OnApp? Are you using it?

Portal Home > Knowledgebase > Articles Database > OnApp? Are you using it?

Posted by Sparrow-Taylor, 06-11-2011, 05:57 AM
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.
Posted by eming, 06-11-2011, 11:01 AM
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
Posted by AdmoNet, 06-11-2011, 11:16 AM
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.
Posted by nix101, 06-11-2011, 12:07 PM
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.
Posted by mazedk, 06-11-2011, 01:05 PM
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.
Posted by eming, 06-11-2011, 04:10 PM
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. 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
Posted by nix101, 06-11-2011, 04:21 PM
Any ETA for these "horizontal/vertical autoscaling" ? It will be a great feature to have.
Posted by mazedk, 06-11-2011, 04:39 PM
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
Posted by eming, 06-11-2011, 05:25 PM
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. 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
Posted by mazedk, 06-11-2011, 06:29 PM
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
Posted by glitched, 06-12-2011, 12:58 AM
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.
Posted by arisythila, 06-12-2011, 08:22 PM
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.
Posted by che09, 06-12-2011, 10:46 PM
I'm not familiar about it but I guess it's interesting though!
Posted by brentpresley, 06-13-2011, 07:23 PM
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.
Posted by StevenG, 06-13-2011, 09:08 PM
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.
Posted by AI-Wayne, 06-13-2011, 09:33 PM
It would be very interesting to see Hyper-V support. Regards, Wayne
Posted by eming, 06-14-2011, 06:39 AM
working on it
Posted by boskone, 06-14-2011, 06:42 AM
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!
Posted by arisythila, 06-15-2011, 02:05 PM
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.
Posted by Motiv, 06-15-2011, 02:15 PM
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.
Posted by arisythila, 06-15-2011, 02:29 PM
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.
Posted by Akisoft, 06-15-2011, 02:32 PM
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 .
Posted by flam316, 06-15-2011, 03:06 PM
Does anyone have any experience with Xen vs KVM on an OnAPP setup? Which one runs better on an OnAPP cloud?
Posted by boskone, 06-15-2011, 03:08 PM
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.
Posted by arisythila, 06-15-2011, 03:24 PM
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.
Posted by boskone, 06-15-2011, 03:28 PM
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
Posted by arisythila, 06-15-2011, 03:41 PM
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.
Posted by eming, 06-15-2011, 04:06 PM
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
Posted by KarlZimmer, 06-15-2011, 07:59 PM
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.
Posted by Coolraul, 06-15-2011, 08:51 PM
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.
Posted by QuickWeb-Roel, 06-16-2011, 01:49 AM
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.
Posted by eming, 06-16-2011, 04:59 AM
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... 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
Posted by WebGuyz, 06-16-2011, 08:46 AM
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.
Posted by QuickWeb-Roel, 06-16-2011, 09:30 AM
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
Posted by eming, 06-16-2011, 09:33 AM
Roel - what's those 'slaves' you are talking about? Could you explain? D
Posted by QuickWeb-Roel, 06-16-2011, 09:43 AM
sorry SolusVM terminology which you call Hypervisor.
Posted by kris1351, 06-16-2011, 10:10 AM
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.
Posted by MikeTrike, 06-16-2011, 10:13 AM
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.
Posted by eming, 06-16-2011, 11:10 AM
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
Posted by Coolraul, 06-16-2011, 11:21 AM
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.
Posted by XLHost, 06-16-2011, 02:34 PM
Why would you integrate load balancer.org into the system instead of letting your users choose whether they want to use that, a hardware solution like F5, or Zeus? Also wouldn't hyper-v integration be better for your customers than VMWare from a licensing standpoint? If you supported using hyper-v as a hypervisor your customers could put as many Windows 2008 based VMs on a node as would fit and only pay for Windows 2008 datacenter licenses via their SPLA. The way it stands now we have to pay for Windows on a per VM basis. Last edited by XLHost; 06-16-2011 at 02:38 PM.
Posted by eming, 06-16-2011, 02:40 PM
Clients can use what they like, nothing is stopping them from deploying F5/Zeus/etc. In UK2group I've had good experiences with Loadbalancer.org's products, and I felt it was a good option for us. Loadbalancer.org's virtual loadbalancer is retailing around $1500, but OnApp made a deal with them that made it possible for us to give our clients free licenses. We felt that was a good deal, and worth our effort of making a full integration. But clients can use what they want obviously. D
Posted by XLHost, 06-16-2011, 02:42 PM
So the OnApp control panel is open and we can create our own plugins/add-ons for it? That hasn't been my experience so far with your product.
Posted by Techy, 06-16-2011, 02:43 PM
Don't use it but I see if you register soon (ends June 30, 2011) you get a free year!
