Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456
Results 126 to 148 of 148
  1. #126
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    1,030
    Well.. that's euro's and it's always important to consider all factors of a host. Now I don't mean any of this towards Dediserve just speaking about consumers in general. Dediserve may have a spectacular business.

    More often than not people talk about the things you mention (hardware, what virtualization backend or cloud engine, storage space, and sometimes SLAs which can be worthless..). Unfortunately customers rarely ask other questions such as core infrastructure, networking, Data Center, staffing, resiliency in the environments, upgrade policy, etc etc. So much makes up a company and unfortunately so much is hidden from customers as they're not walking into storefronts like a traditional brick and mortar. A provider could have a fantastic website with excellent information and do a great job at marketing, but produce a horrible service in the long run (GoDaddy hosting anyone?).

    More and more consumers are learning.. but it's still a long way away.

  2. #127
    Quote Originally Posted by boskone View Post
    Look at dediserve.com as an example. 19.95 a month for a virtual machine, and running on netApp SAN and HP high end server nodes, with onapp cloud engine.
    No but this is the problem right here. Not much in the way of resources for that.. They don't do a vps as powerful/as much resources as my dedis, even though they're orders of magnitude more expensive.. Just leads me to ask the cost effective question again, especially given they're probably not even paying for onapp.

  3. #128
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    1,030
    Quote Originally Posted by streaky81 View Post
    No but this is the problem right here. Not much in the way of resources for that.. They don't do a vps as powerful/as much resources as my dedis, even though they're orders of magnitude more expensive.. Just leads me to ask the cost effective question again, especially given they're probably not even paying for onapp.
    That's another issue comparing dedicated servers to cloud. Cloud obviously costs more, and it has a list of benefits above dedicated.

    Also something to consider is the other costs of business which mentioned above. For example, we host out of Equinix which is notoriously expensive. We routinely get phone calls from Cogent, HE, and other "cheap" Data Center's willing to take our business for exactly 1/4 of the cost we pay for all of our facilities, floor space, and peering in Equinix. That is our #1 cost in business but why we choose to pay 4x as much because it's worth it.

    Comparing apples to apples with providers is difficult to do, and for some customers they will just flat out find a better fit with a different "grade" provider. If cost effectiveness is the #1 thing for a customer, Equinix and DuPont Fabros are not going to be their choice when you can easily spend over $2,000/mo just for a rack and power, no ping.

    Fortune500's, high-profile websites, and those companies who are very serious about their hosting that pose to lose large revenues for sub-par quality have no problem paying higher prices because it provides value to their business and justifies that expense.

  4. #129
    I'm comparing apples to apples.

    Not for nothing but it's a bit too easy for the 'cloud' industry to make claims that just aren't true, and that's one of them - I'm fully aware how much a rack costs in a quality DC.

    Eq is 100% cloud providers? No of course it isn't..

  5. #130
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    6,957
    Quote Originally Posted by CloudWeb View Post
    Fortune500's, high-profile websites, and those companies who are very serious about their hosting that pose to lose large revenues for sub-par quality have no problem paying higher prices because it provides value to their business and justifies that expense.
    What high profile web sites are hosted out of Equinix? Most high profile sites have the space and power needs to find wholsesale space from providers like DRT, not retail from Equinix. Most of the sites Equinix lists as customers don't have significant amounts of space there, simply POPs for connectivity purposes or a part of a CDN, etc. The reason to go with Equinix is the connectivity, that is it, there are plenty of other facilities that build out data centers to the same levels of reliability at a lower price.
    Karl Zimmerman - Founder & CEO of Steadfast
    VMware Virtual Data Center Platform

    karl @ steadfast.net - Sales/Support: 312-602-2689
    Cloud Hosting, Managed Dedicated Servers, Chicago Colocation, and New Jersey Colocation

  6. #131
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    1,030
    Quote Originally Posted by KarlZimmer View Post
    What high profile web sites are hosted out of Equinix? Most high profile sites have the space and power needs to find wholsesale space from providers like DRT, not retail from Equinix. Most of the sites Equinix lists as customers don't have significant amounts of space there, simply POPs for connectivity purposes or a part of a CDN, etc. The reason to go with Equinix is the connectivity, that is it, there are plenty of other facilities that build out data centers to the same levels of reliability at a lower price.
    I'm not at liberty to say who they are as they may not want that known. What I know is here in the DC area where we're at there's now.. hrm.. 6 I think Equinix Data Center's alone within about a block's radius, there are an awful lot of high profile sites, SaaS companies, CDN providers, newsgroup providers, core DNS services, banks, government customers, Fortune500's, and other very critical online businesses. I host some of those myself on our main business (Cloud Web is just a subsidiary). Some choose it for the excellent connectivity, but some go "pay grades" higher and want the other things it provides.

