Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst ... 234567 LastLast
Results 101 to 125 of 163
  1. #101
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    206
    Quote Originally Posted by Caroline_9429 View Post
    If you have specific questions we can help you explore IS. It really has developed an incredible amount since our beta.
    Well I am really interested in OnApp and would definitely want to try it out.
    I was more interested in Smart Servers and OnApp Storage than the cloud servers but unfortunately your trial license does not include Smart Servers/ Bare metal servers.

    I contacted your sales and learned that the only cheapest way to try out a full functional software is by paying 500$ for the license. 500$ for testing a license is too much but still I could do some exceptions from my end and pay the cost for testing.

    Now the issue is recently I was made aware by your sales that If I want to try out OnApps storage I would have to shell out extra 500$ which is ridiculous considering its a test environment and the OnApp's storage reviews have not been so great.

    So 1000$ just for the test environment ? Quite Expensive. What are your views on it.

  2. #102
    Quote Originally Posted by ross-crucial View Post
    Ultimately I don't think there is an issue with Onapp trying to tackle the backup option given the "complete solution" they are trying to deliver.

    its really impressive the approach onapp is taking. but, I think its a bonus they are tackling such items. even smartservers/baremetal servers. I dont think this is something we expected in our virtualization platform - but, its amazing they are tackling it

    However I believe we can both agree, that whether it is Onapp, or a third party the solutions available all seem to have issues once they start to scale.
    seems to be a common issue. we hope to tackle it, but, its a tough challenge. you dont know what scale looks like until you see it I think its a natural progression in all software. I am just not sure snapshots can ever work to scale. We thought about this a bit, and if you could schedule snapshots in a staggered manner, incrementally snapshot, and somehow extract data from snapshots (vs all or nothing), and can always snapshot to remote locations - I think they would work. I just dont know if that tech exists (some of it certainly does), but, Im sure someone is working on it
    www.cartika.com
    www.clusterlogics.com - You simply cannot run a hosting company without this software. Backups, Disaster Recovery, Big Data, Virtualization. 20 years of building software that solves your problems

  3. #103
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    47
    Quote Originally Posted by Caroline_9429 View Post
    If you have specific questions we can help you explore IS. It really has developed an incredible amount since our beta.
    A lot of the issue's we have heard are around scaling issues, and "random" individual virtual disk issues.

    It would be great to see some stats / white papers around scaling of the storage solution in terms of storage used, and VM's supported.

  4. #104
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    69
    Quote Originally Posted by BenTenn View Post
    Well I am really interested in OnApp and would definitely want to try it out.
    I was more interested in Smart Servers and OnApp Storage than the cloud servers but unfortunately your trial license does not include Smart Servers/ Bare metal servers.

    I contacted your sales and learned that the only cheapest way to try out a full functional software is by paying 500$ for the license. 500$ for testing a license is too much but still I could do some exceptions from my end and pay the cost for testing.

    Now the issue is recently I was made aware by your sales that If I want to try out OnApps storage I would have to shell out extra 500$ which is ridiculous considering its a test environment and the OnApp's storage reviews have not been so great.

    So 1000$ just for the test environment ? Quite Expensive. What are your views on it.
    OnApp is not simply a software that you download and go, we provide a huge amount of services within our licensing. If you're already in conversation with our team I suggest you arrange a call to look around in more detail.
    Caroline Paine
    Commercial Operations Manager @ www.onapp.com
    Inquisitive Foodie @ www.inquisitivefoodie.com

  5. #105
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,409
    Quote Originally Posted by BenTenn View Post
    So 1000$ just for the test environment ? Quite Expensive. What are your views on it.
    or just try out the free 16core version. It comes with 500gb of storage as well.
    Ditlev Bredahl. CEO,
    OnApp.com + Cloud.net & CDN.net

  6. #106
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,590
    Ditlev,

    When is 3.2 out? we've got issues with backups on 3.1 where some VMs dont backup at all. I had a ticket open with support who escalated to dev, the Dev's just said its a known onAPP bug and it will be fixed in the future, which isn't good for the small handful of customers whos VMs do not backup.
    The Hosting Heroes Ltd - over 20 years in the UK hosting industry.
    Website Hosting | Reseller Hosting | Cloud VPS Servers | Dedicated Servers | VPS Reseller for WHMCS
    www.thehostingheroes.com

  7. #107
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    69
    Quote Originally Posted by CyberHostPro View Post
    Ditlev,

