# MR: Your interest in an Atom-powered dedicated server in Los Angeles?



## Damian (Oct 11, 2013)

Would you have any interest in the following:

Atom D2550

4gb DDR3

Your choice of 1000gb on gigabit with minimum 90% of gigabit speed guaranteed *OR *unmetered gigabit shared with 30 other clients

Your choice of 3 TB 7200rpm SATA HD *OR* 256gb SSD

Los Angeles datacenter

/29 of IPv4

some allotment of IPv6 (not sure what size yet)

Support via ticket only, 20 minute response time during American daytime, 1 1/2 hour response during American nighttime.

No IPMI

$20 / month

Addons:

Additional hard drive: $10 per month *OR *$150 one-time (no hardware RAID would be available)

Additional IPv4: $5 per /29

IP KVM access: $5 per month, or $20 per request


----------



## MannDude (Oct 11, 2013)

Depending on the DC, yeah... That's a great deal! Got a test IP?

Could use it as a backup backup server, move some non-vital VPSes there, etc.


----------



## Reece-DM (Oct 11, 2013)

Very very nice!

Can you do 4x 3TB disks? 

Reece


----------



## DalComp (Oct 11, 2013)

Darn 3TB disk... That is such a deal.

How about reinstalls?


----------



## Damian (Oct 11, 2013)

MannDude said:


> Depending on the DC, yeah... That's a great deal! Got a test IP?
> 
> Could use it as a backup backup server, move some non-vital VPSes there, etc.


Not yet... I was having me a think and ran some numbers but haven't done anything concrete yet.



Reece said:


> Very very nice!
> 
> Can you do 4x 3TB disks?
> 
> Reece


Unfortunately, no. It would be a maximum of 2x 3.5" drives. Could potentially do 4x 2.5" drives, but those aren't cheap in large sizes.

 



DalComp said:


> Darn 3TB disk... That is such a deal.
> 
> How about reinstalls?


One free reinstall per month, then $5 each afterwards. 

Re-visiting things, we'll probably end up offering IPMI, and then you can do it yourself. But no guarantee on that yet.


----------



## texteditor (Oct 11, 2013)

This seems less viable than the kimsufis


----------



## Damian (Oct 11, 2013)

texteditor said:


> This seems less viable than the kimsufis


 Can you provide more information?


----------



## TheHackBox (Oct 11, 2013)

Sounds nice!


----------



## texteditor (Oct 11, 2013)

Damian said:


> Can you provide more information?


Well I just don't see how you can make a profit on these, even assuming you are buying all the hardware used. The 3euro/mo kimsufi made sense because OVH had a ton of extra capacity for power & bandwidth and all the hardware was just junk they'd collected over the past 5-6 years that they were trying squeeze the life out of Wholesaleinternet-style


----------



## rds100 (Oct 11, 2013)

For $20/month of course people will want it  But the 256GB SSD for the Atom is a complete waste, the CPU is not powerful enough to make use of such fast SSD speeds.


----------



## texteditor (Oct 11, 2013)

rds100 said:


> For $20/month of course people will want it  But the 256GB SSD for the Atom is a complete waste, the CPU is not powerful enough to make use of such fast SSD speeds.



I'm pretty sure every computer will see some benefit from the lower seek times alone, but the other reason people like SSDs in server is, assuming you get a decent (e.g. no OCZ) brand, it's going to live far longer than most mechanical drives while not generating as much heat in those 1u cases


----------



## manacit (Oct 11, 2013)

I'd definitely be in for one with the 3TB drive, I'd prefer more than 1TB on GBit (maybe 3-5?) but if that's not possible, shared would work too. 

When I say definitely, I mean point me @ the order form and I'll buy one right now.


----------



## rds100 (Oct 11, 2013)

@texteditor i know why SSDs are better than HDDs, but imagine the influx of angry tickets "Why am i not getting 500MB/s on my SSD!!! SCAM!!!".


----------



## texteditor (Oct 11, 2013)

I like the idea a lot, but I hate the idea of the port being shared among 30 people, because you know some idiot will run a Tor relay or something and soak up all the bandwidth


I'd rather share a 100mb port by 3-5 people


----------



## texteditor (Oct 11, 2013)

rds100 said:


> @texteditor i know why SSDs are better than HDDs, but imagine the influx of angry tickets "Why am i not getting 500MB/s on my SSD!!! SCAM!!!".


Ha, I'm assuming you've gotten some of those recently.