    From what I've seen through the years some companies which have outgrown Equinix still have quite a presence in Equinix but also have built their own Data Center's. There's kind of a rule of thumb among the carrier-neutral crowd and it's either you host in carrier neutral such as EQIX/DFT or you host yourself.

  7. #132
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    6,957
    Quote Originally Posted by CloudWeb View Post
    I'm not at liberty to say who they are as they may not want that known. What I know is here in the DC area where we're at there's now.. hrm.. 6 I think Equinix Data Center's alone within about a block's radius, there are an awful lot of high profile sites, SaaS companies, CDN providers, newsgroup providers, core DNS services, banks, government customers, Fortune500's, and other very critical online businesses. I host some of those myself on our main business (Cloud Web is just a subsidiary). Some choose it for the excellent connectivity, but some go "pay grades" higher and want the other things it provides.

    From what I've seen through the years some companies which have outgrown Equinix still have quite a presence in Equinix but also have built their own Data Center's. There's kind of a rule of thumb among the carrier-neutral crowd and it's either you host in carrier neutral such as EQIX/DFT or you host yourself.
    That was exactly my point, those companies USE Equinix facilities, but they're not based out of Equinix facilities. Most sites or companies that get large enough will be getting wholesale space, not retail space. Yes, a business unit of a Fortune 500 company will use an Equinix facility for a specific use, but to basically indicate they're largely dependent on such facilities for their data center needs isn't really true. They're used for inter-connectivity, not hosting core infrastructure. I'm not saying no one uses it for that, but they'll claim Limelight, Akamai, Google, Yahoo!, Rackspace, PayPal, EA, various banks, etc. as customers when those companies use Equinix for an extremely small percent of their overall data center needs.

    What are the "other things" Equinix provides??

    Note: We are an Equinix customer in multiple sites. We would be listed as an Equinix customer, but Equinix makes up ~0.3% of our data center space.
    Karl Zimmerman - Founder & CEO of Steadfast
    VMware Virtual Data Center Platform

    karl @ steadfast.net - Sales/Support: 312-602-2689
    Cloud Hosting, Managed Dedicated Servers, Chicago Colocation, and New Jersey Colocation

  8. #133
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    1,030
    Quote Originally Posted by KarlZimmer View Post
    That was exactly my point, those companies USE Equinix facilities, but they're not based out of Equinix facilities. Most sites or companies that get large enough will be getting wholesale space, not retail space. Yes, a business unit of a Fortune 500 company will use an Equinix facility for a specific use, but to basically indicate they're largely dependent on such facilities for their data center needs isn't really true. They're used for inter-connectivity, not hosting core infrastructure. I'm not saying no one uses it for that, but they'll claim Limelight, Akamai, Google, Yahoo!, Rackspace, PayPal, EA, various banks, etc. as customers when those companies use Equinix for an extremely small percent of their overall data center needs.

    What are the "other things" Equinix provides??

    Note: We are an Equinix customer in multiple sites. We would be listed as an Equinix customer, but Equinix makes up ~0.3% of our data center space.
    That also is not true. I know for a fact many of these companies are running their core infrastructure out of it. I get what you're saying, and I'm sure many build out their own infrastructure's but Equinix is about as close of an infrastructure between retail and wholesale as you say (you buy cages, buy power in bulk, build them up as you see fit, buy bandwidth and cross connects as you see fit).

    I don't know, maybe you're talking about small customers who come in and buy a single rack in increments like a traditional Data Center but I know the larger customers don't. Everyone has private cages and decide exactly how to build that out. *shrug*

  9. #134
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    CA/TX USA
    Posts
    964
    Quote Originally Posted by CloudWeb View Post
    I'm not at liberty to say who they are as they may not want that known.
    In that case it is probably best not to use them as an example in the first place.

    Cheers,
    Rick
    ██ UBERHOST
    NEXT GENERATION HOSTING
    Managed dedicated & shared hosting

  10. #135
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    1,030
    Quote Originally Posted by uberhostNET View Post
    In that case it is probably best not to use them as an example in the first place.

    Cheers,
    Rick
    It's irrelevant to the fact that it's done.