Posted by XLHost, 06-16-2011, 02:45 PM
The hypervisor isn't really important, what is important is making a way for you to let small business/enterprise customers essentially convert/migrate their local virtual machines into onapp VMs (whatever hypervisor) in a reliable way.
Posted by eming, 06-16-2011, 02:47 PM
Yup, the OnApp gui is totally open, the OnApp REST api's are complete (www.onapp.com/api), and we've seen many clients doing all sorts of thigns with it (like cdn/dns/email/ecommerce integrations). It's also very easy to make your own images - like if you wanted a zeus image, nothing would be stopping you...and we'd be happy to help. D
Posted by Eleven2 Hosting, 06-16-2011, 04:04 PM
The API is amazing. Unfortunately the modules for WHMCS/Hostbill are pretty horrible out there right now, so we are coding our own right now and have found the API to be super easy to use.
Posted by QuickWeb-Roel, 06-16-2011, 08:16 PM
yes WHMCS automation especially the auto setup is not yet implemented on OnApp WHMCS module.
Posted by boskone, 06-17-2011, 03:39 AM
We built our own hostbill (www.hostbillapp.com) module for our Onapp platform, we've also integrated customers own billing and licensing platforms with it without issue - it's a key USP in my opinion and one of the platforms more powerful features.
Posted by XLHost, 06-17-2011, 08:35 AM
Are you using XML or JSON calls and what coding language are you working with the API in? Also do you have it integrated into an Editor? I was looking through their documentation for PHP (which looks like it was created by software and not a person) and a lot of the examples/functions/etc were mis-documented.
Posted by XLHost, 06-17-2011, 08:37 AM
Hmm, I had WHMCS where it would create an instance automatically when someone paid. The problem I had with the WHMCS integration was that if a user signed up for "cloud service" and not "a virtual machine package" it didn't seem to direct them or link them to login to OnApp, so it was a little disjointed in that regard.
Posted by QuickWeb-Roel, 06-17-2011, 05:40 PM
I see, i have attended their webinar and asked their guy if WHMCS auto setup is already supported he said not yet, so maybe they already implemented it.
Posted by DanLstability, 06-17-2011, 05:50 PM
Definitely liking onapp, been using it for a while. Great service from them, I'd suggest it to anyone.
Posted by OffshoreRacks, 06-17-2011, 07:02 PM
Have been using OnApp since Jan-2011 without any issues at all, haven't upgraded to 2.1 will do it on Monday I think. Their support is fast.
Posted by kris1351, 06-18-2011, 09:07 AM
The 2.1 upgrade is a must, very good progress on the roadmap.
Posted by Sparrow-Taylor, 06-21-2011, 05:36 AM
Oh god, don't get me started on the module for WHMCS. Other than the problems with the WHMCS module, we love OnApp so far.
Posted by eming, 06-21-2011, 06:11 AM
yup, the WHMCS module needs a bit of work... thats great to hear!
Posted by Spiral-Eric, 06-21-2011, 07:34 AM
We are thrilled to work with OnApp - it's a great team and a great software - a perfect match for anyone that's considering building a cloud!
Posted by Sparrow-Sean, 06-21-2011, 07:37 AM
I have to admit, the setup, the processes behind it, and the overall outcome to the deployment is excellent - Eric has been very busy, thank god he has a cultural language at hand
Posted by Sparrow-Taylor, 06-21-2011, 07:59 AM
Just a few kinks need to be worked out but overall, I feel like a little kid at a candy store with OnApp. I hope my excitement is shared with our customers.
Posted by dazmanultra, 06-21-2011, 08:38 AM
So from planning (the initial post of this thread) to live public deployment of OnApp in 10 days? Impressive!
Posted by Sparrow-Taylor, 06-21-2011, 09:01 AM
Unfortunately, it was actually a lot longer than ten days (more like months) that we we're waiting for the deployment of OnApp.
Posted by Spiral-Eric, 06-21-2011, 09:07 AM
Just to clarify; We have been waiting for the infrastructure to be handed over since early April 2011. All servers, SAN etc, was handed over last week and was sent to OnApp for deployment directly afterwards - OnApp had the software installed in less than 24 hours.
Posted by dazmanultra, 06-21-2011, 09:40 AM
Cool. With regards to OnApp in general, part of the reason we've been apprehensive to approach it is with the commoditisation of the Infrastructure As A Service style cloud, margins are going to be squeezed. It makes the ROI very difficult to calculate as what sells today might not be selling in a year when there are another thousand cloud providers all seemingly in a race to the bottom. One other issue is that using a common platform like OnApp on the one hand makes deployment very easy, but it also makes it difficult to stand out.