Really, if someone produced a cheap 2TB SSD that only did 40MB/s I'd be jumping all over them just to have dense reliable storage


----------



## Ivan (Oct 11, 2013)

Solid deal. I'd take the 3TB one with the 1TB @ Gigabit. Though it'd be nice if we could have a little bit more bandwidth.


----------



## Pmadd (Oct 11, 2013)

I'd defiantly go for one with a 3TB drive


----------



## HostUS-Alexander (Oct 11, 2013)

In LA? That would be a cracking deal!


----------



## manacit (Oct 11, 2013)

I'M READY TO SIGN UP NOW !


----------



## Ivan (Oct 11, 2013)

Haha, looks like a lot of people are really all over this deal. I for one am really excited to try it out since it has awesome specs for the price, but more importantly, finally a good dedi deal in LA, since I'm in Asia.


----------



## drmike (Oct 11, 2013)

I'd be interested... Depends on the upstream and facility though.


----------



## willie (Oct 11, 2013)

I wouldn't want a dedi with just one drive, but 2x 3tb at $30 sounds great.  I'm only a bit dubious because it's so cheap, I don't see how it can be sustainable.  If I pay for drives upfront can I buy them from you?  I.e. you'd ship them to me with my data on them.  I'd pay reasonable costs and charges in connection with that of course.

I wouldn't need the /29.  A single address is enough since it would be a personal server.  I'd be interested in something with a more powerful CPU though.

I'd probably want the 1000gb plan, though is that for both inbound and outbound?  I want mostly inbound bandwidth, relatively little outbound.  The idea with the disk purchase is I want to transfer a few TB of data from my OVH dedis to my own gear.


----------



## wlanboy (Oct 11, 2013)

Why 3 TB? Two 1TB drives would be perfect. Two 512GB drives too.

And as willie says. 1 or 2 ips would be enough.


----------



## Eric1212 (Oct 11, 2013)

Would you provide Software RAID setup -- or do we have to do this over IPMI? 

I'd order right away!


----------



## NodeBytes (Oct 11, 2013)

I would immediately buy one of these. 

I would prefer the Gigabit with 1TB of Bandwidth.


----------



## wdq (Oct 11, 2013)

This would be a perfect backup box with that 3TB hard drive and the 1TB of bandwidth.


----------



## manacit (Oct 11, 2013)

I would definitely want as much storage as possible (backups / storing BIG DATA, etc), 1 x 3TB drive would be perfect (as would allowing people to buy additional in full). I'd also want more bandwidth - would 5TB on GBit be possible? I'd even pay another ~$5 to go from 1TB -> 5TB


----------



## Damian (Oct 11, 2013)

texteditor said:


> Well I just don't see how you can make a profit on these, even assuming you are buying all the hardware used.


The hardware will be new. We expect a ~3 year minimum lifecycle out of the hardware that we buy, and at $20/month, each node would be paid off in 11 months, meaning that we then get 25 months of revenue, not considering dead hardware replacement costs. Which gives away how much we're paying for each node.



texteditor said:


> Really, if someone produced a cheap 2TB SSD that only did 40MB/s I'd be jumping all over them just to have dense reliable storage


Same here!



Ivan said:


> Haha, looks like a lot of people are really all over this deal. I for one am really excited to try it out since it has awesome specs for the price, but more importantly, finally a good dedi deal in LA, since I'm in Asia.


Yep, that's kinda our pivot here: low cost dedicated servers for the West Coast/Asian market. 





willie said:


> If I pay for drives upfront can I buy them from you?  I.e. you'd ship them to me with my data on them.  I'd pay reasonable costs and charges in connection with that of course.


We were actually kinda thinking about offering something similar. Buy your drives for their replacement cost and we'll ship them to you for whatever shipping would cost. Not sure if we'd get a lot of interest in that.



willie said:


> I wouldn't need the /29.  A single address is enough since it would be a personal server.


It's a bit easier to split servers by /29's than it is by individual addresses, as they can be in their own vlan which helps to ensure that customers don't see eachother's traffic. Plus if we gave only a single address, and then the customer in the future decides that they want more addresses, it's easier to add them to a vlan.



willie said:


> I'd be interested in something with a more powerful CPU though.


Perhaps in a future cycle.



willie said:


> I'd probably want the 1000gb plan, though is that for both inbound and outbound?  I want mostly inbound bandwidth, relatively little outbound.  The idea with the disk purchase is I want to transfer a few TB of data from my OVH dedis to my own gear.