  11. #136
    CLoud is a lot more than 'vps'

    It's a new way of delivering solutions and yes, they can be a lot more powerful than equivalent 'enterprise' dedicated servers,

    The key with enterprise cloud offerings if that you have to really compare 'like with like'.

    If you wanted a dedicated solution to deliver what a cloud machine can, ok:

    1 - set up both dedicated and cloud machines with the same spec
    2 - for dedicated, add a second identical machine for failover
    3 - for dedicated now buy switches and failover gear/load balancer
    4 - now sort out a NAS or backup storage for the dedi
    5 - now have an SLA with your DC to insert ram or storage in your dedi in under 15 minutes, 24/7.

    Now, what does the dedicated server solution cost?

    Apples with apples here, cloud wins every time.

    Providers get that, which is why everyone is scrambling to go cloud.

    Dedicated servers of the mid 2000's and that era is coming to an end.

  12. #137
    Basically everything you said is unnecessary with 15 seconds of capacity planning - if you really need ram in 15 minutes you're doing something wrong..

    Switches on dedis what? Load balancing isn't a standard cloud in a vm-sense feature, you have to buy more clouds and set it up just like with a dedi.

    Providers are scrambling because it's the fashion, let’s get a grip on reality a bit here..

  13. #138

    Post

    Quote Originally Posted by boskone View Post
    CLoud is a lot more than 'vps'

    It's a new way of delivering solutions and yes, they can be a lot more powerful than equivalent 'enterprise' dedicated servers,
    (This is not new. It's called clustered computing but often called "linux cluster")

    The key with enterprise cloud offerings if that you have to really compare 'like with like'.

    If you wanted a dedicated solution to deliver what a cloud machine can, ok:

    1 - set up both dedicated and cloud machines with the same spec
    2 - for dedicated, add a second identical machine for failover
    3 - for dedicated now buy switches and failover gear/load balancer
    4 - now sort out a NAS or backup storage for the dedi
    5 - now have an SLA with your DC to insert ram or storage in your dedi in under 15 minutes, 24/7.

    Now, what does the dedicated server solution cost?
    (It costs less)

    Apples with apples here, cloud wins every time.
    (Why hasn't anyone else been able to prove this?)

    Providers get that, which is why everyone is scrambling to go cloud.
    (If I could sell some kind of mumbo jumbo for more money then I'd consider selling it also. Doesn't mean it makes _technical_ sense)

    Dedicated servers of the mid 2000's and that era is coming to an end.
    (Don't people have to buy dedicated servers and colo in order to run a cloud?)


    I am tired of being a nonprofit worker so if there's some way I can sell some kind of mumbo jumbo for more money (the cloud) then I'm all for it. As I see it the best thing about "the cloud" is that it gets clients to quit asking questions because all the answers seem to be the same.

    Client questions are:
    What kinda raaaam?
    What kinda processor?
    What kinda harddrive?

    And if we can get the client to just stop being annoying as hell by saying "Unlimited!, Secure!, NEVER go down again!, It will help you build anything you want even tho you can't program!"

    Then I can answer every single clients questions with the same answer. It's a lot less work and gets the client to just stop asking questions. This seems to be the real advantage of the cloud and that's okay because it's all about the money sometimes.

    Just don't try to answer technical questions about the cloud with marketing propaganda.

  14. #139
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    1,030
    Quote Originally Posted by streaky81 View Post
    Basically everything you said is unnecessary with 15 seconds of capacity planning - if you really need ram in 15 minutes you're doing something wrong..

    Switches on dedis what? Load balancing isn't a standard cloud in a vm-sense feature, you have to buy more clouds and set it up just like with a dedi.

    Providers are scrambling because it's the fashion, let’s get a grip on reality a bit here..
    Not really. Why overbuy the Dedicated server keeping spare resources on hand? It's more cost effective and easier to upgrade in Cloud when you want.

    Actually switches, load balancers, and various other plug and play appliances can and do happen with private ptp tunnel's between those vm appliances in Cloud. It's way faster, easier, and cheaper than traditional hardware as.. well.. it's virtual. It's not like a dedicated.

  15. #140
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    1,030
    Quote Originally Posted by nonprofit-worker View Post
    I am tired of being a nonprofit worker so if there's some way I can sell some kind of mumbo jumbo for more money (the cloud) then I'm all for it. As I see it the best thing about "the cloud" is that it gets clients to quit asking questions because all the answers seem to be the same.

    Client questions are:
    What kinda raaaam?
    What kinda processor?
    What kinda harddrive?

