Results 1 to 30 of 30
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    2,612

    Which Cloud Provider Would You Recommended?

    Which cloud provider would you recommend for hosting an off-site customer service portal?

    Except for SoftLayer and RackSpace.

    Also please share your experience with the provider.
    Snoork Hosting - Enterprise Servers | DDoS Protected Network
    99.9% Network Uptime | 15 Minute Ticket Response Time | 24/7 Live Chat
    Check Out Our Dedicated Server Specials For Amazing Discounts & Promotions

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    1,028
    Just curious, but why not SL or RS?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    2,612
    Quote Originally Posted by CloudWeb View Post
    Just curious, but why not SL or RS?
    Good question

    SoftLayer: Many network outages on their cloud servers. We did not have a single month without any network outages. Each month we encounter network outages. Today especially + maintenance.

    RackSpace: Unable to deploy cPanel on their cloud servers due to the cloud infrastructure setup. SSH/Console automatically closes to prevent network flood and its impossible to install cPanel.
    Last edited by Snoork Hosting; 06-02-2011 at 11:08 PM.
    Snoork Hosting - Enterprise Servers | DDoS Protected Network
    99.9% Network Uptime | 15 Minute Ticket Response Time | 24/7 Live Chat
    Check Out Our Dedicated Server Specials For Amazing Discounts & Promotions

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Miami, FL
    Posts
    2,762
    I've seen from a previous post...

    GigenetCloud
    Voxel
    CloudWeb

    Those are really good ones to think about. Don't even think about EC2 as cPanel could not be installed there for a fact!
    Aaron Ong
    Dedicated Servers - 100TB Servers - 100Mbps Unmetered Servers - Web Hosting - CDN Network
    Servers in Central, East/West Coast USA, EUROPE and ASIA
    Welltodo Century
    - www.welltodocentury.com

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    393
    Yes go in for a mid range cloud from either of the providers mentioned by @aodat2, all quality hosts.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    1,028
    Quote Originally Posted by SnoorkAdvertiser View Post
    Good question

    SoftLayer: Many network outages on their cloud servers. We did not have a single month without any network outages. Each month we encounter network outages. Today especially + maintenance.

    RackSpace: Unable to deploy cPanel on their cloud servers due to the cloud infrastructure setup. SSH/Console automatically closes to prevent network flood and its impossible to install cPanel.
    Interesting, and I am sorry to hear of your trouble. Did they have any reasons for the outages? Or did they notify everyone? (I assume you're a current customer of SL).

    I never heard about that limitation in RS either. I feel like I'm being schooled today. Can you not adjust that setting in your individual cloud server or are they doing some sort of firewalling above your level that is causing that to happen?

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    AU
    Posts
    1,048
    I have used EC2, but have found that it is no good for database hosting and would appear to be oversubscribed.

    I used Rackspace for CDN, but have found their cloud server is a little slow.

    I'm seriously considering getting a dedicated server again for my webserver and use that with a CDN.

    I have not had the best experiences so far with cloudservers as there just doesn't seem to be enough resources to go around!

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by aodat2 View Post
    Those are really good ones to think about. Don't even think about EC2 as cPanel could not be installed there for a fact!
    Why can't you install cPanel on EC2?


    Quote Originally Posted by seg fault View Post
    I have used EC2, but have found that it is no good for database hosting and would appear to be oversubscribed.
    For what reasons do you believe EC2 to not be good for database hosting? I did some tests and it seemed to perform quite well, am I missing something?

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    1,028
    Quote Originally Posted by seg fault View Post
    I have used EC2, but have found that it is no good for database hosting and would appear to be oversubscribed.

    I used Rackspace for CDN, but have found their cloud server is a little slow.

    I'm seriously considering getting a dedicated server again for my webserver and use that with a CDN.

    I have not had the best experiences so far with cloudservers as there just doesn't seem to be enough resources to go around!
    It sounds like you have experienced providers who oversell Cloud Servers. While overselling Shared hosting is perfectly safe (within reason) and can result in a win-win situation for everyone, overselling Dedicated resources is not a good idea. I'd look for a provider that is more comparable to a Dedicated server that offers dedicated and guaranteed resources, no overselling.