It would be for both combined inbound and outbound, yes. American datacenters don't seem to be interested in giving free incoming transfer (or I haven't figured out the right people to ask for it).



wlanboy said:


> Why 3 TB?


Using a $150 price point for hard drives, which means we can offer 256gb SSDs. A $150 SATA drive ends up being a 3 TB nowadays, so no need to arbitrarily cheap out and buy a smaller drive.

I've always found it interesting when companies try to "upsell" SSDs in a dedicated server when they're the same price as a standard mechanical drive, just storing less. 



EB-Eric said:


> Would you provide Software RAID setup -- or do we have to do this over IPMI?
> 
> I'd order right away!


Not sure yet.


----------



## Damian (Oct 11, 2013)

Okay, i've re-worked this a bit, and added more information. New stuff in red.

I can't seem to edit my original post... @MannDude or someone else, can you copy this into my original post with a note that it's an update?

Atom D2550 D525 (older CPU, though it's about the same thing... see http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/739/Intel_Atom_D2550_vs_Intel_Atom_D525.html for a comparison. I know some people get bent out of shape regarding "old" CPUs)

4gb DDR3 (same)

Your choice of 1000gb 5000gb on gigabit with minimum 90% of gigabit speed guaranteed OR unmetered gigabit shared with 30 other clients

Your choice of 3 TB 7200rpm SATA HD OR 256gb SSD (same)

Los Angeles datacenter (same)

/29 of IPv4 (same)

some allotment of IPv6 (not sure what size yet) (same)

Support via ticket only, 20 minute response time during American daytime, 1 1/2 hour response during American nighttime. (same)

No IPMI IPMI provided for free, but you'll have to connect to a VPN to use it

 

Server provisioned automatically within a few minutes, but will require you to set up the OS yourself via IPMI *OR *we install the OS for you for free, but may take up to 24 hours. We will reinstall the OS once a month for free, or you can log in to the IPMI and do it yourself at any time.

 

$20 $25 / month

 

Addons:

Additional hard drive: $10 per month OR $150 one-time (no hardware RAID would be available)

Additional IPv4: $5 per /29

IP KVM access: $5 per month, or $20 per request


----------



## NodeBytes (Oct 11, 2013)

Considering I already have 1 server on RTO and another other colocated over at SouthBend Servers the $20 pricepoint is a little more appealing.


----------



## Damian (Oct 11, 2013)

NodeBytes said:


> Considering I already have 1 server on RTO and another other colocated over at SouthBend Servers the $20 pricepoint is a little more appealing.


Hmm, what's the specs on that? Also, where are they at? I put "south bend servers" into the google and only got https://southbendservers.com/‎ back which didn't have any servers or colo on it.


----------



## Setsura (Oct 11, 2013)

manacit said:


> I'd definitely be in for one with the 3TB drive, I'd prefer more than 1TB on GBit (maybe 3-5?) but if that's not possible, shared would work too.
> 
> When I say definitely, I mean point me @ the order form and I'll buy one right now.


This. I'll seriously give you my money right now if you want.


----------



## TheLinuxBug (Oct 11, 2013)

Hey Damian, what data center and do you have a test ip?  

Cheers!


----------



## NodeBytes (Oct 11, 2013)

snip.


----------



## Reece-DM (Oct 11, 2013)

I'd take one with either 1 SATA or 2x 

Let me know if they become available


----------



## NodeBytes (Oct 11, 2013)

Damian said:


> Hmm, what's the specs on that? Also, where are they at? I put "south bend servers" into the google and only got https://southbendservers.com/‎ back which didn't have any servers or colo on it.


I should clarify - The colo and RTO are not near the $20 price point. I meant that I already have servers so the atom would be worth more along the lines of $20 as I have a P4 at WSI for $19. Although with the SSD the $25/month is not bad at all.

They are located in South Bend Indiana at Colostore.

I think Zach is working on the site right now. They offer dedicated servers and VPS's, looks like he's adding a page for colo as well.


----------



## lbft (Oct 11, 2013)

I would be extremely interested, it'd be lovely to have a cheap dedi closer to home. Funny thing though, although I don't know why, that measly little $5 difference would make me a little less keen (it makes no sense since I'd probably pay the $5 for KVM access anyway). Humans are weird.

The CPU makes absolutely no difference, both CPUs perform exactly the same.

One thing though, 3TB disk and unmetered shared gigabit is going to attract torrenters. Can the network handle that?