Posted by eming, 06-21-2011, 10:02 AM
I hear you - though, this is the way the industry is going. By definition, the domain/hosting/MSP/ISP/etc business model will comoditize, you really can only do that much to differ yourself (btw, that is what I will be talking about at the keynote @ cpanel bootcamp). OnApp can build all sort of setups though. You can do private clouds, public clouds, hybrids, old-school VPS's etc etc. Where the real differentiation comes in? It's all about what you deploy inside the VM's, how you package your offering and what segments you are targeting - that is also how you can get away with higher margins... I mean, you can do simple setup's like VPS.NET, storage focused setup like steadfast, granular like cloud.caro.net, private/hybrid clouds like dedicatednow and netdepot etc etc. All OnApp. It is a very good point you raise though! D
Posted by dazmanultra, 06-21-2011, 10:05 AM
I think OnApp has a big future though, not least as a tool for making server management for hosting companies easier and more automated, whether the customer knows they're being hosted on a cloud or not.
Posted by eming, 06-21-2011, 10:08 AM
ya, I think that is where it's going. In a few years (I hope) the cloud is no longer "the cloud", but just how stuff is done. So, you wouldn't dream of putting a shared cPanel server on a physical server infrastructure and the typical way of selling servers would be using a control panel to slice and dice according to customer needs... Sure, there will always be things that are better left on dedicated servers, absolutely, but I think the default way of deploying a new service/site/etc would be on an instant virtual infrastructure. D
Posted by Layer3, 06-21-2011, 11:08 AM
Couldn't agree more.
Posted by TeamHC, 06-29-2011, 06:37 AM
We are using Onapp and we are very much happy with them. Above the interface and ease of use and all the advantages of Onapp, we love their support. I think i have already mentioned the same somewhere els en this forum. Those guys are simply awesome in their support.
Posted by kris1351, 06-29-2011, 11:47 AM
I agree I can't stand the marketing term "Cloud" for stuff. Lots claim they are running cloud based services even though they are nothing more than a standalone VPS with backups it makes it difficult to really relay the redundancy OnApp has. A 10 day deployment would be impressive, we have been more than 6 months in testing before going to production. Just releasing a not-ready product was not in our mindset. Even as easy as the OnApp organization makes it it takes time and money to do it right. With what we have learned though our 2 other locations will go very quickly as we will simply mimic what we learned on the first one, I could see second and tertiary locations being 10-14 production ready environments once you have the process down.
Posted by boskone, 06-29-2011, 11:56 AM
We built our first onapp powered cloud August 2009, our second went online 4 months ago, our third is just coming online now. We've the entire process down to 10 days from kit ready to production - it's a fantastic solution.
Posted by kris1351, 06-29-2011, 12:45 PM
Point proven then! We are looking at our second pop being converted from dedicated/VPS to OnApp now also. I think 2 weeks is VERY doable after you have your hardware and process down. Of all of the providers we tested they are the easiest to deal with.
Posted by QuickWeb-Roel, 06-30-2011, 05:31 PM
I wonder what is the next promo? the original free 1 year for up to 100 cores is now expiring
Posted by Sparrow-Sean, 06-30-2011, 05:58 PM
For yourself and I, the offer would of already expired Today is July 1...
Posted by bhavicp, 06-30-2011, 06:00 PM
Maybe you can still get it if you email sales promptly!
Posted by eming, 06-30-2011, 06:17 PM
Nope - it's gone...
Posted by atlasnetworkseric, 06-30-2011, 06:28 PM
Their support is MINDBLOWINGLY responsive. They are a model for every other company. I think the longest it has ever taken for a human to acknowledge my ticket is 15 minutes.
Posted by Sparrow-Sean, 06-30-2011, 06:57 PM
I have not had time to discuss a lot with Ditlev, but Eric says he is AMAZING
Posted by QuickWeb-Roel, 06-30-2011, 06:59 PM
yes but i'm sure there will be different promo to come out! Update: Well just found out that the "new deal" is free 16 core license when you sign-up... doesn't state whether for first year or not. Last edited by QuickWeb-Roel; 06-30-2011 at 07:02 PM.
