Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 89
  1. #1

    * OnApp? Are you using it?

    OnApp is definitely an eye-catching solution to putting your services in "the cloud" so I'm just curious how many people are actually using OnApp as a solution to providing cloud web hosting and what they dis/like about it.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,404
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparrow-Taylor View Post
    OnApp is definitely an eye-catching solution to putting your services in "the cloud" so I'm just curious how many people are actually using OnApp as a solution to providing cloud web hosting
    We are pretty open when it comes to client numbers, there's around 250-270 public clouds based on OnApp. We set 2-3 new clouds live every day.


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

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Kansas City, Missouri
    Posts
    462
    We have a cloud in production and we like it. Here are a few things to keep in mind if you are comparing this to an enterprise solution:

    * No hot storage migration
    * HA is managed by the control system, so you better have a good control system, or one that is hosted on another enterprise solution like vmware
    * The product is still a little green in our opinion. Installation has to happen by OnApp
    * Bug fixes are usually provided directly by their developers SSHing in and editing .rb files to fix the issue, nothing wrong here but usually companies provide patch rollups etc

    I think its a great product, it needs to mature for around another year IMO but again, just my 2c.
    =>Admo.net Managed Hosting
    => Managed Hosting • Dedicated Servers • Colocation
    => Dark Fiber Access to 1102 Grand, Multiple Public Providers
    => Over •Sixteen• Years of Service

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Chennai, India
    Posts
    2,370
    We are using OnApp from its very early stage and very happy with it. Support is very fast. can't ask for more. The product has a big future ahead.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,143
    Quote Originally Posted by AdmoNet View Post

    * The product is still a little green in our opinion. Installation has to happen by OnApp
    From my talk with ditlev, one can have a guide onto how the install happens - at least when i talked to him a few months ago.

    I really would love to see vmware support though, thats what it really needs imo.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,404
    Quote Originally Posted by mazedk View Post
    From my talk with ditlev, one can have a guide onto how the install happens - at least when i talked to him a few months ago.
    True, it used to be pretty hard to install OnApp, so we preferred to do the install (for free though) to make sure everything was dandy. After 2.1 gold it's just an RPM and a bit, so we are comfortable letting clients do their own installs.
    Quote Originally Posted by mazedk View Post
    I really would love to see vmware support though, thats what it really needs imo.
    Yup, we've got 3 major things on the way in 2011...
    - vmware
    - ISO mounts
    - IPv6 support

    Honestly, I am not proud that these features are not out yet, but we've had so many client requests on other stuff, like the horizontal/vertical autoscaling and the loadblanancer.org integration that we've kept pushing it again and again...We are getting there though.


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

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Chennai, India
    Posts
    2,370
    Quote Originally Posted by eming View Post
    ....horizontal/vertical autoscaling and the loadblanancer.org integration that we've kept pushing it again and again...We are getting there though.


    D

    Any ETA for these "horizontal/vertical autoscaling" ?
    It will be a great feature to have.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,143
    I think, when you bring in vmware support, you will gain a whole new audience for the product - the bigger companies with an already established vmware infrastructure.. Could be very nice for OnApp

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,404
    Quote Originally Posted by chennaihomie View Post
    Any ETA for these "horizontal/vertical autoscaling" ?
    It will be a great feature to have.
    we've got a handful of clients running it already. The largest being GMOcloud.com. It will be 3-4 weeks before we make a full release.

    Quote Originally Posted by mazedk View Post
    I think, when you bring in vmware support, you will gain a whole new audience for the product - the bigger companies with an already established vmware infrastructure.. Could be very nice for OnApp
    Yup, I hear ya. OnApp is build for hosters though. I am not trying to be a player in the enterprise scene. Even though we've got a bunch of clients using OnApp outside of the hosting scene - our focus will remain within this industry. And I think for service providers, the hypervisor will be less important than it is now.


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

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,143
    Quote Originally Posted by eming View Post
    Yup, I hear ya. OnApp is build for hosters though. I am not trying to be a player in the enterprise scene. Even though we've got a bunch of clients using OnApp outside of the hosting scene - our focus will remain within this industry. And I think for service providers, the hypervisor will be less important than it is now.