    And if we can get the client to just stop being annoying as hell by saying "Unlimited!, Secure!, NEVER go down again!, It will help you build anything you want even tho you can't program!"

    Then I can answer every single clients questions with the same answer. It's a lot less work and gets the client to just stop asking questions. This seems to be the real advantage of the cloud and that's okay because it's all about the money sometimes.

    Just don't try to answer technical questions about the cloud with marketing propaganda.
    The technical side is that it is far easier, cheaper, and quicker to develop, deploy, and manage an infrastructure. Time to market is cut in half, and setting up new development environments and taking them to production that time is greatly reduced. It's nice when the technical and marketing sides align and it actually does IF you have a proper Cloud infrastructure.

  16. #141
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    134
    You're going to have to do more 'CloudWeb' then getting the last post in this thread to say some meaningless blanket statement of "Cloud is awesome!" that will only convince someone that is already clueless.

    You're going to have to get involved in some technical detail and provide some real numbers to convince anyone that has real experience.

    Also why didn't you reply to my post?


    Quote Originally Posted by multexsys View Post
    Even if "cloud computing" really did work _perfectly_ it would never be more efficient than to just use one computer and not that many people need the resources of more then one computer. It would be more efficient for someone to buy/rent a dual hexa core processor (or other bleeding edge fast server) then to use "the cloud". This is even if "the cloud" worked perfectly and the technology to enable the most perfectly ideal cloud were freely available.

    So in what situations are people in when even the current bleeding edge fast server (single server) is not fast enough? If someone is really in that situation they should at least have a programmer/admin that doesn't suck so much that he can't even make use of two computers. It's just not that hard to use resources of two or more computers for your application and the people that really need to do it wouldn't have a problem doing it.

  17. #142

    Post

    You destroy the whole point of RAM in a computer if you’re sending data across the network and through the bus of another computer. If you do this you might as well take the data you’re supposed to send to RAM and just store it on SSD/hard drive or other slower media.
    Cloud services have created a specialized “high speed zone” in the cloud just to run mysql. Other clouds have just created a separate section of the cloud just for mysql servers that are not actually apart of the cloud. This should tell you something about the inefficiencies of trying to fork a process across a network to another computer. (Don’t think most clouds can do this any way)

    The people that try to run mysql in the cloud obviously could just use “mysql replication” like everyone already does when they need to scale.

    Tell a company that is operating a rendering farm or a standard computing cluster (or super computer) to start using “onApp” or whatever and it will not go over well because they will be able to see a instant and obvious decline in efficiency.

    I know many companies that use render farms and they would never try to use “the cloud”. Isn’t that odd? Some of the people that use clustered computing the most don’t do “the cloud”.

    Please take time to address everything I said without "the cloud" marketing nonsense and unspecific generalities

  18. #143
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,409
    Quote Originally Posted by nonprofit-worker View Post

    Tell a company that is operating a rendering farm or a standard computing cluster (or super computer) to start using “onApp” or whatever and it will not go over well because they will be able to see a instant and obvious decline in efficiency.
    If you have 100% 24/7 utilization of your compute resources, and if you are content without redundancy/HA or a sexy UI then yes - it would be silly to deploy on OnApp.
    However, chances are that your load is not 100% 24/7, but perhaps an avg. of 50-60% or lower on avg. In that case it might make sense for you to have a dedicated server farm allocated to dealing with the constant load, and offload the spikes to a public cloud. It's one of the core business areas of Amazon (rendering, transcoding, numberchrunching etc), and OnApp has a handful of clients with setups specialized for this sort of thing.

    Quote Originally Posted by nonprofit-worker View Post
    I know many companies that use render farms and they would never try to use “the cloud”. Isn’t that odd?
    No, it's not odd at all. There would be no need for it in that scenario. If you have a constant load, no need for redundancy or a publicly shared infrastructure - then why bother doing the whole cloud thing. Wouldn't make sense.
    However, if you have specific rendering jobs to do it might make sense for you to have them completed in some sort of public cloud scenario, only paying for the resources consumed.

    Outsourcing compute power ... Is that unique for the cloud though? No - not at all. But it's just been conceptualised and commoditised - making it a whole lot easier to buy and sell.


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

  19. #144
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    84
    Cloud has a big failover, your cloud will never down.
    When the first node down, the cloud will move automaticly to another nodes.