----------



## concerto49 (Oct 11, 2013)

Is [email protected] the data center? I saw the ad


----------



## HalfEatenPie (Oct 11, 2013)

I would get this.  I would purchase this so hard.  Drop my dedicated servers in other locations just for this.


----------



## thuvienvps (Oct 11, 2013)

Would like to grab one too


----------



## willie (Oct 11, 2013)

Damian said:


> The hardware will be new. We expect a ~3 year minimum lifecycle out of the hardware that we buy, and at $20/month, each node would be paid off in 11 months, meaning that we then get 25 months of revenue, not considering dead hardware replacement costs. Which gives away how much we're paying for each node.... Using a $150 price point for hard drives, which means we can offer 256gb SSDs. A $150 SATA drive ends up being a 3 TB nowadays, so no need to arbitrarily cheap out and buy a smaller drive.


1. The 11 month payoff sounds really optimistic.  Even OVH with their $100M's of capitalization got themselves in a bad spot trying that.  The hw depreciates too fast.  I think 4 months or so is more normal for the budget sector, and less than 4 months for the higher end.

2. $150 for 256GB SSD's sounds like cheap consumer drives, maybe even 3-level flash.  That also sounds shaky.  The only reason I'd go for 256GB instead of 3TB at the same price is to run database workloads, which will pound the crap out of those SSD's and destroy them with write wear.  I'd frankly rather have 120GB enterprise SSD's (Intel S3500) than 256GB consumer ones for the $150 if I'm going the SSD route.  With only 4GB of ram I couldn't really run too large a database anyway.  Are ram upgrades possible?

3. I like the suggestion of 2x1TB instead of 1x3TB as the default or as another option.  In my case I'd want 2x3TB though.  Actually why not 4TB drives for a few $ more?  I see them for $170 on newegg right now. 

4. If it's up to me, I'd rather not pay extra for 5TB bw instead of 1TB.  I'll use far less than 1TB most months.  There's a one-time download of around 3TB that I want to do that I mentioned, but I could spread it over several months, or I'd be ok with paying a reasonable overage fee if I had a very busy month.  Even 5TB sounds way overcommitted at the price level.

5. How many drives physically fit in the server, i.e. is 2 the maximum?  4 would be nice.

6. Would you be willing to plug a small USB device into the server for me if I send it to you?  It would be cig pack sized, plug in with a cable, and you'd just leave it plugged in.  Or if necessary it could be like a flash stick, just plugged into the socket with no cable.  Small extra cost is ok either way.


----------



## shunny (Oct 11, 2013)

I will probably take one of these as well. 
That 256GB SSD and IPMI is very enticing.


----------



## Shados (Oct 12, 2013)

This is definitely interesting, especially with the IPMI. As lbft mentioned, I am weirdly notably less interested with the $5 price increase ._., and I have no idea why.


----------



## NateN34 (Oct 12, 2013)

Definitely interested.

Would ditch OVH in a heartbeat for this.


----------



## lbft (Oct 12, 2013)

> 1. The 11 month payoff sounds really optimistic. Even OVH with their $100M's of capitalization got themselves in a bad spot trying that. The hw depreciates too fast. I think 4 months or so is more normal for the budget sector, and less than 4 months for the higher end.


Atom hardware doesn't depreciate as fast simply because new Atoms don't really perform any faster than older Atoms with the same number of real cores. Where they do change is things like DDR2->DDR3 and power consumption.

OVH got themselves into trouble because new customers were paying a lot less for much higher specs, were surprised that existing customers bought new servers and cancelled their old ones because of that, and couldn't map the old hardware onto their current plans.


----------



## HalfEatenPie (Oct 12, 2013)

lbft said:


> Atom hardware doesn't depreciate as fast simply because new Atoms don't really perform any faster than older Atoms with the same number of real cores. Where they do change is things like DDR2->DDR3 and power consumption.
> 
> OVH got themselves into trouble because new customers were paying a lot less for much higher specs, were surprised that existing customers bought new servers and cancelled their old ones because of that, and couldn't map the old hardware onto their current plans.


Yep.  That's 100% me.  I cancelled my 9.99 euros/month atom with OVH to try and get their cheaper atoms.  I didn't get it but I still cancelled my services with them.  

The thing is this though.  It's perfectly logical to remove your old service and get the cheaper/newer one if you can get the same thing (I mean seriously, same hardware, same network, same "support") for cheaper.  Why should I pay 3x more for this product?


