Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!


Providers, would you pay 1€ / core / month min. 100€ for a modern KVM panel? - Page 2
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.

Providers, would you pay 1€ / core / month min. 100€ for a modern KVM panel?

2

Comments

  • It will be nice to have another competitor on the market beside Solus and VMmanager (modern panels). Did you start development?

  • fleiofleio Member

    Hey,

    For now we're focusing on OpenStack, deploying Fleio with Docker and migrating frontend from AngularJS to Angular.

    Thanks for your feedback. We'll see what we decide in the following months.

    Thanked by 1MikeA
  • 0x650x65 Member

    Do you have a document for deploying Openstack with your environment properly? Also do you prefer all in one deployment or distributed (compute, storage network etc.)?

  • fleiofleio Member
    edited May 2020

    @0x65 said:
    Do you have a document for deploying Openstack with your environment properly? Also do you prefer all in one deployment or distributed (compute, storage network etc.)?

    About any OpenStack Fleio deployment would work with Fleio.
    Many of our users deploy with OpenStack-Ansible.

    Both all-in-one installation and installing OpenStack services on different machines would work.

    Fleio requirements: https://fleio.com/docs/installing/requirements.html

    Once OpenStack is installed you need to enable notifications and perform some Ceilometer and Gnocchi configurations:

  • jackbjackb Member, Host Rep

    @fleio said:
    Hey,

    For now we're focusing on OpenStack, deploying Fleio with Docker and migrating frontend from AngularJS to Angular.

    Thanks for your feedback. We'll see what we decide in the following months.

    The solus market share is ripe for the taking if you add KVM support once you're done with those things.

    The 100 core minimum, 1eur/core/m pricing seems reasonable to me.

    Thanked by 2MikeA fleio
  • BharatBBharatB Member, Patron Provider

    @jackb we're already aiming for that :)

  • jackbjackb Member, Host Rep

    @BharatB said:
    @jackb we're already aiming for that :)

    Are you working with @fleio?

  • BharatBBharatB Member, Patron Provider

    @jackb said:

    @BharatB said:
    @jackb we're already aiming for that :)

    Are you working with @fleio?

    Nope :) https://hypervisor.io/

  • PulsedMediaPulsedMedia Member, Patron Provider

    not even a slightest chance we would be willing to pay 1€ core / 100€ per server minimum per month. Not even slightest -- unless it comes with the hardware included to our spec. Does it include a 6000€+ server to go?

  • @PulsedMedia said:
    not even a slightest chance we would be willing to pay 1€ core / 100€ per server minimum per month. Not even slightest -- unless it comes with the hardware included to our spec. Does it include a 6000€+ server to go?

    Isn't this cheaper than Solus?

  • PulsedMediaPulsedMedia Member, Patron Provider

    kuroneko23 said:

    Isn't this cheaper than Solus?

    We don't use solus. Idk what they charge these days. 100€ minimum per server is outrageously high, there's no way around that.

  • ViridWebViridWeb Member, Host Rep
    edited May 2020

    @PulsedMedia said:
    not even a slightest chance we would be willing to pay 1€ core / 100€ per server minimum per month. Not even slightest -- unless it comes with the hardware included to our spec. Does it include a 6000€+ server to go?

    It's not bad either.
    Maybe not for lowend but at least better pricing than new solus

    @PulsedMedia said:

    kuroneko23 said:

    Isn't this cheaper than Solus?

    We don't use solus. Idk what they charge these days. 100€ minimum per server is outrageously high, there's no way around that.

    Maybe its not for newcomers but for established hosts it's a good deal as we/they have bulk servers.

    Thanked by 1webcraft
  • fleiofleio Member
    edited May 2020

    @PulsedMedia said:
    not even a slightest chance we would be willing to pay 1€ core / 100€ per server minimum per month. Not even slightest -- unless it comes with the hardware included to our spec. Does it include a 6000€+ server to go?

    It's not 100€ minimum per server.

    It is 100€ minimum per cloud per month.

    We don't count servers. We only count physical CPU cores on ALL compute nodes.

    You can distribute those 100 cores any way you see fit.
    100 cores can be 25 servers each with 4 cores or 5 servers each with 20 cores.

    Other cloud resources are also not counted for licensing: block storage, image storage (snapshots, backups etc.), OpenStack networks and routers, Swift object storage, Kubernetes clusters.