    D
    Well, I find that vmware has the best administration options - maybe just cause i lack deeper insight in other hypervisors. Anyways, your product seems very nice already, will look forward to at what the future brings

  11. #11
    We have been following OnApp for awhile, and we have a division just starting up with the OnApp software, nothing live in production for clients yet but just testing out the whole interface and the setups of it and all, it's quite a nice solution so far.


    I would love for it to support vmware, soon as it does we will be having placed as our main system for our vmware brand, and having it as our main panel and all.

    For some reason I thought OnApp already supported IPv6? I hope there's no more delay's and push back's on getting the update's out, I know I'm not on the team that's handling on the onapp software at the moment for our company, but I know that would be a big push back for us if there's no IPv6 support on us releasing it live production.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    451
    Personally, I don't think VMWare is that great as a hypervisor. The amount or resources it consumes compared to Xen is just crazy.

    From my testing at lease I'm not impressed with it. I don't mean that in a negative way if that makes sense. Xen base in my opinion is just more efficient, and VMWare shouldn't be a huge "tipping" point by supporting it.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    294
    OnApp
    I'm not familiar about it but I guess it's interesting though!

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    510
    Quote Originally Posted by arisythila View Post
    Personally, I don't think VMWare is that great as a hypervisor. The amount or resources it consumes compared to Xen is just crazy.

    From my testing at lease I'm not impressed with it. I don't mean that in a negative way if that makes sense. Xen base in my opinion is just more efficient, and VMWare shouldn't be a huge "tipping" point by supporting it.
    Keep in mind we are saying this with the 3.0 beta version of the cloud software we use having VMware support now incorporated. It is just not something that our customers have tripped over themselves to run towards. But who knows, that may change in the future.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Auckland - New Zealand
    Posts
    1,572
    Storage migration is a biggie, that's a big plus for vmware setups, especially if you are thin provisioning disk.

    Having the ability to hot migrate virtual disks to other connected storage arrays is a massive plus.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    West Palm Beach, FL
    Posts
    275
    Quote Originally Posted by eming View Post
    OnApp is build for hosters though. I am not trying to be a player in the enterprise scene. Even though we've got a bunch of clients using OnApp outside of the hosting scene - our focus will remain within this industry. And I think for service providers, the hypervisor will be less important than it is now.
    It would be very interesting to see Hyper-V support.

    Regards,

    Wayne
    Applied Innovations (www.appliedi.net)
    Microsoft Gold Certified Hosting Partner, ASP.net Featured Host.
    Specializing in Windows Hosting since 1999.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,404
    Quote Originally Posted by AI-Wayne View Post
    It would be very interesting to see Hyper-V support.

    Regards,

    Wayne
    working on it
    Ditlev Bredahl. CEO,
    OnApp.com & SolusVM.com + Cloud.net & CDN.net

  18. #18
    Working on all of it

    For the record, I / We love onapp.

    The team, the support, the innovation, the insight into the hosting industry - born from years of hard core experience - all add up to a rock solid option for hosters - the ONLY option in my humble opinion if you want to offer cloud IAAS.

    Save yourself pain and don't shop around - get onapp!
    ____________________________________________
    European and USA IAAS Cloud Hosting
    http://www.dediserve.com Dublin, London, Dallas
    Ranked by Cloudharmony.com as the fastest cloud in the world.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    451
    Quote Originally Posted by StevenG View Post
    Storage migration is a biggie, that's a big plus for vmware setups, especially if you are thin provisioning disk.

    Having the ability to hot migrate virtual disks to other connected storage arrays is a massive plus.
    There is a fine line between benefits, and resource consumption.

    yeah it maybe nice to be able to drive anywhere in town in a monster truck. But 1 mpg isn't practical.

    Keep it balanced, and keep it feature rich. I mean that is a good function, We were seeing almost 2 times resources allotments to get the same effect with Xen based hypervisor.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Posts
    816
    I've done a decent amount of work for a company that heavily utilizes OnApp. I've gotten to leverage the platform some and I think it's a pretty good piece of software. The company also likes it alot as well. Their support is responsive and top notch from what I've seen.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    451
    Its not a bad platform. when we had to make a choice it was pretty limiting. It's grown nicely tho. After seeing other companies consistantly have SAN's problems. I think a major improvement for OnApp would be to offer a way to do redundant local storage. instead of requiring a SAN's unit.

    My personal opinion tho.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    199
    We're waiting on our hardware to arrive so we can finally get OnApp installed (we're using it for b2b clients, not consumer hosting e.t.c), looks like one hell of a product ditlev .
    I do things. - Consumer and b2b IT solutions.