----------



## willie (Oct 12, 2013)

Well the 3 euro OVH servers were the last straw, but OVH had a bad situation of selling servers for 30 euro/month in (say) 2011, that were a good deal at the time, but then selling similar servers for 20 euro in 2012, and having the 2011 customers switch plans instead of continuing to pay 30 euro.  It wasn't a matter of being unable to map the old hardware to new plans.  Nothing stopped them from running and selling the hardware for 3 years.  They just couldn't keep charging the same prices for it during the 3 year period, because newer stuff was a better deal.  I think you really have to price computer gear to get all your expected profits within 1 year, and then maybe squeeze out a little more gravy over the subsequent year or two.  Obviously some infrastructure stuff like data centers can be depreciated over a longer period.

Regarding Atoms lasting longer: 1) Maybe true for the CPU, but hard to count on even for that.  Older Atoms didn't support 4GB of memory, for example.  2) Besides the CPU, ram and disk are also getting cheaper.  So you may have to make adjustments if next year's Atoms support 16GB and there are 8TB disks, even if the CPU's stay the same speed.


----------



## nunim (Oct 12, 2013)

At $25 a month I might pick one up just because there's not many budget hosts on the West Coast, at that price point at least.


----------



## rds100 (Oct 12, 2013)

@willie actually RAM is not getting cheaper, it's getting more and more expensive in the last few months. I really hope this trend gets reversed soon.

But i agree that the HDD would devaluate faster than three years, in just 1-2 years 5TB HDDs would be normal, and maybe even larger will appear.


----------



## Jack (Oct 12, 2013)

I'd get 2 off you.


----------



## wlanboy (Oct 13, 2013)

willie said:


> 3. I like the suggestion of 2x1TB instead of 1x3TB as the default or as another option.
> 
> 6. Would you be willing to plug a small USB device into the server for me if I send it to you?


Two things that would be selling feature.


----------



## hzr (Oct 14, 2013)

I'd get 3-5 of these damn things.


----------



## concerto49 (Oct 14, 2013)

rds100 said:


> @willie actually RAM is not getting cheaper, it's getting more and more expensive in the last few months. I really hope this trend gets reversed soon.
> 
> 
> But i agree that the HDD would devaluate faster than three years, in just 1-2 years 5TB HDDs would be normal, and maybe even larger will appear.


Not after the Hynix fire


----------



## shunny (Oct 16, 2013)

So when can we purchase this server?


----------



## WSWD (Oct 16, 2013)

Would defintiely be interested.  Have clients who would be interested.  Unfortunately, no IPMI would be a deal-breaker.  Absolutely no reason not to have it on a server.  Accessing it via a VPN would be just fine.


----------



## Damian (Oct 21, 2013)

Regarding OVH, their wide and unrealistic price fluctuations makes me think that it's being run by a madman. I do not care what a madman does.

 

But realistically, the price will most likely remain static throughout the life of the product, but what fits into the "slot" of that product would change as hardware prices evolutionize. Since CPUs (especially in the low-power sector) and hard drives and such are somewhat slow to develop and price-drop, I expect that even a yearly "refresh" of our offering may be too short. 

 

At that point, if we do refresh our offering on a yearly basis, then that gives 12 months to pay off the 11 month hardware. If we discount the "old" stuff down to, say, $20/month, then that's fine too because we're no longer needing to amortize the hardware; it's just gravy. 

 

As we're not going to swap drives between servers, if customers want to spend time and effort and money to buy and set up another server and move their stuff over to the new hardware offerings, then that's fine too.

 




willie said:


> 1. The 11 month payoff sounds really optimistic.  Even OVH with their $100M's of capitalization got themselves in a bad spot trying that.  The hw depreciates too fast.  I think 4 months or so is more normal for the budget sector, and less than 4 months for the higher end.
> 
> 2. $150 for 256GB SSD's sounds like cheap consumer drives, maybe even 3-level flash.  That also sounds shaky.  The only reason I'd go for 256GB instead of 3TB at the same price is to run database workloads, which will pound the crap out of those SSD's and destroy them with write wear.  I'd frankly rather have 120GB enterprise SSD's (Intel S3500) than 256GB consumer ones for the $150 if I'm going the SSD route.  With only 4GB of ram I couldn't really run too large a database anyway.  Are ram upgrades possible?
> 
> ...



You have good input; keep it coming.

I'll itemize my responses on the same numbers as your questions 

1. We really aren't in this business to see how poorly we can do at it... there keeps being repeated remarks of "I don't see how you'll make a profit!"; believe me, we run the numbers and have quite a few discussions about new products/ideas far before they ever get to a public forum.

2. The ~256gb SSDs I was looking at are "Intel 335 Series Jay Crest SSDSC2CT240A4K5 2.5" 240GB SATA III MLC Internal Solid State Drive (SSD)" which are indeed a consumer-level drive. http://www.anandtech.com/show/6462/intel-explains-20nm-nand-endurance-concerns-on-the-ssd-335 has more information on the endurance, specifically:

"Kristian's review showed that to be roughly 250TB of writes, which means the actual value is aroung 500TB of actual NAND writes (incompressible). Doing the math on the 240GB capacity gives us 2083 full drive writes over the life of the drive, or about 5.7 years of useful life if you write 240GB of data to the NAND every day. Even if your workload has a write amplification factor of 10x, you're still talking about 24GB of writes per day for nearly 6 years."

I'm still waiting to hear from Intel if they'll replace an in-warranty drive when the MWI gets to zero. 

The price spike for an "enterprise" SSD would probably mean that we would sell very few, if any. One of the pivots of this service is to keep hardware on-hand for when things break; adding additional drives into the mix arbitrarily increases costs, as hard drives (and other things) that we keep on hand for variation are hard drives that aren't being used for revenue. To use an automotive analogy, think of Toyota vs BMW vs Aston Martin: Toyota provides you a narrow range of interior and exterior choices but at a low cost, BMW expands the range but also has a wider profit margin, and Aston Martin will paint your new car in any PPG color that you want, But It'll Cost You.

As this service will not be a hand-holding type of dedicated server offer and that the user is fully aware of the service's requirements for proper usage, such as installing the OS yourself, it's hoped that if a user is choosing an SSD over a mechanical drive, that they have a full understanding of the implications of their choice. 

For what it's worth, we hammer the bejeezus out of SSDs in various CacheCade arrays on LSI controllers, and @Wintereise hammers the bejeezus out of SSDs for database things, and neither of us are seeing catastrophic systemic failures. That's not to say, of course, that we'll have more failures versus mechanical drives, but it's already factored into our end of things.

2 (again). 4gb seems to be the limit of current-generation Atom boards ("boards" being the operative here.. the CPUs themselves can address more) , and there's not much of a price diff for 4gb of ram versus lesser amounts, so there's not much benefit to us or to our users to sell less-than the max.

3. It would indeed be 2x3TB or whatever the drive size ends up being. If 4TB drives end up being ~$150 when we move ahead, then we'll use those. Once again, too much variation will end up costing an excessive amount in the future.

4. The price increase was actually due to using a different form factor. I intentionally under-offered the original offer at 1 TB to see what kind of reaction was going to be received; 5 TB is a much more reasonable value anyway. Regarding overcommitment, there's a fine line between "we've sold too much and everything is going to shit" and "we've sold too much but we're adequately managing it"; proper management is paramount. Most of us have cell phone plans that provide us with xxx minutes per month but we only use yyy minutes per month. I can provide more information on actual bandwidth usage versus what we've sold on our existing services privately, if you have any interest.

5. 2 is indeed the maximum.

6. Sure, we'd have to charge remote hands though. We'd just charge whatever the datacenter's cost is for remote hands; there's no real need for us to arbitrarily mark it up. 



shunny said:


> So when can we purchase this server?


Sorry, had a bit of a crisis last week so I didn't really do much further research on this. I'm thinking it'll probably be January or February 2014 at earliest.



WSWD said:


> Would defintiely be interested.  Have clients who would be interested.  Unfortunately, no IPMI would be a deal-breaker.  Absolutely no reason not to have it on a server.  Accessing it via a VPN would be just fine.


Yeah we'll be able to offer IPMI. It's too much effort for us to manage OS (re)installs otherwise, so i'd rather have the infrastructure in place to do IPMI. There's an updated listing on the second page of this thread.


----------



## Damian (Oct 25, 2013)

Just an update: We've decided to put this "on hold" for now. We've got too many other things going on at the moment, and adding yet another project probably isn't the best idea.


----------



## Setsura (Oct 25, 2013)

Damian said:


> Just an update: We've decided to put this "on hold" for now. We've got too many other things going on at the moment, and adding yet another project probably isn't the best idea.


Somewhat disappointing, but hopefully you'll do it someday.


----------

