Jasson.Pass
New Member
This would be a good time for some new products to come out and take SolusVM's place.
There's already Virtualizor, HostGuard, VirtKick is a work in progress, and probably a few others I'm failing to mention.
Last edited by a moderator:
DomainBop
Dormant VPSB Pathogen
Nor would I want to buy anything from you (or anyone) that you're playing the middleman on.
The federation concept reminds me of a wholesale version of OneProvider's (now discontinued) retail OneCloud offering. I question how many buyers who are looking for a redundant HA cloud solution are going to want to buy through a middleman rather than buying direct from the source (even if buying direct from the source means buying from 2-3-4-5 different providers). Even if the "middleman" has the best customer service in the world they will still be at the mercy of the upstream when there is a problem which often means increased problem resolution time for the end user, and for higher paying cloud customers that added time can be a deal killer.
While the end user of Provider A (let's call provider A Skylar) might not know that service at the cloud location in the UK they selected is being provided by Provider B (let's call the upstream VPS.net), the end user will notice any increased problem resolution time and will place the blame fully on Provider A.
http://cdn.onapp.com/files/brochures/onapp-federation-brochure.pdf
Alright well I guess making this a bit more of a discussion now
What can we expect to see in the near future for SolusVM? What's the long-term goal for SolusVM (in addition to white-label cloud?)?
As a provider, what benefits should I see that comes out of this?
Can we request an audit on the code of SolusVM (would that be a great investment)?
In addition to the previous questions asked (by me and others), what's the biggest 3 changes we'll see?
Is there anything else you'd like us to know about this acquisition and the future of SolusVM and OnApp?
Just as a note while you're here, I've had to sometimes go through weird means to get certain actions done previously (as a client and as a provider). Is there any way to get a completely new and refreshing UI for the Admin and the Client side? (either or even?)
Edit:
Here's another question. Will (sometime in the future) OnApp's cloud platform and SolusVM actually merge and become one piece of software? (not in like a way to resell cloud service on OnApp's systems but actual like one thing setup together?)
What can we expect to see in the near future for SolusVM? What's the long-term goal for SolusVM (in addition to white-label cloud?)?
As a provider, what benefits should I see that comes out of this?
Can we request an audit on the code of SolusVM (would that be a great investment)?
In addition to the previous questions asked (by me and others), what's the biggest 3 changes we'll see?
Is there anything else you'd like us to know about this acquisition and the future of SolusVM and OnApp?
Just as a note while you're here, I've had to sometimes go through weird means to get certain actions done previously (as a client and as a provider). Is there any way to get a completely new and refreshing UI for the Admin and the Client side? (either or even?)
Edit:
Here's another question. Will (sometime in the future) OnApp's cloud platform and SolusVM actually merge and become one piece of software? (not in like a way to resell cloud service on OnApp's systems but actual like one thing setup together?)
Last edited by a moderator:
Honestly, I think this is great.
Solus must have been tempted to sell, and I do not believe people sell out when their product is on the up and up and they have faith for it's future. They've had their fair share of issues and probably recognized the best way to move forward and improve is to have some new life breathed into it.
As far as licensing goes? It's already cheap, isn't it? I'm not a fan of raising prices on existing customers, but I don't see the issue in doing so for new customers or even offering a support package. SolusVM is pretty heavily documented as is, though I'm sure there is still a lot of support tickets submitted from newb hosts on their $50/mo datashack server who want to sell 4GB VPS plans for $6/mo... "hi sir y dis not work?"
Solus must have been tempted to sell, and I do not believe people sell out when their product is on the up and up and they have faith for it's future. They've had their fair share of issues and probably recognized the best way to move forward and improve is to have some new life breathed into it.
As far as licensing goes? It's already cheap, isn't it? I'm not a fan of raising prices on existing customers, but I don't see the issue in doing so for new customers or even offering a support package. SolusVM is pretty heavily documented as is, though I'm sure there is still a lot of support tickets submitted from newb hosts on their $50/mo datashack server who want to sell 4GB VPS plans for $6/mo... "hi sir y dis not work?"
From the wording above, it looks like users will be able to sell from the federation, I don't see OnApp wanting the cesspool of LE providers mucking up their golden cow. They could always do heavy verification of providers to make sure they hold water and aren't a laughing stalk but then they're pitting their own product lines against each other.
Francisco
Last edited by a moderator:
I see that it could turn into how most of us treat domain name registrations. Why would I order a domain from you, or any other of my providers when I can get it from an actual registar or one of their glorified resellers like what NameCheap is to eNom? That is how people will begin to view the whole Federation thing. Why buy it from xyz123redcatextremehost when I can get the same product, minus the middle man for a better(?) price by going closer to the source?
EDIT: And that's not really a complaint, because for the purpose of offering that it doesn't matter who the end-user signs up with. Up top and looking down, a cloud vps sold here or a cloud vps sold there is still a cloud sold.
Last edited by a moderator:
Yep.
For domains, some people like paying a single source for all their needs as the time saved from having to
deal with multiple vendors is worth the couple bucks.
I don't see there being a big price difference between solusvm federation plans and onapp ones. Since it's just pass through you'll see people charge $1 + paypal fees ontop of base cost and claim that they've paid for a Lamborghini Aventador off it.
Francisco
Ouch... burn. I don't think he's a member here anyhow though.