  23. #23
    Does anyone have any experience with Xen vs KVM on an OnAPP setup? Which one runs better on an OnAPP cloud?
    My personal blog -- rubiverse.net

  24. #24
    I think all/any of the SAN related issues you've noticed are SAN / Architecture choices - not OnApp.

    We run it with redundant NetApp clusters and havent had a blip in 27+ months.
    ____________________________________________
    European and USA IAAS Cloud Hosting
    http://www.dediserve.com Dublin, London, Dallas
    Ranked by Cloudharmony.com as the fastest cloud in the world.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    451
    Your right, It is the SAN's unit. 3Par Units, HP Units, etc etc.

    I just think next step for OnApp would be to have a local disk setup opposed to requiring a SAN's unit to maintain HA.

    I have just never seen very high reliability from a single san's unit. Some of the units our customers use are 150k to 750,000 dollars. Maybe they didnt spend enough? hehe.

  26. #26
    it's not about spend either.

    I've built and run mission critical architectures for over 12 years. Spend enough, architect well, then overarchitect, then some more, then don't oversell or overload a single footprint (contain your risk) and you'll have no problems. SAN does a fantastic job of 'enabling' 'real' cloud
    ____________________________________________
    European and USA IAAS Cloud Hosting
    http://www.dediserve.com Dublin, London, Dallas
    Ranked by Cloudharmony.com as the fastest cloud in the world.

  27. #27
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    451
    These guys are pretty low key, They have a 10x10 cage with me. 1 42u 3Par unit, and 1 full rack. Having to answer to tickets to constantly tinker with it here and there. I'm just glad i went the direct attached storage route. I have customers with 700+ days of uptime and counting. Fact that I can cost effectively provision Private cloud. I think when this comes to OnApp, it will really bring a huge influx of people to the field.

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,404
    a lot of the OnApp clients have been good at using the flexible storage setup to generate addon sales.
    Like caro.net's IO billing (pretty cool, take a look) or Steadfast's mix of SAS and SATA's (look here).
    I think, in not too long, storage is where the battle will be. Market will be flooded with advanced storage mix&match setup's with SSD's (or FusionIO/Ramsan/etc) for DB's, and perhaps cheap raid5 sata's for lowkey content, all in the same VM. And IO will be a key chargeable resource.


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

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    6,889
    Quote Originally Posted by eming View Post
    a lot of the OnApp clients have been good at using the flexible storage setup to generate addon sales.
    Like caro.net's IO billing (pretty cool, take a look) or Steadfast's mix of SAS and SATA's (look here).
    I think, in not too long, storage is where the battle will be. Market will be flooded with advanced storage mix&match setup's with SSD's (or FusionIO/Ramsan/etc) for DB's, and perhaps cheap raid5 sata's for lowkey content, all in the same VM. And IO will be a key chargeable resource.


    D
    Yep, SSD is next, but the cost there is still very high, thus we need some volume behind us before making that step. RAM is generally the first limit hit, and that is pretty much solved with the cloud, but IO is next.
    Karl Zimmerman - Steadfast: Managed Dedicated Servers and Premium Colocation
    karl @ steadfast.net - Sales/Support: 312-602-2689
    Cloud Hosting, Managed Dedicated Servers, Chicago Colocation, and New Jersey Colocation
    Now Open in New Jersey! - Contact us for New Jersey colocation or dedicated servers

  30. #30
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    5,084
    Quote Originally Posted by eming View Post
    a lot of the OnApp clients have been good at using the flexible storage setup to generate addon sales.
    Like caro.net's IO billing (pretty cool, take a look) or Steadfast's mix of SAS and SATA's (look here).
    I think, in not too long, storage is where the battle will be. Market will be flooded with advanced storage mix&match setup's with SSD's (or FusionIO/Ramsan/etc) for DB's, and perhaps cheap raid5 sata's for lowkey content, all in the same VM. And IO will be a key chargeable resource.


    D
    We are running onapp but not seeing how this is configured to allow us to charge for the different storage. So far Onapp is otherwise running very well for us.

  31. #31
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    2,320
    one thing to consider is pricing as it is based in per core, there will be newer CPU chips with 8 cores and up that delivers more power but then again it will affect your licensing overhead.