    Also, one of the most common problems I see is many customers simply do not purchase enough resources. I can't tell you how many clients want to go from an 8GB/RAM Dedicated server with 8 full Xeon cores to a 1GB/RAM Cloud Server with 1 Xeon core and end up complaining to the host about an unstable server, oom-killer errors, and various other conditions and instabilities because they under-purchased what they needed.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    934
    Quote Originally Posted by aodat2 View Post
    I've seen from a previous post...

    Don't even think about EC2 as cPanel could not be installed there for a fact!
    http://www.migrate2cloud.com/blog/bu...h-cpanel-howto

    ElasticIP FTW!

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    AU
    Posts
    1,048
    Quote Originally Posted by CloudWeb View Post
    Also, one of the most common problems I see is many customers simply do not purchase enough resources.
    I tend to agree with this I must admit

    A better pricing model (imo) would be to seperate disk, ram and cpu.

    The reason I say this, is because when you have a dedicated server, you look at your storage needs, you check how much memory is (currently) in use and kind of guess on the CPU.

    You tend to purchase 'what you need' (normally in respect to disk space and ram only) because the higher CPU plans have much more HDD and RAM than needed (in my case anyway)

    So it's not just the users who are 'buying down', the service providers can also be partially to blame for less than perfect customisation options.

    Additionally, end-users assume we will be paying less for cloud based services as there is less wasted cpu time. Thats why we try to purchase at lower prices than dedicated.

  12. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by seg fault View Post
    I tend to agree with this I must admit

    A better pricing model (imo) would be to seperate disk, ram and cpu.

    The reason I say this, is because when you have a dedicated server, you look at your storage needs, you check how much memory is (currently) in use and kind of guess on the CPU.

    You tend to purchase 'what you need' (normally in respect to disk space and ram only) because the higher CPU plans have much more HDD and RAM than needed (in my case anyway)

    So it's not just the users who are 'buying down', the service providers can also be partially to blame for less than perfect customisation options.

    Additionally, end-users assume we will be paying less for cloud based services as there is less wasted cpu time. Thats why we try to purchase at lower prices than dedicated.
    That would be great if that was offered, but it is my understanding that the way these "clouds" are setup, it would cause a lot of wasted resources if they didn't scale all 3 together. Possibly someone else with more knowledge about this can chime in on that, but that is just what I've gathered from researching all of this all week.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    1,028
    Quote Originally Posted by schooglepets View Post
    That would be great if that was offered, but it is my understanding that the way these "clouds" are setup, it would cause a lot of wasted resources if they didn't scale all 3 together. Possibly someone else with more knowledge about this can chime in on that, but that is just what I've gathered from researching all of this all week.
    You are 100% correct. Unfortunately as much as providers would love to make every resource independent, it will result in waste when servers sell too much of one thing, and too little of another. So, instead most providers are bundling things to provide maximum resources to ensure the best quality of service, at the lowest price.

    Some providers may allow some variance in their pricing for small amounts of flexibility as usually it can weigh out. But, if you see a provider being 100% independent then be very leery of what they are doing. They are more than likely overselling, charging too much for what you are getting, or just flat out lying and not actually giving you what purchase.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    2,612
    We were able to deploy cPanel on cloud server at Rackspace this time. Looks like RackSpace cloud servers underwent certain changes, which now prevents the network flood blocking cPanel installation.

    I have to say after switching from SoftLayer cloud to RackSpace cloud, the experience is phenomenal

    +A RackSpace
    Snoork Hosting - Enterprise Servers | DDoS Protected Network
    99.9% Network Uptime | 15 Minute Ticket Response Time | 24/7 Live Chat
    Check Out Our Dedicated Server Specials For Amazing Discounts & Promotions

  15. #15
    Both softlayer and rackspace are 'vps' in the strict definition - ie: localy storage, no failover, etc.
    ____________________________________________
    European and USA IAAS Cloud Hosting
    http://www.dediserve.com Dublin, London, Dallas
    Ranked by Cloudharmony.com as the fastest cloud in the world.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    309
    Softlayer cloud uses a SAN and supports live-migration.