    When is 3.2 out? we've got issues with backups on 3.1 where some VMs dont backup at all. I had a ticket open with support who escalated to dev, the Dev's just said its a known onAPP bug and it will be fixed in the future, which isn't good for the small handful of customers whos VMs do not backup.
    Hi, you can contact your rep to talk about the next version release.
    Caroline Paine
    Commercial Operations Manager @ www.onapp.com
    Inquisitive Foodie @ www.inquisitivefoodie.com

  8. #108
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    206
    Quote Originally Posted by eming View Post
    or just try out the free 16core version. It comes with 500gb of storage as well.
    Well the free version does not include smart servers and bare metal servers. As mentioned above I like the onapp storage concept which I wish to try but there is no free version for it. I have to spend 1000$ for the test.

  9. #109
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    206
    Quote Originally Posted by Caroline_9429 View Post
    OnApp is not simply a software that you download and go, we provide a huge amount of services within our licensing. If you're already in conversation with our team I suggest you arrange a call to look around in more detail.
    Sure. I agree! Thats the reason I was willing to go for a Paid testing with the 500$ license instead of a 16 core free trial. But the Onapp Storage is killing our budget.

  10. #110
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by Quartet-Andrew View Post
    Would you mind sharing this with the forums?
    Firstly, make sure you have the kvm_virtio templates downladed and installed. See their Wiki for the details on this. Then connect to the mysql database and run
    select id,label,file_name,virtualization,allowed_hot_migrate from templates;

    Example output shown here, but cut down...

    Code:
    +----+-------------------------------------------------+------------------------------------------------+--------------------+---------------------+
    | id | label                                           | file_name                                      | virtualization     | allowed_hot_migrate |
    +----+-------------------------------------------------+------------------------------------------------+--------------------+---------------------+
    | 18 | Windows 2008 Standard Edition R2 x64 kvm        | win08_x64_std_r2-ver3.2-kvm.img                | kvm                |                   0 |
    | 19 | Windows 2012 Standard Edition x64 kvm virtio    | win12_x64_std-ver3.1-kvm_virtio.img            | kvm,kvm_virtio     |                   1 |
    | 20 | Windows 2008 Standard Edition R2 x64 KVM Virtio | win08_x64_std_r2-ver3.2-kvm_virtio.img         | kvm,kvm_virtio     |                   0 |
    +----+-------------------------------------------------+------------------------------------------------+--------------------+---------------------+
    In here look for the windows templates that have kvm_virtio in the virtualization section and if the allowed_hot_migrate column is 0 then update it to 1 for that template.


    i.e. update templates set allowed_hot_migrate=1 where id=20;

    This only applies to new virtuals created from that template and not for virtuals already in existence. I suspect there will be a similar fix for virtuals created from this virtio template, but I don't know of it.

  11. #111
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    52
    The price is per core, not per processor right?
    So for a server with dual E5-2620V2 processor, it's 2*6*10 per server?

    How come I see 1 core VPS offered for 10$ per month and 2 core VPS offered for 20$ per month, when the price only covers the licensing costs?
    Or are providers using OnApp restricting the actual core usage at a very low level?

  12. #112
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    47
    Most likely the lower plans are offered as "loss leaders" meaning the host is making little too no profit in the hope you will upgrade to a higher plan which is profitable. Additionally you might buy extras like backups or some other add on which they make profit on as well.

  13. #113
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Dub,Lon,Dal,Chi,NY,LA
    Posts
    1,839
    Also, no IAAS will single tenant a single core.

  14. #114
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by Omiar View Post
    The price is per core, not per processor right?
    So for a server with dual E5-2620V2 processor, it's 2*6*10 per server?

    How come I see 1 core VPS offered for 10$ per month and 2 core VPS offered for 20$ per month, when the price only covers the licensing costs?
    Or are providers using OnApp restricting the actual core usage at a very low level?

    For a start you only pay for physical cores so if you use hyperthreading then you get extra cores can use.

    Also on a virtual platform you can overallocate your cores and as long as you are careful about how you prioritise things then should be ok. Its the extras that make the money. You normally get minimal disk space and memory and buy extra of those and you pay for each hour that is up and running.

  15. #115
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    428
    Quote Originally Posted by JasonE View Post
    Firstly, make sure you have the kvm_virtio templates downladed and installed. See their Wiki for the details on this. Then connect to the mysql database and run
    select id,label,file_name,virtualization,allowed_hot_migrate from templates;

    Example output shown here, but cut down...

