Web Hosting Talk : Web Hosting Main Forums : Web Hosting : Tell me why not cloud hosting

[web-storage]

We got a great offer to host our site on a cloud computing shared servers. Can you tell me why we should not look into it and remain with dedicated servers or shared hosting?

[eming]

It's getting harder and harder to argue against...

[web-storage]

I think so too.... Trying to find if it is something with Code issues, bugs, SSL certificate issue.. but it does not sound like it.... it is even cheaper than a dedicated hosting.

[FernGullyGraphics]

Originally Posted by web-storage

We got a great offer to host our site on a cloud computing shared servers. Can you tell me why we should not look into it and remain with dedicated servers or shared hosting?

Personally I think cloud hosting is the future of web hosting. Just my opinion.

[Scott_C]

Originally Posted by FernGullyGraphics

Personally I think cloud hosting is the future of web hosting. Just my opinion.

I agree. Most of the major companies and even the smaller ones are doing what they can push cloud. Overall it seems less expensive for everyone involved as well.

[SiberForum]

That is solution which is a bit expensive then the ones you have mentored. And if there is no need to switch I would not recommend you switch at all.

[dazmanultra]

Anything that requires guaranteed/dedicated I/O is probably best not hosted on a cloud style VPS at the moment, but then you may be able to re-write your application to make better use of technologies like memcached etc.

[UpdownUp]

Originally Posted by dazmanultra

Anything that requires guaranteed/dedicated I/O is probably best not hosted on a cloud style VPS at the moment, but then you may be able to re-write your application to make better use of technologies like memcached etc.

More details, please?
What are the current problems with the cloud VPS's?

[JayNL]

What are the current problems with the cloud VPS's?

They're like your nickname

[CloudWeb]

Originally Posted by web-storage

We got a great offer to host our site on a cloud computing shared servers. Can you tell me why we should not look into it and remain with dedicated servers or shared hosting?

Take a look at my thread here.

Ask the provider what makes up their cloud infrastructure. Ie: what software, hardware, etc.

The way the storage is done can have a big effect on your application. IO is one of the biggest inconsistencies across technologies so it's important you know what you're getting, first.

For the most consistent IO times I recommend local storage. SAN's are great for some applications, but in a shared environment then a lot of local storage devices are going to keep IO higher instead of one big SAN. Especially if your application is large enough to justify the entire use of a server. In that case, your IO will be at, or possibly better than non-cloud bare metal due to advanced caching (if possible with the technology you're using).

[Matt R]

Originally Posted by Jay August

They're like your nickname

Oh come on now, that's a bit harsh

Realistically, a well managed system that is properly thought out and provisioned should have zero issues with Disk I/O, Memory allocation, Processor utilization, Power, or Bandwidth.

If a company builds a "cloud" that uses 7200RPM hard disks configured as DAS in Raid 10 -- yes, you're probably going to see a performance hit.

However, a proper NAS configuration running iSCSI over 8gbps Fibrechannel with 15L hard disks in 24-48 drive configurations? You'll be seeing a significant performance increase over that of a standard dedicated server. Not only that, but you'll be on a much more redundant system.

The more companies actually do Raid1 on their physical iSCSI bays meaning that if they have a 24 or 48 hard disk unit, they have all data on that unit duplicated to a second standby unit for failover.

Sadly, though, as an end user you're almost never going to know how their systems are built. You could be on a very well designed system or a poorly designed system and not know the difference.

If you go with a company like Terremark or Host.Net, I can assure you that you know you'll be on the best hardware configurations in the Cloud Computing industry. However, you look at other "budget" Cloud Computing providers and you'll quickly come to realize how many corners are cut when you're not paying $2K/month at large internationally branded company for what you would be paying $50/month at a "cloud" provider for the Web Hosting industry.

They're completely different industry sectors, and their monthly price and physical hardware offerings definitely show it.

[jonn_03]

its the future i think

[2Mhost]

I tried many of what so called clouds, which actually VPSs run on NAS, NAS or ISCSI.

so the result is, as power of CPU, you can't get more than single big dedicated server (this "big" costs around $400 at theplanet) but you still "share" the storage hardware and usually you will get VERY bad I/O.

beside the hype, I see no need for anyone to buy or sell this VPS that called Cloud instances!

[CloudWeb]

Originally Posted by 2Mhost

I tried many of what so called clouds, which actually VPSs run on NAS, NAS or ISCSI.

so the result is, as power of CPU, you can't get more than single big dedicated server (this "big" costs around $400 at theplanet) but you still "share" the storage hardware and usually you will get VERY bad I/O.

beside the hype, I see no need for anyone to buy or sell this VPS that called Cloud instances!

Well, if a host is just doing that.. then it's not cloud and should not be called it. No need to downplay the technology or industry for one (or a thousand) bad companies.

[Ramprage]

Why not? Cost for one. Also they provide a false sense of uptime. It's mostly marketing hype. Even the Amazon cloud has downtime. If they have downtime how do you expect XYZ small guy hosting corp to provide 100% uptime? No one can.
Clouds are big money to setup, maintain and operate. You have to purchase some very expensive hardware and hire some very expensive techs for the most part, unless you're doing it yourself. Maintenance on a SAN can become a nightmare so you need a SAN backup... that still won't prevent 100% downtime

The harsh reality is that the majority of websites do not need anything close to a cloud to run. Higher ups hear the term and think "we should be doing that!" but with no justification. Most websites use less than 10 gigs of transfer per month and probably under 50 megs of space.

You still need to keep a copy of your data, things break, and mistakes can be made. If the techs aren't checking the backup system.. etc etc.