DomainBop
Dormant VPSB Pathogen
These are recent actual quotes (borrowed from LET) from a SolusVM using middleman provider (who shall go nameless) when something went wrong which illustrate why I have always avoided middlemen when I'm buying something mission critical like a dedicated server (or a "redundant cloud"):
"[redacted] has absolutely no control over our dedicated server hosting offerings' technical support,...In almost all situations, such as this one, we are simply acting as a middleman and are forwarding responses back and forth between the upstream and our customer."
"I apologize, again we have no control and are simply working as a middleman in this situation, forwarding responses back and forth."
"Again, the situation was completely out of our control. Obviously we're trying to do all we can to help you but we're not NOC technicians so all we can do is try to rush this to completion for you."
"We can't diagnose IPMI, however we're being told it's working. I responded to the ticket, still waiting for a response, I can't do anything further. Please trust me on this one that we're doing all we can .. and I don't know how you can put the blame on us when we are not NOC technicians that had absolutely no part in setting up your server, the IPMI, nothing -- We've simply been acting as a support middleman forwarding responses back and forth and are doing all we can."
tl;dr: I expect to see an increase in WHT/LET threads blaming the middleman when there is a problem with their resold cloud offerings. You might make a few extra bucks by reselling cloud offerings but your reputation could take a hit anytime there is a problem.
Last edited by a moderator:
Nikki
New Member
Scrapping the whole code base and rewriting it will likely improve it greatly. From what I can remember, it's pieced together from the original product without much consideration for how well it works with large-scale operations now.At the moment the main goal is to look at what can be improved and what else can be done to make it a better product, TBH the product is priced incredibly well
Other than that, you really need to look into the way the application is structured. Logic is all over the place, support for old versions of PHP should be dropped (5.4 minimum these days) - especially on the nodes (who doesn't have a version with json now?), and it could really benefit from a framework of some kind, even if it's a small in-house one to handle basic routing.
I don't think OnApp should be looking at merging features into SolusVM either, improve SolusVM, then look into other options.
Last edited by a moderator:
To add to this, their API for WHMCS was a joke. Terminations never worked (VM's would be suspended before termination, but their API wasn't smart to know that onapp requires the VM to be unsuspended first, then terminate).Don't worry. Noone is that capable to make SolusVM worse
In SolusVM world, everything is designed by the principle that every single command executed should work perfectly, without any errors. No checks, what so ever. And that's why you end up with issues like:
- Containers created without IPs
- Zombie containers hanging out randomly on the nodes
- Suspended containers that are still running
- Containers supposedly powered on but offline
- And pretty much everything that can fail, fails without letting you know.
Additionally, we'd find IP's randomly removed from the VM.
At one point I questioned the development of OnApp moreso than SolusVM. Their API alone has been bugged for YEARS.
All of which have the same basic design flaws.
If VirtKick is executed correctly, I wouldn't expect to see it for a while. Development/Staging/QA for such a project has got to take a goodly amount of time and patience -- I deflect to the elder members here who have accomplished this, however. I signed up for the KVM beta. I don't 'do' hypervisors, so I'm not sure how I can help there. Just going to have to see how it goes until OpenVZ support begins. There are certain things I'd like to see changed with SolusVM's integration with OpenVZ ... things like ... a base OS template that's not from 2009, a default configuration for RHEL6 that doesn't use a beancounter controlled container origin, sane values for the vswap origin files, iolimit/IOPS control, ploop backup/migrations for those using it, and if I recall something still has to be done with the traffic shaping.
It would be nice if an up-and-coming project like this could get enough financial support to have their code professionally audited prior to its release. Seems like it would be good advertising long-term. Audited and secured right from the start? Sounds good to me. I mean, I'd be impressed by that. On the other hand, I'm truthfully not sure how much a good audit should cost. It would be a shame for it to go the way of HyperVM, and certainly not with the same outcome.
It would be nice if an up-and-coming project like this could get enough financial support to have their code professionally audited prior to its release. Seems like it would be good advertising long-term. Audited and secured right from the start? Sounds good to me. I mean, I'd be impressed by that. On the other hand, I'm truthfully not sure how much a good audit should cost. It would be a shame for it to go the way of HyperVM, and certainly not with the same outcome.
Last edited by a moderator:
The problem is that short of SolusVM tripling the price or something (or forcing a minimum volume per month, OnApp style), they aren't going to swap.
I'm not sure if you read VPSB back when SolusVM was passing $_GET to SETUID system(), but there was literally a dozen or so panels that were starting up and 'ready to roll on a minutes notice' all of a sudden. The only panels that that actually released were @KuJoe's & Feathur. I think Joe kept his panel to himself and many people wish that BlueVM had done the same with Feathur.
Francisco
Last edited by a moderator:
Thanks, Im the CVO and one of the co-foundersCongratulations on the move @NullMind , just out of interest, what is your role on onapp?
The longterm roadmap is still to be mapped, but for now, it's improve on whats there and open the federation accessAlright well I guess making this a bit more of a discussion now
What can we expect to see in the near future for SolusVM? What's the long-term goal for SolusVM (in addition to white-label cloud?)?
The backing of a well established software developer, you can rest assure your software provider is going to be there tomorrow, plus we want to make the product more solid.
Actually, one was just performed not long ago, and our own guys of course are going trough it now in detail.
As said before, the long term roadmap is still to be defined, but watch this space
We do have plans to make the UI/UX better, thats one of the things we are passionate about here at OnApp, good UI/UX
No, we don't see it that way, these will remain two separate software packages with their own target audiences.
Carlos