    However, you are right that rackspace "cloud" uses local storage and doesn't support live-migration.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Lake Zurich, IL
    Posts
    282
    Quote Originally Posted by CloudWeb View Post
    Also, one of the most common problems I see is many customers simply do not purchase enough resources. I can't tell you how many clients want to go from an 8GB/RAM Dedicated server with 8 full Xeon cores to a 1GB/RAM Cloud Server with 1 Xeon core and end up complaining to the host about an unstable server, oom-killer errors, and various other conditions and instabilities because they under-purchased what they needed.
    I agree. This is mostly due to the difference in cost between dedicated servers and cloud systems where cloud systems are more costly for obvious reasons (flexibility, redundancy, etc.). Another example of not looking at the architecture and being sure it is appropriate for the application and/or uptime, performance, and growth requirements.

    Eric
    Genesis Hosting Solutions, LLC
    http://www.genesishosting.com/
    Instant VMware vSphere Cloud Environments
    Unlimited virtual machines within your purchased resources!

  18. #18
    Global Net Access (GNAX): http://www.gnax.net/
    GNAX has a partnership with VMware and provides services with VMware vSphere and vCloud Director. I use them for dedicated servers in their life-critical datacenter in Atlanta, and it's obvious to me that they are reliable not only because of my personal experience, but because they host the IT infrastructure for a lot of hospitals and healthcare providers in Georgia.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Lake Zurich, IL
    Posts
    282
    Quote Originally Posted by CloudWeb View Post
    You are 100% correct. Unfortunately as much as providers would love to make every resource independent, it will result in waste when servers sell too much of one thing, and too little of another. So, instead most providers are bundling things to provide maximum resources to ensure the best quality of service, at the lowest price.
    We actually provide resource independence, but it is more costly to the customer overall (thus, not the lowest price). Instead, what we generally do is suggest customers buy memory resources and little CPU resources (since it can be bursted) and allow customers to purchase "reserved" CPU resources. This works well for call centers, critical applications, PBXes, etc. that absolutely need the CPU cycles. So, in essence, they are paying more for the right to have a higher CPU priority. CPU availability is generally never an issue, though.

    Quote Originally Posted by CloudWeb View Post
    Some providers may allow some variance in their pricing for small amounts of flexibility as usually it can weigh out. But, if you see a provider being 100% independent then be very leery of what they are doing. They are more than likely overselling, charging too much for what you are getting, or just flat out lying and not actually giving you what purchase.
    I think "cost" needs to be added to the equation. If a provider is providing 100% independent resource reservations, "and" providing it at a very low cost, then you definitely have to be leery.

    Eric
    Genesis Hosting Solutions, LLC
    http://www.genesishosting.com/
    Instant VMware vSphere Cloud Environments
    Unlimited virtual machines within your purchased resources!

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Devon
    Posts
    118
    I hope I can reccomend a provider here. Sorry about last time when I did in the wrong post

    I highly reccomend CloudSigma

  21. #21
    I highly recommend Gigenetcloud. Network and stability are supreme.

  22. #22
    I have experiences with all of these providers so I would recommend:

    www.zerigo.com
    www.linode.com
    www.gigenetcloud.com
    www.stormondemand.com

  23. #23
    I would echo the 'cloud magic' posts.

    If you are struggling on a quad core, 4gb ram server, moving to cloud doesnt change anything or make it better. Just because it's 'cloud' doesn't mean you can ignore 'normal' practice for sizing, securing and managing machines.

    It's just infrastructure at the end of the day.
    ____________________________________________
    European and USA IAAS Cloud Hosting
    http://www.dediserve.com Dublin, London, Dallas
    Ranked by Cloudharmony.com as the fastest cloud in the world.

  24. #24
    I would recommend Terremark's vCloud

    Great performance, great support.

  25. #25
    Sorry to introduce this but why I've heard so many bad things about SAN over local storage?... I've heard that SAN is a complete nightmare for several providers causing lots of downtime, when local storage maybe doesn't give redundancy but provides more quality?