    Code:
    +----+-------------------------------------------------+------------------------------------------------+--------------------+---------------------+
    | id | label                                           | file_name                                      | virtualization     | allowed_hot_migrate |
    +----+-------------------------------------------------+------------------------------------------------+--------------------+---------------------+
    | 18 | Windows 2008 Standard Edition R2 x64 kvm        | win08_x64_std_r2-ver3.2-kvm.img                | kvm                |                   0 |
    | 19 | Windows 2012 Standard Edition x64 kvm virtio    | win12_x64_std-ver3.1-kvm_virtio.img            | kvm,kvm_virtio     |                   1 |
    | 20 | Windows 2008 Standard Edition R2 x64 KVM Virtio | win08_x64_std_r2-ver3.2-kvm_virtio.img         | kvm,kvm_virtio     |                   0 |
    +----+-------------------------------------------------+------------------------------------------------+--------------------+---------------------+
    In here look for the windows templates that have kvm_virtio in the virtualization section and if the allowed_hot_migrate column is 0 then update it to 1 for that template.


    i.e. update templates set allowed_hot_migrate=1 where id=20;

    This only applies to new virtuals created from that template and not for virtuals already in existence. I suspect there will be a similar fix for virtuals created from this virtio template, but I don't know of it.
    Great, Thanks.

  16. #116
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    42
    We've seen some big improvements in stability over the last month. We can't pinpoint one specific item, although I'm sure a big part of it is upgrading to the latest version and we also added some network capacity.

    We have way fewer disks end up in a degraded status than we used to, and most operations now seem to work where before a high % would fail (like rebalancing disks, migrating VMs, etc).

    This last part is strange - we've repeatedly heard we would be better with more bandwidth available (on the storage network), but as far as we can tell it's hardly used. As in, when we watch network traffic it seems that there is rarely much going on the storage network, even if there are ongoing processes that seem like they should be using it more.

    We have a couple remaining ongoing issues:

    1) Backups
    2) Random kernel panics

    Backups seem extremely slow. This goes back to the network issue as well. Our backups seem to take forever, despite the fact that disk i/o doesn't seem to be a barrier and network usage seems minimal. I'm not sure what's going on with these or why they are slow.

    We frequently have servers kernel panic. It usually appears to have something to do with vdisk issues, but we haven't been able to pinpoint it. This is definitely the most problematic thing because it results in customer downtime while we reboot the server.

    On the bright side, the issue we had before where a server would KP and then refuse to reboot seems to have either gone away or gotten much less frequent.

    We are running Xen - perhaps we should test using KVM instead. Not sure if these are the same type of issues that other people were seeing on Xen or not.

  17. #117
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    8,535
    Quote Originally Posted by xBenx View Post

    We have a couple remaining ongoing issues:

    1) Backups
    2) Random kernel panics
    Good news is backups are being totally re-done. Even better news is 3.2 will be released in just a few short weeks.

    Can't wait to hear your feedback on the new backups.

  18. #118
    Quote Originally Posted by xBenx View Post

    This last part is strange - we've repeatedly heard we would be better with more bandwidth available (on the storage network), but as far as we can tell it's hardly used. As in, when we watch network traffic it seems that there is rarely much going on the storage network, even if there are ongoing processes that seem like they should be using it more.
    Quote Originally Posted by xBenx View Post
    We are running Xen - perhaps we should test using KVM instead. Not sure if these are the same type of issues that other people were seeing on Xen or not.
    It doesn't matter if you are running Xen or KVM, the issue is the same. The OnApp SAN is based on DMMP, which in itself is very taxing on the network. When you have all these servers sending packets at the same time to 1 location, it causes collisions and drop packets. We were able to improve the performance a bit more by adding more memory to the kernel buffers for TCP traffic (using sysctl). To tune this to your network is going to take you a very long time. Even then, you are still limited to how their DMMP works, it simply smashes the buffers on the servers and switches. We use 2x 10Gig links for the SAN network in round-robin to help spread the load. More bandwidth doesn't help the situation.

    The only thing I can think of that will help the performance of the OnApp SAN is when they start doing unicast as opposed to multicast.
    Cloud IaaS Solutions Provider - www.CloudVZ.com
    SSD SANs | High IOPs | Public & Private Cloud
    Solutions | Content Delivery Network
    Create your virtual datacenter in seconds!

