New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
Comments
time to move my dns
The only good thing we're losing with this is the awesome domain. Shame.
tl;dr not financially viable to continue, significantly better alternatives out there, OnApp failed to find a sweet spot for the market once again for ditlev's baby 'federation' through lack of quality development and a failure to understand the market it appeals too.
Thats the true story of Cloud Hosting.. Some more news will come soon.
Wondering, when onApp will begin to collapse due to quality shortage in their software.
when ColoCrossing supports IPv6
They are running at a massive loss (on paper, could just be a tax dodge), I suspect they are starting a "cutting the fat" exercise though.
I can't see how they could possibly be running at a real loss for their main product with the prices they charge and the customers they have. Cloud.net, CDN.net and SolusVM were always half arsed jobs from their point of view.
Cloud.net and CDN.net were probably just there to encourage hosts to move to OnApp to sell more via their Federation. I guess they figured that any hosts that might have been swayed by them have already moved over and tied themselves in, or that hosts generally didn't care that much and it wasn't worth the effort.
SolusVM was of course just to remove their main competitor.
I usually run far away when I find out a provider uses OnApp for their cloud hosting.
Damn, I have 14 servers with them. It will be very hard to replace them, the locations are very rare and expensive
Anyone that thought Solus was a competitor to OnApp is smoking something fierce.
Solus was cash positive, where as OnApp has never hid the fact that they have a lot of VC and weren't exactly in the black. Solus was a cheap way to suddenly get a few million dollars a year for literally no work.
Francisco
Common now.. they updated the TDN with a few untested templates supplied by unknown third parties for hosts to distribute to their customers and told a bunch of lies about solusvm in general, that requires 'some' effort.
Welp, I hope they pay out bug bounties that were given as wallet balance though. I spent quite a bit of time to create this amount:
And now I cant even create a server...
Also, as per Terry:
Seems they couldn't make a cloud.net 2.0? Makes me worry for solus 2.0 even more.
Are there any OnApp reseller here to sell me servers from their federation?
Hey, give me a shout with your needs, we will hopefully match what you had @ Cloud.net :-)
So they're closing down to build another approach? Seems reasonable, don't know much about these guys - have they got a large team??
Yup. Good server uptime, terrible interface and billing.
Every single time you'd get a billing invoice if you didn't have the full amount of funds in your 'wallet balance', you'd get your first shutoff warning minutes later.
Never was a mature product, and the hosts prices never made sense beyond a few Softlayer locations.
@OnApp_Terry
Poor Terry...always asked to defend the indefensible.
I am actually in contact with their support right now, and it seems they are willing to try to send (some of) the money to my paypal account instead.
Would severely change my opinion about the company, at least about their ethics.
I'd disagree. Out Dev tier was VERY reasonably priced for what kit and network were under it.
The pricing didn't make sense, I never said Clouvider was expensive.
It varied very much from location to location, and only a handful of them even had packages available under $10.
Most were name your own resources with servers at $20+ when you were paying by every single resource a la carte.
Two servers I used there:
Jolt - SSD (UK)
Uptime Alliance (Cloud.net with Softlayer servers)
Very little hosts offered plans such as a 512MB package or base pricing like $5.00/month. With the whole resource selector and different pricing per host, many were upwards of $20-30 for a basic configuration. Worse, most of these companies offered VPS' at a fraction of the cost if you had purchased it directly from them.
Hard to justify purchasing from a marketplace of VPS providers when the price was substantially higher than if you just bought them directly from the brand / DC.
Nothing was uniform, and with the constant 'account shutdown warnings' generated a minute after an invoice was, it clearly wasn't a mature product or was given the time it deserved.
Waste of a great domain.
The pricing to my understanding was per tier. Different for Dev and Pro, and naturally per each resource, so it was actually quite standardised last time I checked. It pretty much mirrored the OnApp federation model of pricing.
I tried it once, saw the panel and ran.
I picked the two hosts that had simple pricing and per-tier pricing. a $5.00 plan and some $3.80 offer from Zare.
Many hosts weren't standardized and when they finally created 'packages' out of what's available you'd see a 1GB offering in Spain for $35.00 or something. Wish I could see the pricing, but it was pretty weird like that across the board.
Had I seen another provider with sane pricing a little over the LET mark I would have used you as well.
The pricing I mostly saw went from these specials in a few locations -> $25-60 bucks in Europe or a US VPS from a provider who will offer it 1/2 or even better the price not on Cloud.net.
Won't be using any of their brands again. CDNs should be Anycast based, I never got NJ -> NJ or close despite providing MTRs and network diagnostics. If they're gonna bring back Cloud.net at 2.0 at some point, no use in trashing the brand by kicking users off, but as others have mentioned, things lead back to a thinly veiled onboarding process to actual OnApp it seems. Not by design, but by lack of care to the brand in this case.
The dashboard and UI was a mess, probably why I never logged in to look for other providers.
That's the wrong assumption to make :-)
So you'd never use Akamai?
What you want is a CDN that gives good performance (throughput and latency) isn't it?
I have used Akamai via XCDN. They were great.
Perhaps their GeoDNS based CDN is just poor, but Akamai is brilliant.
13MS from NJ to server in quebec. CDN was 40ms+ away in Dallas.
Couldn't get that fixed. Great domains but lackluster products.
The UI and plans let Cloud.net down, the infrastructure & servers were solid though. Shame to see it go honestly.
Anyone know a provider using Quadranet in Dallas that has comparable priced VPS as Cloud.net?
Why not go direct through Quadranet Infracloud? (not sure on the cost/spec of your cloud.net plan, so might cost a bit more)
I may do that, I thought their Infracloud stuff was more expensive.
Pinging @dustinc @Quadranet_Adam - any Infracloud promos for Black Friday?