    Please correct me if I'm wrong, but telling me technically why!, I'm just trying to understand this "thing" of cloud, it seems that each company has a different definition / architecture even when using the same platforms (onapp, vmware, applogic, etc)

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Lake Zurich, IL
    Posts
    282
    Quote Originally Posted by a-kevin View Post
    Sorry to introduce this but why I've heard so many bad things about SAN over local storage?... I've heard that SAN is a complete nightmare for several providers causing lots of downtime, when local storage maybe doesn't give redundancy but provides more quality?

    Please correct me if I'm wrong, but telling me technically why!, I'm just trying to understand this "thing" of cloud, it seems that each company has a different definition / architecture even when using the same platforms (onapp, vmware, applogic, etc)
    I think what you've seen is various providers having problems with SANs that haven't been thoroughly tested by their manufacturers under high-load conditions that typically exist with multi-tenant environments. Firmware bugs are to blame.

    However, this is not to say that a SAN is a bad idea, nor that there are no SAN vendors that make quality products. There are plenty that make great products that "just work".

    Local storage is a much simpler concept since it is not shared among multiple machines and lacks the availability features while modifying the storage parameters.

    This is a list of features that you typically don't find in local storage:
    - LUNs (a virtual disk volume that is a "chunk" of storage in a RAID)
    - thin-provisioning
    - 2 active/active controllers with replicated caches
    - 4+ I/O paths (all active)
    - online firmware updates
    - online expansion of disk shelves
    - online LUN and RAID expansion and contraction
    - deduplication
    - compression
    - asynchronous and synchronous replication
    - online LUN mapping to one or more servers
    - shared LUNs for clustered servers
    - storage tiering (automatic moving of data to slower/faster storage based on usage stats)
    - online RAID migration
    - hot-swap of every part including power supplies, drives, controllers, and even disk shelves
    - snapshots

    Many SANs provide the ability to handle just about every storage scenario known to exist, while maintaining availability. The SANs that have had issues due to bugs have create a black eye for various cloud providers and so they get a bad rap, but the number is fewer and fewer now that virtualization has pushed these devices to their limits and manufacturers have had to step up and fix the issues.

    You are also seeing a shift in economics, where SANs that have all of these features have been extremely expensive due to the development and testing needed to be sure all of these features work properly in 99.999% uptime conditions, but now you have cheaper and cheaper SANs that are in competition. These cheaper SANs don't have near the bench time and real-world stress-test time that the more mature SANs have had and so you see strange problems showing up that nobody ever saw before.

    Sometimes, the problem isn't with the SAN at all, but with the hard drives themselves. We've seen a rare problem that occurred where Western Digital had a firmware bug in their drives and the SAS signal voltage dipped too much when many drives were connected to the same power supplies and were all being worked hard. One would think it was related to the power supplies, but it wasn't... it was a software bug in the drives themselves that caused the voltage to dip out of compliance of the SAS standard. This caused multiple drives to appear as failed. Not good. But this could also happen in a local storage scenario with enough drives.

    It all depends on the environment, budget, uptime requirements, and features, but SANs have a very important place in the world, just as local storage does. If there are situations where none of the above features are required, and the availability risk is sufficient (over sustained periods of time... such as 5+ years), local storage is a great solution.

    Eric
    Genesis Hosting Solutions, LLC
    http://www.genesishosting.com/
    Instant VMware vSphere Cloud Environments
    Unlimited virtual machines within your purchased resources!

  27. #27
    Eric,

    I just wanted to commend you on a very well thought out and informative post. I think you hit the nail on the head here.

    The thing that should be conveyed by clouds using SAN is depending on the setup/software you can truly offer failover where with local storage it isn't really possible (I could be mistaken but this is just my observation). We also need to remember the WHT market which is typically (not exclusively) pretty thin on margins. If you are willing to pay for a cloud server with enterprise SAN storage you can find it from a number of providers out there that target enterprise type customers who have the dollars to make the providers ROI worth while.