  19. #119
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by IGobyTerry View Post
    Good news is backups are being totally re-done. Even better news is 3.2 will be released in just a few short weeks.

    Can't wait to hear your feedback on the new backups.
    Hi,

    Is that the same as 3.1 where the release date seemed to slip several times?

    What new features/fixes can we expect in 3.2?

  20. #120
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    8,535
    Quote Originally Posted by JasonE View Post
    Hi,

    Is that the same as 3.1 where the release date seemed to slip several times?

    What new features/fixes can we expect in 3.2?


    We've gotten a lot better about providing release dates. Not to mention this isn't quite as big of a release. I don't have a firm date yet, but it won't be too long

  21. #121
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    60
    I'll look forward to the announcement

  22. #122
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Dub,Lon,Dal,Chi,NY,LA
    Posts
    1,839
    An all-new backup engine is worth waiting for!

  23. #123
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    538
    How do other OnApp hosts handle the billing for Smart Servers and Bare Metal servers? What I mean is, both Smart Servers and BM servers are effectively just dedicated servers which are packaged differently. The billing model for a dedicated server has generally been you pay x per term for the entire server because nobody else can use that server. Simple enough, right?

    In the actual OnApp software there does not appear to be a way to setup a billing plan that follows that model, nor does there appear to be any way to set a minimum amount of resources that a user must purchase in order to build a smart server or a baremetal server.

    So imagine this if you will.

    You build a 12 core machine with 256GB of RAM and 4TB of SSD storage. A user comes along and builds a Smart Server or a Bare Metal server with 20GB of disk space, 1GB of RAM and 2 cores on that machine.

    None of the other users in the cloud can actually put anything on that Hypervisor. So technically that ~$5,000 machine is being fully consumed by a virtual machine that is using 1% of the machines capacity.

    I was just wondering.
    XLHost.com
    Dedicated Servers, Virtual Private Servers, and more since 1995.
    drew @ xlhost.com

  24. #124
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by XLHost View Post
    How do other OnApp hosts handle the billing for Smart Servers and Bare Metal servers? What I mean is, both Smart Servers and BM servers are effectively just dedicated servers which are packaged differently. The billing model for a dedicated server has generally been you pay x per term for the entire server because nobody else can use that server. Simple enough, right?

    In the actual OnApp software there does not appear to be a way to setup a billing plan that follows that model, nor does there appear to be any way to set a minimum amount of resources that a user must purchase in order to build a smart server or a baremetal server.

    So imagine this if you will.

    You build a 12 core machine with 256GB of RAM and 4TB of SSD storage. A user comes along and builds a Smart Server or a Bare Metal server with 20GB of disk space, 1GB of RAM and 2 cores on that machine.

    None of the other users in the cloud can actually put anything on that Hypervisor. So technically that ~$5,000 machine is being fully consumed by a virtual machine that is using 1% of the machines capacity.

    I was just wondering.
    Surely you just create a custom billing plan for the smart server or you just bill them a flat rate for the server with extras depending on what else they're using.

    If a user buys a smart server from you and is content paying however much you charge for use of an entire server does it matter what they do with it?

  25. #125
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    3,455
    Quote Originally Posted by dediserve View Post
    If you are running Quad Hexacores, you should be running at least 200+ GB RAM. You can fit a lot of $20 VPS on such a machine.
    Not true. You are still limited to the slowest part, the drives. There is no way a full operating system will work if you cram up 100 of them even in the fastest drives. It will be awful slow.

    You can give bigger VPS but not more + cheaper, regardless of how much CPU and RAM you have available you need to take into account the drives speed, even on some expensive SAN assuming you are not using the local drives in raid setups and with SSD drives, you are still going to hit a severe I/O limit, since full blown OS need drive access for even the basic features.

    Providers that cram up allot of machines like this are known to have slow performing VPS, even when their node is a monster because they don´t take into account the slowest bottleneck on servers which is the storage.

Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst ... 234567 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-29-2010, 01:24 PM
  2. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 11-08-2008, 03:15 PM
  3. $500 offer for this domain. Worth it?
    By jummer in forum Domain Name Appraisals
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 09-07-2003, 05:06 PM
  4. is a $500 template from hostskin worth it?
    By shasta in forum Other Offers & Requests
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 01-28-2003, 02:23 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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