    Thanked by 1Saahib
  • @PulsedMedia said:

    kuroneko23 said:

    Isn't this cheaper than Solus?

    We don't use solus. Idk what they charge these days. 100€ minimum per server is outrageously high, there's no way around that.

    It's not minimum per server, thats the minimum amount of cores you have to purchase, there's no server limit with the license - You could setup 10 servers with 10 cores each, for example.

    Thanked by 1fleio
  • ViridWebViridWeb Member, Host Rep

    @WSCallum said:

    @PulsedMedia said:

    kuroneko23 said:

    Isn't this cheaper than Solus?

    We don't use solus. Idk what they charge these days. 100€ minimum per server is outrageously high, there's no way around that.

    It's not minimum per server, thats the minimum amount of cores you have to purchase, there's no server limit with the license - You could setup 10 servers with 10 cores each, for example.

    Yes it's a good deal for long run

    Thanked by 2fleio WSCallum
  • RIYADRIYAD Member, Patron Provider

    Looks very promising .

  • @RIYAD said:

    Looks very promising .

    (literally plugs in his own panel on a competing panel’s thread)

  • vivithemagevivithemage Member, Host Rep
    edited May 2020

    If you do this, part of the service that would be nice is if you maintained updated KVM images. To include Windows.

    Question, does it include a WHMCS plug in, or would your billing software need to be used?
    Do you have multiple VLANs that work across multiple hosts via trunk ports? This is one of my bigger gripes with Solus.

  • fleiofleio Member

    We have an open source WHMCS plugin: https://github.com/fleio/fleio-whmcs

    The OpenStack Neutron project includes VLAN management.

  • someshzsomeshz Member, Host Rep

    @fleio said:
    We have an open source WHMCS plugin: https://github.com/fleio/fleio-whmcs

    The OpenStack Neutron project includes VLAN management.

    You should introduce 20 - 50 core license as well.

  • TejyTejy Member

    @someshz said:

    @fleio said:
    We have an open source WHMCS plugin: https://github.com/fleio/fleio-whmcs

    The OpenStack Neutron project includes VLAN management.

    You should introduce 20 - 50 core license as well.

    +1

  • PilzbaumPilzbaum Member
    edited May 2020

    someshz said: You should introduce 20 - 50 core license as well.

    -1

    If the minimum amount of cores drops too low, it is a magnet for summer hosts. Additionally, nodes with 32 or 64 cores are getting way cheaper due to the ryzing of AMD. Anyway, this solution focuses on hosts with a bunch of servers, not only 2. With a price of 1€/core/month it looks highly competitive in terms of pricing. But this also depends on functions, stability and other stuff like the usability and the update support in the long run.

    Thanked by 1ViridWeb
  • @Pilzbaum said:
    If the minimum amount of cores drops too low, it is a magnet for summer hosts.

    They will use nulled whmcs + virtualizor/solusvm anyway.

    Maybe 25 cores for €45 and 50 cores for €70?

  • jackbjackb Member, Host Rep
    edited May 2020

    Even if you only needed 25 cores, the 100 core licence would still be cheaper than 25 cores at the new solus product. I don't think you're going to persuade fleio that they want a €45/m customer.

  • TejyTejy Member

    @Pilzbaum said:

    someshz said: You should introduce 20 - 50 core license as well.

    -1

    If the minimum amount of cores drops too low, it is a magnet for summer hosts. Additionally, nodes with 32 or 64 cores are getting way cheaper due to the ryzing of AMD. Anyway, this solution focuses on hosts with a bunch of servers, not only 2. With a price of 1€/core/month it looks highly competitive in terms of pricing. But this also depends on functions, stability and other stuff like the usability and the update support in the long run.

    A summer-host owner doesn't know how works Openstack.
    We're not talking about Solus.io and other all-in-one solution, which can be installed on few clicks/minutes.

    Thanked by 1webcraft
  • ViridWebViridWeb Member, Host Rep

    @Tejy said:

    @Pilzbaum said:

    someshz said: You should introduce 20 - 50 core license as well.

    -1

    If the minimum amount of cores drops too low, it is a magnet for summer hosts. Additionally, nodes with 32 or 64 cores are getting way cheaper due to the ryzing of AMD. Anyway, this solution focuses on hosts with a bunch of servers, not only 2. With a price of 1€/core/month it looks highly competitive in terms of pricing. But this also depends on functions, stability and other stuff like the usability and the update support in the long run.