    This is not to say that some providers here don't have really good setups, they do. However since cloud is opaque and you don't really know what your back end infrastructure is you really need to go with a provider you can trust.
    Last edited by RossH; 07-11-2011 at 08:21 PM.

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Lake Zurich, IL
    Posts
    282
    Quote Originally Posted by RossH View Post
    I just wanted to commend you on a very well thought out and informative post. I think you hit the nail on the head here.

    The thing that should be conveyed by clouds using SAN is depending on the setup/software you can truly offer failover where with local storage it isn't really possible (I could be mistaken but this is just my observation). We also need to remember the WHT market which is typically (not exclusively) pretty thin on margins.
    Thanks Ross!

    Fail-over (when a server fails) and many other SAN features are available with local storage when you use multiple servers' local storage in a RAID-over-the-network configuration. This is what is generally called a distributed storage network, or a de-centralized SAN. To accomplish this, cost goes up pretty dramatically compared to a single server's local storage, at least for high performance solutions.

    Distributed storage has the disadvantage that you must add servers when you run out of disk space. This is a drawback when you need more storage, but not more CPU or memory, and end up having to buy more servers.

    The advantage is that additional CPU, Memory, and caching is added to the cluster with each server added.

    It just depends on how you look at it.

    Quote Originally Posted by RossH View Post
    If you are willing to pay for a cloud server with enterprise SAN storage you can find it from a number of providers out there that target enterprise type customers who have the dollars to make the providers ROI worth while.
    Yep, it's all based on risk. As the risk goes up (higher loss in revenue, and in some cases even higher loss in profit), the more sensitive the customer (and the provider) gets. Is it worth the risk going with a lesser-known, less-tested solution to save a few bucks (and possibly not sleep at night)? Typically no, but the revenue has to be there to cover the cost.

    It's the mutual understanding of the risk and cost from both customer and provider that would make sales a lot easier.

    Quote Originally Posted by RossH View Post
    This is not to say that some providers here don't have really good setups, they do. However since cloud is opaque and you don't really know what your back end infrastructure is you really need to go with a provider you can trust.
    It's always best for a prospect to demand details from a provider regarding what their workloads will run on, and where. I know I would want to know! We've had many clients do just that, visiting the facility to be sure we are who we say we are. I think it's a great idea, even if it takes time and money to do it. It isn't always practical for small customers, though, which is where trust and reviews becomes the determining factor.

    Eric
    Genesis Hosting Solutions, LLC
    http://www.genesishosting.com/
    Instant VMware vSphere Cloud Environments
    Unlimited virtual machines within your purchased resources!

  29. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by erickmiller View Post
    Thanks Ross!

    Fail-over (when a server fails) and many other SAN features are available with local storage when you use multiple servers' local storage in a RAID-over-the-network configuration. This is what is generally called a distributed storage network, or a de-centralized SAN. To accomplish this, cost goes up pretty dramatically compared to a single server's local storage, at least for high performance solutions.

    Distributed storage has the disadvantage that you must add servers when you run out of disk space. This is a drawback when you need more storage, but not more CPU or memory, and end up having to buy more servers.

    The advantage is that additional CPU, Memory, and caching is added to the cluster with each server added.

    It just depends on how you look at it.
    Eric,

    Not that I don't believe what you are saying but can you list some other provider that user DSNs (distributed storage networks) as you described or hypervisors that support it truly (Are you talking iSCSI, I'm confused)? I really haven't heard of "high performance" solutions that didn't involve SAN, caching cards and some SSDs but I'm sure I haven't heard of all the technology available today. How does DSN work with no central repository of storage? I must not be understanding the technology.

    Quote Originally Posted by erickmiller View Post
    Yep, it's all based on risk. As the risk goes up (higher loss in revenue, and in some cases even higher loss in profit), the more sensitive the customer (and the provider) gets. Is it worth the risk going with a lesser-known, less-tested solution to save a few bucks (and possibly not sleep at night)? Typically no, but the revenue has to be there to cover the cost.

    It's the mutual understanding of the risk and cost from both customer and provider that would make sales a lot easier.
    Agreed.