    Imagine a Dual 8 Core CPU slave box, it will right off the bat cost you $160 per slave/box + $100 per cloud per month... then again there's redundancy meaning more boxes so more cores per cloud.
    Last edited by QuickWeb-Roel; 06-16-2011 at 01:57 AM.
    QuickWeb™ -We Host Servers Like a Boss!
    New Zealand - USA - UK - Germany Virtual Servers
    Worldwide hosting provider with proven 24x7 and 25-Minute Support!
    www.quickweb.co.nz and GETVZ - Complete VPS Package with SSD Drive

  32. #32
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,404
    Quote Originally Posted by Coolraul View Post
    We are running onapp but not seeing how this is configured to allow us to charge for the different storage. So far Onapp is otherwise running very well for us.
    I'd be happy to show you: http://ditlev.onapp.com//Dreamweaver...616-095214.jpg
    Here two SAN's are added, and each of them have a different price/hour.
    I do not blame you though, billing gets complicated fast. Ping me if there is anything we can do to help...

    Quote Originally Posted by QuickWeb-Roel View Post
    one thing to consider is pricing as it is based in per core, there will be newer CPU chips with 8 cores and up that delivers more power but then again it will affect your licensing overhead.

    Imagine a Dual 8 Core CPU slave box, it will right off the bat cost you $160 per slave/box + $100 per cloud per month... then again there's redundancy meaning more boxes so more cores per cloud.
    We tried to build the fee structure to match the way that our clients would charge for this. Typically CPU cores is a key component of our clients product packaging. The more cores, the higher the price.

    And you are obviously right, in time there will be 100 cores/CPU, and by then the OnApp fee per CPU will be rather high. But your revenue per CPU will be equally higher, and you'd be able to fit a larger part of your client base into one CPU.

    Like, if we charged per server - when there are 100 cores/server, OnApp would have a hard time making any profits. Same situation if we charged per socket really.


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

  33. #33
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    449
    Quote Originally Posted by QuickWeb-Roel View Post
    one thing to consider is pricing as it is based in per core, there will be newer CPU chips with 8 cores and up that delivers more power but then again it will affect your licensing overhead.

    Imagine a Dual 8 Core CPU slave box, it will right off the bat cost you $160 per slave/box + $100 per cloud per month... then again there's redundancy meaning more boxes so more cores per cloud.
    Wouldn't you want more memory dense systems then. A dual quad core E56xx (hyperthreading) with 144 gig of memory could easily handle a lot of VM's. So If I pay $80/mth onapp license for this server and have 3 more like it then $320.00 & $100.00 per cloud doesn't seem that expensive any more.

  34. #34
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    2,320
    No it is not as simple as putting huge RAM per slave and fit large number of VMs unless SAN setup is really good and CPUs should be sufficient to support them.

    I would really appreciate if there are alternative pricing scheme say per node regardless of CPU say at $40 flat license fee per slave or anything around that figure on a small "cloud package plan" that support say up to 6 slaves so small players can really start their feet wet on cloud and bring the cloud prices within reach of the masses... if the grow then you can easily offer then the next price package that enables them to add more slaves.

    Other than that first 100 cores free for a year is good offer but it's ending soon
    QuickWeb™ -We Host Servers Like a Boss!
    New Zealand - USA - UK - Germany Virtual Servers
    Worldwide hosting provider with proven 24x7 and 25-Minute Support!
    www.quickweb.co.nz and GETVZ - Complete VPS Package with SSD Drive

  35. #35
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,404
    Roel - what's those 'slaves' you are talking about? Could you explain?


    D

  36. #36
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    2,320
    Quote Originally Posted by eming View Post
    Roel - what's those 'slaves' you are talking about? Could you explain?


    D
    sorry SolusVM terminology which you call Hypervisor.
    QuickWeb™ -We Host Servers Like a Boss!
    New Zealand - USA - UK - Germany Virtual Servers
    Worldwide hosting provider with proven 24x7 and 25-Minute Support!
    www.quickweb.co.nz and GETVZ - Complete VPS Package with SSD Drive

  37. #37
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    1,664
    Can't really compare SolusVM to OnApp just plain and simple. SolusVM is only a control panel to create VMs on slaves it does not do anything other than that. That is why it is flat price per box and there is no SLA and no guarantee you will get a response within 72 hours when you do have a problem. The OnApp and other products similar have real technicians available for you 24 hours per day with 15 minute SLAs, they are enterprise grade products and they do a LOT more than just simply create VMs.

