saved on hardware suddenly doesn't seem like that much. It might work IF it can perform as well as a standard SAN, though most SANs use SSD/NVRAM to increase read/write performance of SATA drives. We will see soon enough when their beta starts.

    Of course, the good side of per-GB monthly billing is you only pay out if you're making revenue off of the storage, which may be better for some but over the years it will definitely cost more. Assuming it performs well this would let us put up 5-6 cloud PoPs up around the world for the same capital costs as putting up 1 PoP with traditional SAN.
    I agree without knowing the price they intend to charge it's impossible to know if it will make sense or not. Per-gb billing I'm really not excited about in general because it encourages using only small and fast disks like ssd. This solution might also be appropriate for setting up a mass storage network with 3tb drives, but considering the license on a 3tb drive will be 25x the licebse for a 120gb ssd even though both devices cost a similar amount of money, it seems likely this offering will only be used for high performance storage even though the technology is completely applicable to mass storage as well.

    I think as long as the license cost is around 1/36 of the hardware cost per month it would be really easy to swallow. 1/12 of the hardware cost per month would be the upper limit for even considering it, in my opinion. For ssd, 1/36 is around 6 cents /gb/mo and 1/12 is around 18 cents/gb/mo, whereas for 3tb 5400 rpm, even a 1 cent/gb/mo license fee would mean you're paying 1/6th of the drive value every month in just license fees. Our target roi on hardware is 6-8 months, so a 1/6th license charge would require we double the price we charge for storage, whereas a 1/36 license fee would be nearly irrelevant.

  19. #94
    Quote Originally Posted by RyanD View Post
    I look forward to more of the technical details on how data replication occurs and how failures, snapshotting, backups, etc are handled.
    Definitely agree. If the system makes it easy to do backups, that means one less thing to worry about. I'd really like to offer comprehensive backups without having to use r1soft, both because of the licebse costs and also because it just doesn't work that well.

  20. #95
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    5,662
    Quote Originally Posted by funkywizard View Post
    Definitely agree. If the system makes it easy to do backups, that means one less thing to worry about. I'd really like to offer comprehensive backups without having to use r1soft, both because of the licebse costs and also because it just doesn't work that well.
    R1Soft V3.0 is cheap, but, I 'm not sure if the constant issues experienced with it are justified, even with it's reduced cost.

    A simple process for dumping snapshots to nearline SATA and distributing the backups would be ideal. My one big knock on most SAN vendors is their inability to provide a simple mechanism to yank snapshots onto commodity hardware.

  21. #96
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    1,765
    This OnApp SAN is definitely a very interesting product as far as storage goes, and its potential is probably the greatest of any of OnApps products should it be as good as is described.
    Darren Lingham - Stablepoint Hosting
    Stablepoint - Cloud Web Hosting without compromise
    We provide industry-leading cPanel™ web hosting in 80+ global cities.

  22. #97
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    122
    So how is this much different to Ceph or openstack storage ect ect ect

  23. #98
    Quote Originally Posted by RyanD View Post
    R1Soft V3.0 is cheap, but, I 'm not sure if the constant issues experienced with it are justified, even with it's reduced cost.

    A simple process for dumping snapshots to nearline SATA and distributing the backups would be ideal. My one big knock on most SAN vendors is their inability to provide a simple mechanism to yank snapshots onto commodity hardware.
    For dedicated servers, r1soft certainly isn't terribly expensive. For VPS's, the license alone increases our customer's costs quite a lot. When you factor in what we have to charge for the backup space, and if we started charging for it based on the value of our time in troubleshooting it, it would be pretty easy for backups to cost as much as a decently beefy VPS on its own.
    IOFLOOD.com -- We Love Servers
    Phoenix, AZ Dedicated Servers in under an hour
    ★ Ryzen 9: 7950x3D ★ Dual E5-2680v4 Xeon ★
    Contact Us: sales@ioflood.com

  24. #99
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    5,662
    Quote Originally Posted by funkywizard View Post
    For dedicated servers, r1soft certainly isn't terribly expensive. For VPS's, the license alone increases our customer's costs quite a lot. When you factor in what we have to charge for the backup space, and if we started charging for it based on the value of our time in troubleshooting it, it would be pretty easy for backups to cost as much as a decently beefy VPS on its own.
    Agreed, R1's "Support Cost" has caused us to cease supporting any resold licenses unless the the client purchases an additional "support pack" because of the volume and severity of issues.

  25. #100
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    1,241
    Has anyone received any pricing information/a solid list of included features for the first release? If you contact the OnApp sales team are they able to discuss this product yet?
    Thanks,

    Brendan Diaz
    Connect: linkedin.com/in/brendandiaz

Page 4 of 11 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-06-2012, 11:33 AM
  2. "Single Pane" management SAN software?
    By ItsChrisG in forum Cloud Hosting
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 11-18-2010, 06:34 PM
  3. What is the FREE software that work as same as "WHMAP" or "Clientexec"?
    By zabretooth in forum Hosting Software and Control Panels
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 05-26-2007, 02:28 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •