# Online.net Tests Dedicated ARM Server Cloud



## DomainBop (Oct 14, 2014)

Something different, so it's worth a thread.  Online.net is testing a dedicated ARM server cloud.  You can get a free 15-minute trial here: http://labs.online.net/#/ (no signup required) or a longer free trial by following @online_fr on Twitter and sending them a DM with your email.



> What makes Online labs cloud different ?
> In our cloud, servers are dedicated. You have dedicated, constant and predictible performances you can rely on. We are not speaking about dedicated hosting, it comes with all the benefits of the cloud!
> 
> Our platform provides:
> ...



Documentation is here: https://doc.cloud.online.net/



> @c1-10-1-20-226:~$ cat /proc/cpuinfo
> Processor    : Marvell PJ4Bv7 Processor rev 2 (v7l)
> processor    : 0
> BogoMIPS    : 1332.01
> ...


----------



## drmike (Oct 14, 2014)

Quad Core 1.6Ghz Marvell... Interesting

Drobo storage units use this CPU or have in 2013~.

So have Synology devices...

Wondering what brand gear they are using for this??? I'd expect a real enterprise solution vs. cobbled gear.... 

I've been waiting for these ARM offerings    I welcome them.


----------



## sv01 (Oct 14, 2014)

this video really interesing http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFhgSKNJP2s

they build their own board? or these just part of marketing kit.


----------



## Jasson.Pass (Oct 14, 2014)

But why would you host off of a lowend ARM cloud over INTEL?


----------



## drmike (Oct 14, 2014)

sv01 said:


> this video really interesing http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFhgSKNJP2s
> 
> they build their own board? or these just part of marketing kit.


Sounds like hype... in there saying their own factory.... I am ahh doubting that....

Counted one of the modules on one of the boards.  Looks like 18 processor boards per line card...  72 processor total per....

I count 16 of cards in the chasis at end of video.

16 x 72 = 1152 processor boards in chasis.

1152 processor boards x quad core = 4608 cores per chasis.

Why use such as end customer?  Meh, depends really.  They should be able to in theory offer these at pretty low cost and with more cores and features.  These must have super fast interconnects in 10's of Gbps per second on backplanes.  So could have very interesting, redundant storage.

Certainly to them is lower power costs per billable units relative to CPU, general processing.

Slap a true Cloud up front on this and could be pretty magical.   If throwing run of mill VPS approach then yeah, nothing to see here.


----------



## DomainBop (Oct 14, 2014)

Close to 1000 physical ARM servers racked so far.  This beta was launched today...


from twitter: _"912 serveurs physiques (3648 cores)   48 switchs   288 HDD/SSD dans une baie"_



> _Slap a true Cloud up front on this and could be pretty magical.   If throwing run of mill VPS approach then yeah, nothing to see here._



From the looks of the documentation this will be a true cloud and also have an API.

For me, the number of "run of the mill" VPS's I'm using has decreased dramatically this year.  The number of VPS/cloud providers I'm using who use SolusVM is under 20% now and OpenVZ is under 10%.

I think the main reason people would opt for these (other than the "cloud" features) is _"You have dedicated, constant and predictible performances you can rely on."_  That's a big selling point, especially in the low low end of the VPS/cloud sector because the overselling overloading (of RAM, I/O, CPU) practiced by many low end providers makes their VPS's that are hosted on Intel E3's and E5's perform worse than the cheap 5-10 euro Atom/Nano/ARM dedicateds that the French providers offer.


----------



## pcan (Oct 14, 2014)

This platform seems to have a few useful enterprise features, such as snapshots. Each storage module (SAN) is connected to the network controller trough 4 gigabit connections; each server has a gigabit connection port. Basic performance tests are good, this ARM CPU is a lot better than the Raspberry PI. The custom control panel is nice.

The service seems to be ok. Now price is the key factor. The beta should last 2 weeks, then we will see how this cloud service will fit in the market.


----------



## drmike (Oct 14, 2014)

Ratios as reported seem a tad wonky.

_912 serveurs physiques (3648 cores)   48 switchs   288 HDD/SSD dans une baie"_

3648 cores / 4 = 912 real CPU boards. = right.   Less density than I counted up.