    A summer-host owner doesn't know how works Openstack.
    We're not talking about Solus.io and other all-in-one solution, which can be installed on few clicks/minutes.

    This thread post is about an all-in-one solution like solusvm. And OP ask for suggestion if they will make one or not.

    Also the 100 core pricing is very low and profitable for most of the established providers and it will benefit in the long run.

    Anyway, 20-50 pricing is good but then someone will ask for individual core pricing for sure.

    You can't make everyone happy. So seriously hosts will definitely buy it. And who's complaining they will complain forever.

    Thanked by 1webcraft
  • @jackb said:
    Even if you only needed 25 cores, the 100 core licence would still be cheaper than 25 cores at the new solus product. I don't think you're going to persuade fleio that they want a €45/m customer.

    My prices is purely for marketing like "Each cost S$4, Buy 3 for S$10" things so eventually people still buy the 100 core one.

  • laticlatic Member, Host Rep

    The thing about dropping the cores is, yes i could be a time sink, however from knowing how the inners of the large hosts work they are very hard pushed to use something that has no name recognition (its wrong, but its how it works).

    Without WHMCS and others starting out by attracting summer hosts would they be where they are today?

  • VirMachVirMach Member, Patron Provider
    edited May 2020

    MadRabbit said: Per core makes no sense at all.

    This is unfortunately the correct answer, at this for us. It was a lazy strategy Microsoft and other companies utilized to raise pricing when they realized that processors were going for higher core counts. They would of course never do it otherwise, and it's not in any way more accurate or fair for anyone involved.

    Providers that have lower core count/smaller servers with higher clock rates will benefit from this pricing structure. That is why Microsoft and other companies were careful to also put a minimum quantity, to ensure someone can't take advantage of this as much by just getting a small server to reduce cost. At least the way Fleio is doing it is a little more respectable since the quantity limit can be shared across any configuration of servers and it's not something like 16 minimum cores per server.

    So to say it more concisely: the per core pricing structure doesn't accurately account for the exponential increase in hardware pricing as core count increases as well as the decrease in performance per core.

    SpryServers_Tab said: Basically if you could make it similar to the new Solus.io for that 1/mo, that would almost surely guarantee you a load of business.

    I would probably disagree here as well, but I'm sure I just don't understand why any company in the world would be okay with paying 5 euros per core per month for such a solution. It seems like they should either be large enough to make and manage their own, or they don't care about pricing to such an extreme level that they would just go with AWS. And they would probably see a product that's 5x cheaper as inferior because that's the only way I can understand/justify their mindset.

    I think Fleio could absolutely crush it if they stayed competitive in terms of pricing (maybe a slight premium) while also beating everything in its class in terms of features. And they already do that for low core count servers, but they would need to scale it correctly at all levels.

    Francisco said: They have to make it worth their time given the support overhead it's going to cause.

    A 10 core deal means they'll have every single host that's just starting up ordering it since it'll come in cheaper than SVM1.

    They could perhaps have a base fee for that to be more representative of their expenses and required revenue. Because otherwise it creates more inconsistencies as the pricing scales in size. If that's what they're going for then sure, but if their goal is being fair/accurate it would miss the mark.

    fleio said: True. We're including support with the license cost.

    A production cloud infrastructure requires support on complex issues. And support (mainly) scales by adding man-power.

    And as you've probably notice from running your hosting business, support effort is higher on lower cost customers.

    Basically we don't want any possible customer because we just can't service every possible customer.

    The issue with this is that a customer doesn't really end up costing you X amount per core in support. A single customer may require 1 hour of support per month. If another customer has 10x the quantity of cores it does not mean they will require 10x the support.

    This of course gets even more inaccurate when you start talking about your owned licenses, when it comes to representing the actual cost of support. It would be more accurate to represent it as no owned licensing but a discount after two years because that's essentially what it works out to, then an arbitrary price on support and updates doesn't have to be set.

    Especially since it seems like the owned license isn't really owned? Unless I'm missing the part about the one year maximum gap between support periods? So someone has the option to not receive updates, but if they go past a year they can never receive support and updates? I understand the concept behind this, you do not want someone to wait a long period between updates to save money. However, they aren't utilizing the updated version or the support in this period so it should theoretically not matter if, again, you are trying to be fair.