  20. #145
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Cluj Napoca
    Posts
    469
    Cloud or everything that should allow you to call your solution a cloud solution has it's benefits. I have clients that do not want to pay for multiple dedicated servers except a few hours a month.

    I also have to agree with some anti-cloud people here too, although they tend to over exaggerate sometimes. Usually companies that sell cloud solutions tell you that everything will fly around and you will never have a problem again, like Mo-chi, above, sees it and which of course is a big lie.
    Last edited by Cristi4n; 12-19-2010 at 09:02 AM.
    IntoDNS - Check your DNS health and configuration
    FLEIO - OpenStack billing and control panel for service providers

  21. #146

    Thumbs up

    Quote Originally Posted by eming View Post
    If you have 100% 24/7 utilization of your compute resources, and if you are content without redundancy/HA or a sexy UI then yes - it would be silly to deploy on OnApp.
    However, chances are that your load is not 100% 24/7
    I only used a render farm as an example. Let's say 100% for 1 hour a day and 40 percent for the rest of each day. It's not silly to deploy OnApp anymore? How so?



    Quote Originally Posted by eming View Post
    Outsourcing compute power ... Is that unique for the cloud though? No - not at all. But it's just been conceptualised and commoditised - making it a whole lot easier to buy and sell.
    You're right it's not unique to cloud computing. You could sell a VPS to someone for a few hours if you want. You could strike that as a reason for cloud being easier to buy/sell. Could replace it with a number of other things tho such as..

    Cloud computing is easy to buy because:
    1. I'm totally confused about how a computer works
    2. I like the idea of slowing down my application for redundancy even tho I can have redundancy and normal performance if I knew what I were doing

    Cloud computing is easy to sell because:
    1. There's people that are too confused to prove that this a bad idea and it's not more efficient (exclude all things not unique to the cloud)
    2. I have a few answers that all similar to each other. I barely have to read my sales emails, I can use auto-reply and it saves me a bit of time

  22. #147
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Cluj Napoca
    Posts
    469
    @nonprofit-worker too few people know how to manually configure/deploy a.s.o. virtual or dedicated servers.
    And then there are others that just don't have the time to configure and deploy manually everything, they don't care how much it costs they just need a solution asap. Take netapp for example, there are too many companies using netapp as a SAN.
    Some do not have the necessary time to care about a performance loss if there is any and do not have the time to start learning how a computer works since it's not their job.
    You can't expect for everyone to know everything.

    As stated above, there are cases when having a "cloud like" solution is ok and you should know that people will always go with the trend regardless if that trend is ok or not for them.

    OnApp from what I know was meant for service providers or at least for companies that need to automatically deploy multiple VMs pretty fast for third parties/clients, and was not meant for a single person. Anyway, I think there is too much spam with OnApp already here.
    IntoDNS - Check your DNS health and configuration
    FLEIO - OpenStack billing and control panel for service providers

  23. #148
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,409
    Quote Originally Posted by Cristi4n View Post
    OnApp from what I know was meant for service providers or at least for companies that need to automatically deploy multiple VMs pretty fast for third parties/clients, and was not meant for a single person. Anyway, I think there is too much spam with OnApp already here.
    Agree

    Quote Originally Posted by nonprofit-worker View Post
    I only used a render farm as an example. Let's say 100% for 1 hour a day and 40 percent for the rest of each day. It's not silly to deploy OnApp anymore? How so?
    wasn't my point, but - depending on your specific setup - it may make sense to have a set allocation of resources that would deal with the 40% load, and then spike into a public cloud offering outside of your facility/infrastructure, like Amazon.

    Quote Originally Posted by nonprofit-worker View Post
    You're right it's not unique to cloud computing. You could sell a VPS to someone for a few hours if you want. You could strike that as a reason for cloud being easier to buy/sell. Could replace it with a number of other things tho such as..
    True, you could replace the typical cloud offering with a whole bunch of other things, my point before (when mentioning that it has now been conceptualised) is that no-one (in the mass market) really sell's VPS's that way. Go to the VPS category in WHT and look for hourly offerings...I havent checked lately, but I doubt you'll find many. So doable? Sure, in theory - done? No, not really in practise.

    The whole "cloud" buzzword is not helping any of us, and I wish it would go away...and actually, I think in time it will. In the not too distant future it's not a buzzword, its just how stuff is done.


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

Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 05-04-2010, 01:39 PM
  2. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04-18-2010, 04:24 PM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-15-2010, 02:20 PM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-18-2010, 12:43 PM
  5. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 10-29-2009, 08:06 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
  •