Results 101 to 125 of 163
-
01-14-2014, 06:03 PM #101Disabled
- Join Date
- Oct 2013
- Location
- Australia
- Posts
- 206
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.
-
01-14-2014, 06:05 PM #102Location = SoapBox
- Join Date
- Oct 2003
- Posts
- 6,564
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.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
-
01-14-2014, 06:17 PM #103Junior Guru Wannabe
- Join Date
- Dec 2013
- Location
- Sydney, Australia
- Posts
- 47
-
01-15-2014, 06:19 AM #104Junior Guru Wannabe
- Join Date
- Jul 2010
- Posts
- 69
Caroline Paine
Commercial Operations Manager @ www.onapp.com
Inquisitive Foodie @ www.inquisitivefoodie.com
-
01-15-2014, 06:21 AM #105Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Sep 2005
- Location
- London
- Posts
- 2,409
-
01-15-2014, 06:36 AM #106Web Hosting Master
- 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
-
01-15-2014, 06:52 AM #107Junior Guru Wannabe
- Join Date
- Jul 2010
- Posts
- 69
-
01-15-2014, 07:19 AM #108Disabled
- Join Date
- Oct 2013
- Location
- Australia
- Posts
- 206
-
01-15-2014, 07:21 AM #109Disabled
- Join Date
- Oct 2013
- Location
- Australia
- Posts
- 206
-
01-16-2014, 05:52 AM #110Junior Guru Wannabe
- Join Date
- Jun 2013
- Posts
- 60
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 | +----+-------------------------------------------------+------------------------------------------------+--------------------+---------------------+
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.
-
01-18-2014, 08:58 AM #111Temporarily Suspended
- 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?
-
01-18-2014, 09:42 AM #112Junior Guru Wannabe
- 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.
-
01-18-2014, 10:35 AM #113Disabled
- Join Date
- Aug 2011
- Location
- Dub,Lon,Dal,Chi,NY,LA
- Posts
- 1,839
Also, no IAAS will single tenant a single core.
-
01-19-2014, 06:09 AM #114Junior Guru Wannabe
- Join Date
- Jun 2013
- Posts
- 60
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.
-
01-19-2014, 03:22 PM #115Aspiring Evangelist
- Join Date
- Nov 2012
- Posts
- 428
-
01-20-2014, 12:27 PM #116Junior Guru Wannabe
- 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.
-
01-20-2014, 12:30 PM #117Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Oct 2001
- Location
- Ohio
- Posts
- 8,535
-
01-20-2014, 12:42 PM #118WHT Addict
- Join Date
- May 2013
- Posts
- 112
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!
-
01-21-2014, 09:25 AM #119Junior Guru Wannabe
- Join Date
- Jun 2013
- Posts
- 60
-
01-21-2014, 09:37 AM #120Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Oct 2001
- Location
- Ohio
- Posts
- 8,535
-
01-21-2014, 09:52 AM #121Junior Guru Wannabe
- Join Date
- Jun 2013
- Posts
- 60
I'll look forward to the announcement
-
01-21-2014, 09:56 AM #122Disabled
- Join Date
- Aug 2011
- Location
- Dub,Lon,Dal,Chi,NY,LA
- Posts
- 1,839
An all-new backup engine is worth waiting for!
-
01-23-2014, 12:40 PM #123Web Hosting Evangelist
- 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.
-
01-25-2014, 03:44 AM #124Junior Guru Wannabe
- Join Date
- Jun 2013
- Posts
- 60
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?
-
01-25-2014, 09:09 AM #125Disabled
- Join Date
- Jun 2005
- Posts
- 3,455
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.
Similar Threads
-
Core i3 530 Save $15 / 100Mbps Dedicated Bandwidth Under $500 Xeon Quad Core Proc
By krypttim in forum Dedicated Hosting OffersReplies: 0Last Post: 03-29-2010, 01:24 PM -
$59.99 AMD Dual Core | 2 GB RAM | 500 HDD | $149.99 Intel Core 2 Quad|2000GB Transfer
By AlternativeHost in forum Dedicated Hosting OffersReplies: 3Last Post: 11-08-2008, 03:15 PM -
$500 offer for this domain. Worth it?
By jummer in forum Domain Name AppraisalsReplies: 7Last Post: 09-07-2003, 05:06 PM -
is a $500 template from hostskin worth it?
By shasta in forum Other Offers & RequestsReplies: 28Last Post: 01-28-2003, 02:23 PM