    I guess this essentially just misrepresents things and causes inaccuracies if the goal is to ensure everyone pays an equal share for what they are really utilizing.

    greattomeetyou said: In the beginning, you want lower tier pricing (providing no/minimal support).

    They can be your beta tester, recommend features to you.
    As your product gains traction and matures, you go back to higher pricing. You can grandfather your initial supporter.

    This is probably more popular with tech companies recently, shifting the cost to others. I guess it would be the slightly socialist approach.

    MikeA said: Pretty sure I am paying at least 2x more for SolusVM than the current Fleio pricing.

    Well it would be 2x cheaper on something like an E3 and 2x more costly on dual E5. Then if you account for something like an E-2274G versus dual E5-2660v2 specifically, for example, and the potential total processing power each option offers, you have up to a 3x advantage using the lower-core server. Something like an E3-1270v5 or a bit lower instead and you still have a 2x advantage. That's license cost per "unit" of performance.

    I'm sure there's so many other configurations but again I predict this just means providers that have a lot of smaller servers will skew toward Fleio pricing preference.

    jackb said: Even if you only needed 25 cores, the 100 core licence would still be cheaper than 25 cores at the new solus product. I don't think you're going to persuade fleio that they want a €45/m customer.

    Again I don't think absolute awful and insane pricing should be used as a comparison. It's like saying wow this bottle of water is only $1 and it even has a better design, even if you drink half of it it'll still be cheaper than the $5 "luxury" water that's clearly a ripoff.

    It doesn't end up being a meaningful comparison, it's still $1 for water (and I'm not saying this translated over to Fleio being or not being worth it, but I am definitely saying Solus.IO isn't I guess.)

    ViridWeb said: You can't make everyone happy. So seriously hosts will definitely buy it. And who's complaining they will complain forever.

    Here's my attempt at making everyone happy and trying to stay close to the total revenue without actually having any of the subscription data. I tried to make it not sound complicated, but it definitely doesn't roll off the tongue as well as a simple price per core.

    • 20 euro base pricing per month per account
    • 2 euro base pricing per month per server
    • 0.50 euro per core per month per core

    So 25x smaller servers (4 core) with let's say 100 units of total processing power would cost 125 euros per month (yes, it would be more, that's how it ends up being fair and scaling properly though.)

    Then 10x larger servers (20 core) with, based on previous estimates, also 100 units of total processing power, would cost 140 euros per month.

    Much closer to being fair.

    And as quantities increase, the price of the support doesn't really increase to the same level (50 people getting support for 100 cores will most definitely cost more than 1 person getting support for 5,000 cores. I'm not saying the latter will use only the same amount of support as any other single person, they will obviously use much more than a single person with a lower quantity of servers, but it won't be 50x more either.)

    Anyway, that means 5,000 cores would cost perhaps, assuming an "average" of like 8 cores per server (this is a guesstimate, I don't know the actual average) ... 3,770 euros per month. Versus 5,000 euros per month.

    But they get paid more for the lower-quantity customers so it essentially would balance out. The numbers can be tweaked to be more accurate and generate the same revenue, but this way it would be fair to everyone and would attract everyone equally. It also wouldn't create a situation where providers get lower core count servers to save cost on licensing and essentially close any loopholes people could think of to abuse the way licensing is currently priced.

    But anyway, that's just how I would do it.

    (edit) Actually how I would do it would probably be something like $60/hr for support, as required (including any feature requests, maybe they could be crowdfunded.) Then I'd probably go for what @greattomeetyou said even though it's technically not fair just to have some free marketing. I would definitely try to limit it to semi-personal use though.

    Then estimate how many units we'd move and do that much per person, equal share. And any excess, after taking reasonable profit, re-invest the rest into a base level of free support and updates.

  • niyyieniyyie Member, Host Rep

    It's been over a year since you opened this thread.
    Did you decide on this potential project? Are you going ahead?
    I'd be interested - the price seems reasonable enough.

    is KVM support enough? = Yes
    or you absolutely need support for containers, and which one (VZ7/LXD/LXC/etc.) = I'm indifferent about containers. Their only practical use for me is big VMs intended for storage.
    just local storage, what kind = thinLVM or LVM
    or centralized storage as well, which one = NFS
    which networking features are a must right from the start = private IPs
    any other must-have features = share a block of storage between VMs

    Thanked by 1fleio
Sign In or Register to comment.