    The per core model is not bad and up to 16 cores matches the pricing of other providers out there. But their prices are going to go up with the larger cores too so I think it will stay equal.

  38. #38
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    3,876
    Quote Originally Posted by QuickWeb-Roel View Post
    No it is not as simple as putting huge RAM per slave and fit large number of VMs unless SAN setup is really good and CPUs should be sufficient to support them.

    I would really appreciate if there are alternative pricing scheme say per node regardless of CPU say at $40 flat license fee per slave or anything around that figure on a small "cloud package plan" that support say up to 6 slaves so small players can really start their feet wet on cloud and bring the cloud prices within reach of the masses... if the grow then you can easily offer then the next price package that enables them to add more slaves.

    Other than that first 100 cores free for a year is good offer but it's ending soon
    I'd say their current pricing structure is right in line with the amount of work they need to do. Perhaps down the road they could take a per socket model, more akin to Microsoft licensing (as a comparison of licensing). I'm not sure they want to go the route of Citrix style licensing, per hypervisor. As they streamline and refine the software, setup should be more and more automated. Allowing lower support costs with ease of letting clients setup more and more of their own stuff. Where they can then focus on general support and feature enhancements.

    Keep in mind that this is comparing apples to oranges, but I have 2 hypervisors at the office on a SAN and 2 other hypervisors on another SAN. We have two XenServer licenses, which equate to about $860~ per year per HV and the other 2 HV's are running the free version. Now for a more fair comparison, say I was using 4 licenses at $860/yr, that's $3,440/yr for my 2 "clouds."

    I use AMD Octo Core CPU's, that would put my two clouds and HV's at $680/mo, or twice the cost of Citrix. Again I'm comparing apples to oranges, but my point is, their pricing is spot on for a service provider bringing in direct revenue as a result of their clouds. Not to mention that you have a full service provider platform. However the AMD CPU's with 8, 12 and soon to be 16 cores was one of my questions I had concern over back when I was talking to Ditlev.
    Last edited by MikeTrike; 06-16-2011 at 10:20 AM.

  39. #39
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,404
    the whole pricing discussion is always tough - we've decided to use a public pricelist, in the past when I ran UK2Group I always detested having to spend time on requesting prices etc.
    Flipside of having a public pricelist is that it's hard to negotiate based on input from client.

    That's why I always say: For large scale deployments we will not be beat on price from comparable solutions.
    So, if you are looking at OnApp, but considering going with someone else because of our fee methodology - ping me to discuss!


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

  40. #40
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    5,084
    Quote Originally Posted by eming View Post
    I'd be happy to show you: http://ditlev.onapp.com//Dreamweaver...616-095214.jpg
    Here two SAN's are added, and each of them have a different price/hour.
    I do not blame you though, billing gets complicated fast. Ping me if there is anything we can do to help...



    D
    Ah I see what you are doing - mind you in that example you seem to allow for free disk cost if the vm is off. I am not sure we want to do that

    You are right it does get complicated fast but hey if it was easy then everyone would be doing it.

    Please don't dumb down your product as while you would love it to be commodity I don't want people watering down the value of cloud by deploying solutions not really ready for prime time. This is what happened to vps market and I contributed to it by helping to manage Hypervm for the consortium that runs it.

    People started doing some really silly things with substandard hardware which of course enabled them to win the race to cheapest vm price and therefore fastest way to lose money. I think it hurt the entire vps market.

    Clouds are the way of the future because of it's redundancy and scalability. When I hear "small cloud" it scares me.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. What is exactly ONAPP?
    By albatroz in forum Cloud Hosting
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 08-08-2012, 08:22 AM
  2. onapp i/o limit
    By Serverplan in forum Cloud Hosting
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 05-13-2011, 12:56 AM
  3. cloud.com vs onapp.com ?
    By tulix in forum Cloud Hosting
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 03-17-2011, 01:40 PM
  4. SAN for OnAPP
    By Eleven2 Hosting in forum Cloud Hosting
    Replies: 143
    Last Post: 11-05-2010, 02:27 PM
  5. OnApp.com relaunch - you like?
    By eming in forum Web Site Reviews
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 10-29-2010, 11:13 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
  •