    Quote Originally Posted by erickmiller View Post
    It's always best for a prospect to demand details from a provider regarding what their workloads will run on, and where. I know I would want to know! We've had many clients do just that, visiting the facility to be sure we are who we say we are. I think it's a great idea, even if it takes time and money to do it. It isn't always practical for small customers, though, which is where trust and reviews becomes the determining factor.

    Eric
    Agreed.

    I appreciate the discussion we are having.
    Last edited by RossH; 07-12-2011 at 12:37 AM.

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Lake Zurich, IL
    Posts
    282
    Quote Originally Posted by RossH View Post
    Not that I don't believe what you are saying but can you list some other provider that user DSNs (distributed storage networks) as you described or hypervisors that support it truly (Are you talking iSCSI, I'm confused)?
    CA/3Tera's AppLogic uses a distributed storage architecture using local storage (from what I understand... I admit I've never used it, only seen demos). Other products include SeaNodes and LeftHand Networks (now owned by HP).

    Most products are virtual SANs as opposed to distributed storage. This includes StorMagic, PHD Virtual's free virtual SAN software. I'm sure there are others, but these don't necessarily scale out when storage nodes are added. When I referred to high-performance, I really meant the difference between distributed storage and a virtual SAN.

    It's probably best to look at some of these products' sites to learn about their implementations.

    iSCSI is an "interface", not storage architecture. Servers (more specifically HBAs) communicate with storage systems using storage interfaces, typically SCSI or ATA (Serial or Parallel) and when accessed across a network, use a transport such as iSCSI or fiber channel. iSCSI provides a means to transport SCSI commands over an IP network. Fiber channel provides a means to transport SCSI commands over a fiber channel network. AoE provides a means to transport ATA over Ethernet. And FCoE provides a means to transport fiber channel over an Ethernet network. Crazy, yes.

    Distributed storage, virtual SANs, and physical SANs can act as "targets" of storage using interfaces such as iSCSI, fiber channel, and even SAS in some cases nowadays. Servers or virtual machines are "initiators" of I/O requests to targets.

    Quote Originally Posted by RossH View Post
    How does DSN work with no central repository of storage? I must not be understanding the technology.
    Every node is aware of the storage topology and thus can respond to I/O requests and proxy requests to other nodes if necessary, such as if the block being requested/written is on a different node. It's very similar to a pseudo-active/active SAN where only one controller "owns" a LUN and thus processes I/O, RAID functions, and cache sync. If a command is sent to the non-owning controller, the command is proxied to the controller that owns the LUN.

    It's typically better to have integrated support in the OS/hypervisor for a distributed storage system so more intelligent decisions can be made for where I/O is processed. In SANs where LUNs are owned by a controller, there are now commands that can be sent back to the server/hypervisor to tell it which network path is best to get to the controller that owns the LUN. Proxying is expensive computationally and latency-wise, so it's best to avoid it if possible.

    As a general storage platform where servers access a distributed storage network by simply load-balancing I/O requests among nodes isn't necessarily the best approach for the optimum performance. This can be done on active/active fiber channel SANs. We have done some testing of this configuration and found it can actually hinder performance.

    Quote Originally Posted by RossH View Post
    Well to be honest that is fine and dandy but as people with numerous years in this industry have seen providers do not always tell the truth, this includes standard and enterprise class providers.
    Boy is that true. Definitely grill the provider for information and ask for demos, trials, etc. if you feel uncomfortable. If you feel nauseous, run away, run away.

    Eric
    Genesis Hosting Solutions, LLC
    http://www.genesishosting.com/
    Instant VMware vSphere Cloud Environments
    Unlimited virtual machines within your purchased resources!

Similar Threads

  1. Best cloud provider? List of cloud providers?
    By AndiV74 in forum Cloud Hosting
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 09-27-2012, 01:12 PM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-13-2011, 09:14 AM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-05-2010, 07:58 AM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-28-2010, 11:45 AM
  5. Recommended Unmanaged Provider?
    By M Bacon in forum Dedicated Server
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 01-25-2010, 06:39 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
  •