912 units to sell to customers in dedicated-like model.

Problem is you have 912 sharing 288 drives.  Of those 288 not all are spinning.  They are almost certainly SSD caching in the middle.

912 units / 260? spinning drives = 3.5+ units sharing a single drive.

912 units / 48 switches = 19 ports per switch.  Odds of them having anything but 24 port switches, slim.

Now plausible they have larger density on ports Gbit and bonding, but seems wild/goofy.

912 units x  4 ports = 3648 ports...

3648 ports / 48 switches = 76 ports per switch... NOPE

2 port per board = 1824 port  / 48 switchs = 38 ports per switch....  10 shy of a 48 port....

Meh 24 ports with 5 spares being bonded and or uplinks.

Not doubting it will / can work... But falls short of the dedicated model with the off board storage that may go wrong at any time and common areas you don't experience in a dedicated solution.  

Empty performance = great likely.   Get this populated and all bets are off.

Really wondering how darn cheap they got these boards/chasis down to - to make it viable/competitive.


----------



## Wintereise (Oct 14, 2014)

>> 3648 ports / 48 switches = 76 ports per switch... NOPE

 

Why not? That's nothing, stacking will literally let you have hundreds of ports on a single switch.


----------



## DomainBop (Oct 14, 2014)

> Problem is you have 912 sharing 288 drives.  Of those 288 not all are spinning.  They are almost certainly SSD caching in the middle.


They use a mix of SSD and HDD depending on the volume type.

 


> What kind of volumes do you offer?
> We have two categories of volumes:
> 
> 
> ...



https://doc.cloud.online.net/faq/server_faq.html


----------



## drmike (Oct 15, 2014)

Wintereise said:


> >> 3648 ports / 48 switches = 76 ports per switch... NOPE
> 
> 
> 
> Why not? That's nothing, stacking will literally let you have hundreds of ports on a single switch.


That was simple division.  I can't see them running 96 port switches with spare 20 ports....  They are available and all, but probably not.  Switching costs would really add up versus 24's which are rather cheap.



DomainBop said:


> They use a mix of SSD and HDD depending on the volume type.
> 
> 
> 
> https://doc.cloud.online.net/faq/server_faq.html


Interesting mix / model.   @DomainBop to my ADD rescue with the info.   I appreciate you immensely!

Looks like the gotcha for many, ahhh me, is the distro support today:

"We provide the latest Ubuntu LTS (14.04) and a stable Gentoo. Any Linux distribution with support of armhf should work without problems. Other distributions are on their way."


----------



## wlanboy (Oct 16, 2014)

Looks promising.

For me this does make more sense than the dedicated core offers.


----------



## mikmak (Oct 16, 2014)

Wintereise said:


> >> 3648 ports / 48 switches = 76 ports per switch... NOPE
> 
> 
> 
> Why not? That's nothing, stacking will literally let you have hundreds of ports on a single switch.


actually, each blade has its own switch (it's just the "switch chip" not a whole 1U rack switch as you can be used to see) ,

each server has multiple 1gb/s connections to the onboard switch and each blade switches are stacked together on a x*10gb/s ring in the chassis.

I can provide invites on request if you want to try out (I need your firstname/lastname/email in PM)


----------



## ZweiTiger (Oct 20, 2014)

Interesting.. 

Is this a bit similar then iwstack? Or this is another category?

I hope their cloud prices could be low a bit..


----------



## Dylan (Oct 20, 2014)

Since it seems like these might be competing future services, here's Online's Cloud beta vs. OVH's [SIZE=13.63636302948px]new [/SIZE]Classic VPS infrastructure beta:

Online: http://serverbear.com/benchmark/2014/10/21/8mfw2LFEL432sFsd

OVH: http://serverbear.com/benchmark/2014/10/21/KZUjtMo7KATkr7s4


----------



## DomainBop (Nov 5, 2014)

Marvell issued a press release on Monday with some more details about the Online.net servers:

http://www.marvell.com/company/news/pressDetail.do?releaseID=5856


----------



## NeyerWeb (Nov 6, 2014)

These servers are actually pretty good considering the hardware, online.net just need to release some pricing although being free is always good. For now at least.


----------

