Re: Hosting recommendations ... ?
Thank you, everyone, for the advice, input, and suggestions, both on- and off-list. Got a few sales pitches too, which was to be expected. :) All good. Much appreciated, again. Cheers, - bryan On 1/19/21 4:44 PM, Bryan Holloway wrote: Hey gang ... Looking for a reputable (i.e., no hosting of spammers or other ne'er-do-wells) hosting provider with possibly a global footprint. If not, US is #1 desire; EU #2. Requirements, more or less: * Desire to host 2-3 hypervisors, probably running something akin to Proxmox ... * ~5-10TB storage with the possibility of expansion ... * 1G hand-off / 100 Mbps or less commit ... i.e., low BW, but burstable. * Bringing my own IP space and need to be able to peer BGP with vendor. * Cross-DC redundancy or mirroring or somesuch desirable. * Backups are of interest, although I can do my own if need be. Any recommendations that are non-Amazonian? Feel free to reach out off-list if you prefer. #1 requirement ... the reputability part ... Thank you all in advance! - bryan
Re: Hosting recommendations ... ?
- Original Message - > From: "Keith Medcalf" >>Is nested virtualization really a thing? > > Real Computers have been running VMs inside VMs for about 50 years. Bringing > this technology to "bitty boxes" is a recent thing. Sure, but VM is a bit more mature than KVM. :-) Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink j...@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274
Re: Hosting recommendations ... ?
On 1/19/21 10:56 AM, Bryan Holloway wrote: On 1/19/21 6:33 PM, Brandon Martin wrote: On 1/19/21 11:44 AM, William Herrin wrote: Cloud = you get virtual servers with virtual storage, generally adjustable to meet your needs. You manage the operating systems and storage within the virtual environment. You DO NOT manage the host operating systems or hypervisors. It's worth pointing out that nested virtualization is a thing these days, and some providers might even support it! That means you could buy one large instance and sub-divide it yourself into multiple VMs if you want to. In practice, unless you need that flexibility to dynamically spin the VMs up and down with various specs AND don't want to or cannot use a provider's API for that, I'm not sure why you'd want to if you didn't have to for some crazy reason. I mean, I'm not exactly trying to render Pixar's latest movie ... just trying to push some bits around (light web-sites, some e-mail ...) There is actually a happy medium. Spin up a large VM. Install Proxmox. But instead of spinning up heavy duty VM in KVM, or such, Proxmox knows how to spin up LXC containers. You get light performant segregation between applications without the duplication of kernel. Of course, if you need to run some sort of windows thingy that WinHQ can't solve, then you have the ability to spin up a 'heavy' VM. For native Linux apps, as I know how to do container networking directly, many times I just skip the ProxMox abstraction and run the LXC commands and IP commands directly. Raymond Burkholder blog: https://blog.raymond.burkholder.net
RE: Hosting recommendations ... ?
>Is nested virtualization really a thing? Real Computers have been running VMs inside VMs for about 50 years. Bringing this technology to "bitty boxes" is a recent thing. -- Be decisive. Make a decision, right or wrong. The road of life is paved with flat squirrels who could not make a decision.
Re: Hosting recommendations ... ?
On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 3:27 PM Brandon Martin wrote: > On 1/19/21 12:56 PM, Bryan Holloway wrote: > > > > I'm very curious about your assertion: > > > > Is nested virtualization really a thing? > > > > I mean, I'm not exactly trying to render Pixar's latest movie ... just > > trying to push some bits around (light web-sites, some e-mail ...) > > > > It just seems inherently prone to issues. > > > > Could you back this up with any white-papers or documentation on the > > subject? I'm genuinely interested ... > > With KVM, if you have a recent kernel and qemu, it pretty much "just > works" on supported hardware. AFAIK Xen supports "Xen on Xen", too, but > I haven't used it and don't know much about it. > > The use case is pretty much exactly this. You (the product consumer) > are handed a product that amounts to a virtual machine on somebody > else's $BIGBOX. You want to deploy multiple virtual machines where you > have direct control over their lifecycle, configuration, etc. and can > bring in additional I/O resources, etc. at the hypervisor level > (consider that, with KVM, the Linux kernel basically IS the hypervisor). > So, you run one or more VMs inside the top level VM that you're handed. > > It's full of lots of little wiggles and can be a pain to maintain if you > have visibility into both levels of the equation, but it does seem to > work and is surprisingly performant. > Nested virtualization is, however, pretty widely deployed for production workloads. Take for instance Juniper's vSRX and vMX products. Both require nested virtualization support as they run a Wind River Linux instance with KVM directly on your virtual machine which may be on vmware, KVM, Hyper-V, etc, and then Junos running nested within the WRL KVM virtual machine. So it's not like this is something that's uncommon or not trustworthy, lots of us are doing it every day with no serious problems and entirely acceptable performance on modern hardware. I run a decent fleet of vSRX's on Hyper-V and it works well. YMMV as always based on your own platform, but I don't think that nested virtualization is something that we should be steering clear of at this point. - mdh Matt Harris|Infrastructure Lead Engineer 816-256-5446|Direct Looking for something? Helpdesk Portal|Email Support|Billing Portal We build and deliver end-to-end IT solutions.