Posted by eming, 07-01-2011, 01:28 AM
It's a perpetual license, so not only for a year...the 16 core's you can use for ever, for free. D
Posted by MikeTrike, 07-01-2011, 02:23 AM
Quick question on that 16 core perpetual license. Once you get beyond 16 cores how does the billing go? Let's call them scenario A and B. Scenario A: You hit your 16 CPU cores and you need to add more, so you pay officially for each additional core (@ $10/core) + one cloud (@ $100/cloud); we'll assume that you need to pay for the one cloud you already have, since it's only one; and it's the big part in which you can attach dozens of hypervisors. Scenario B: You hit your 16 CPU cores and you need to add more, so you pay officially for each additional core (@ $10/core) + one cloud (@ $100/cloud); we'll assume that you need to pay for the one cloud you already have, since it's only one; and it's the big part in which you can attach dozens of hypervisors. You also need to back track and pay for the first 16 CPU cores + the new ones, or does it fall under scenario A where the first 16 CPU cores are at $0 dollars, just once you break out you pay for the cloud (including the initial one) and cores beyond 16? Seeing as how I have zero info to go on, can you elaborate a bit more on this? curious EDIT: This might make what I'm trying to figure out a bit easier to understand. Which one of these would be correct once you go beyond 16 CPU cores (A or B): Further details, still missing info on my part though* Initial Startup ($0.00/mo) 4 x Quad Core Hypervisors (16 CPU Cores) - $0.00/mo 1 x SAN (1 Cloud) - $0.00 Scenario A ($140.00/mo) 5 x Quad Core Hypervisors (20 CPU Cores) - $40.00/mo 1 x SAN (1 Cloud) - $100.00/mo Scenario B ($300.00/mo) 5 x Quad Core Hypervisors (20 CPU Cores) - $200.00/mo 1 x SAN (1 Cloud) - $100.00/mo Last edited by MikeTrike; 07-01-2011 at 02:31 AM.
Posted by QuickWeb-Roel, 07-01-2011, 02:40 AM
Same question i had in mind as well Mike, also does the controller node counts for core licensing? interesting to know if one will going to pay for cloud which is $100 to avail of 16 free cores.
Posted by MikeTrike, 07-01-2011, 02:53 AM
Another question, can it (OnApp) be run as a non-cloud (i.e. VPS on local storage only) environment? Just paying for the cores you use? How would the fee work out on that? Use 16 cores, then pay for the cores above that? How would it work without a fee for the cloud part of it, could there just be a fee for the OnApp controller instead? It's almost 2am, the ideas come out right now!
Posted by eming, 07-01-2011, 08:14 AM
So, The new OnApp model gives you a free perpetual license for 16 cores that you can download and install by yourself. Those cores can be 16xsinglecore servers, two dual quad cores, or anything in between. It is unsupported/unmanaged, but it is a fully functional OnApp that you can use to deploy a cloud with up to 16 cores. There are no restrictions in features and you can use it for internal or external clients etc. As this license is unsupported we are putting a forum live shortly where there would be community based support. The initial 16 cores are free as mentioned, but when you hit 17 core, you'r OnApp license is now 'commercial', you'd be eligible for 24/7 phone/ticket support, and we'd help you out in any way possible to make sure your OnApp software stack performs perfectly. At that stage you'd be paying for all 17 cores though, not only the single core above the 16. And before you ask - there's only one free license per individual/company - so you can not have 4xfree 16 core clouds running Does that make sense? D
Posted by eming, 07-01-2011, 08:31 AM
No, you do not need to pay for the controller - and it would not be part of the 16 cores, same goes for the cores inside your SAN/backup/etc yup - we've got many clients just using OnApp for 'old school' VPS's. When deploying OnApp using local storage only you'll loose a lot of the 'cloudy' features - and a lot of the value of OnApp honestly. In return we give up to 50% discount in local storage scenarios though - check with sales to get more info. D
Posted by MikeTrike, 07-01-2011, 09:11 AM
Awesome, I fired this off to a couple of friends in the web hosting. Seeing as how I'm still locked into a non-compete for the next year and a half still. It's more viable for them anyway; they have a few multiples of 10 more revenue than I ever had. Also while I'm at it, can the perpetual 16 core setup be used by a non-hosting enterprise. i.e. as a Citrix XenServer alternative?
Posted by eming, 07-01-2011, 09:42 AM
Thanks - really appreciate it yup - it's our hope that ppl will start to spin up OnApp stacks for all sorts of purposes. Not only hosting. OnApp can be used to facilitate so many different virtualisation scenarios, so why not
Posted by MikeTrike, 07-01-2011, 10:02 AM
I might take you up on that idea before the year is out. I'm currently migrating the last of our VM's off of our small XenServer cluster [2 Hypervisors (8 CPU's/32GB RAM each) and an AX150i] over to our beefier cluster [2 hypervisors (16 CPU/64GB RAM each] and an MD3000i) and will naturally have the smaller cluster available to play with for testing new ideas. It's all iSCSI, so it's pretty straight forward.
Posted by QuickWeb-Roel, 07-01-2011, 05:48 PM
I think this is aggressive strategy Ditlev and the documentation seems comprehensive, but there's seems to be no installation documentation yet. also does the templtes will be supplied as well? Hopefully Microsoft, HP and a like won't notice you as they like buying promising tech/solutions Last edited by QuickWeb-Roel; 07-01-2011 at 05:55 PM.

Add to Favourites Print this Article