Re: Hosting recommendations ... ?
On 1/19/21 12:56 PM, Bryan Holloway wrote: I'm very curious about your assertion: Is nested virtualization really a thing? I mean, I'm not exactly trying to render Pixar's latest movie ... just trying to push some bits around (light web-sites, some e-mail ...) It just seems inherently prone to issues. Could you back this up with any white-papers or documentation on the subject? I'm genuinely interested ... With KVM, if you have a recent kernel and qemu, it pretty much "just works" on supported hardware. AFAIK Xen supports "Xen on Xen", too, but I haven't used it and don't know much about it. The use case is pretty much exactly this. You (the product consumer) are handed a product that amounts to a virtual machine on somebody else's $BIGBOX. You want to deploy multiple virtual machines where you have direct control over their lifecycle, configuration, etc. and can bring in additional I/O resources, etc. at the hypervisor level (consider that, with KVM, the Linux kernel basically IS the hypervisor). So, you run one or more VMs inside the top level VM that you're handed. It's full of lots of little wiggles and can be a pain to maintain if you have visibility into both levels of the equation, but it does seem to work and is surprisingly performant. See e.g. https://tips.graphica.com.au/nested-kvm/ -- Brandon Martin
Re: Hosting recommendations ... ?
On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 10:50:31AM -0800, William Herrin wrote: > I use Vultr for my primary BGP exit and have found it largely > painless. The VMs I have there DO NOT support nested virtualization. That's odd, I have run Xen in standard Vultr VMs, and it works. It's not fast, though. Thanks, Ward.
Re: Hosting recommendations ... ?
I would look at https://www.webhostingtalk.com forums and specifically the "Dedicated Hosting Offers" forums https://www.webhostingtalk.com/forumdisplay.php?f=36 for providers and deals. On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 1:34 PM Forrest Christian (List Account) < li...@packetflux.com> wrote: > Maybe this will help: > > I use vultr. I have also brought my own address space and am announcing > it to them from one of their instances (vm's) with BGP. They are set up > such that you can use a private AS if you don't have your own and are ok > with them announcing this from their AS (after they strip off the private > as). > > If you told me right this second that you needed a Ubuntu Server spun up, > I could be logged into the interface, select a location/size and have it > running within 60 seconds - with the complete Ubuntu install done. Most of > my instances are running under their $5 plan which is 25GB of disk space, 1 > CPU, 1G of memory, and 1TB of transfer. Oh, and one or two are on the $6 > plan which has slightly more disk and is on a faster CPU. They > obviously have various options that go up from there all the way to > dedicated servers. In a couple of locations, they also have a smaller > IPv6-only server for $2.50. > > I haven't found anything I need anything larger than their $5 or $6 plan > for, but I also am not running any heavy workloads. Basically a static > webpage, a ticketing system, a couple of DNS servers, and the like. I'm > currently testing voip(Asterisk) on the platform as well, and based on > testing so far will likely be moving it into full production in the next > few weeks. > > I used ubuntu as an example, they also have all of the mainstream linux > distros and the BSD's and I think in some locations windows available. > They also have a pretty good selection of preconfigured applications (aka > common CMS'es, eCommerce platforms, etc). All of these are in the ~60 > seconds to spin up category. You can also upload your own ISO or use a > pre-uploaded one from their library of less commonly used > applications/operating systems. > > I've been running on the platform for about a year after having enough of > a shared hosting provider for some of the stuff and running on my own metal > in a datacenter for other stuff. So far I'm very happy with them. > > If you want to try them out, I noticed as I logged in to look up what the > $5 service includes that they're running a a "refer a friend and they get > $100 to test the service" promo. I normally don't pass on referral codes > but I figured if you're evaluating this you might want the $100 credit (for > up to 30 days of service). If so, the link for that offer is > https://www.vultr.com/?ref=8776996-6G . > > On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 10:39 AM Bryan Holloway wrote: > >> You make an excellent point, Martijn ... (and I suspect this is what >> Bill was pointing out ...) >> >> Virtualization on top of virtualization is inherently not the best idea. >> >> I guess I'm looking for flexibility in the sense of being able to spin >> up additional VMs at my leisure. In which case #2 could be suitable in >> the right environment. >> >> ... in which case SLAs would be tantamount to success ... >> >> So ... that said, any recommendations? :) >> >> >> On 1/19/21 6:32 PM, Martijn Schmidt wrote: >> > For #1, are you trying to do "Cloud-ception" e.g. running your own >> > proxmox virtualization on top of an already virtual machine, so that >> > you're basically two layers deep? >> > >> > For #2, of course you need to be able to survive a hardware failure >> > (using RAID1 or some flavour of DRBD for example) but having to think >> > about such things is the "trade-off" of having access to the bare-metal >> > layer.. it does have advantages, for example if you want to install >> your >> > own virtualization layer without any involvement from the hosting >> > provider. You'd usually have agreements with the hosting provider about >> > how/when hardware replacements would be done. >> > >> > Best regards, >> > Martijn >> > >> > *From:* NANOG on >> behalf >> > of Bryan Holloway >> > *Sent:* 19 January 2021 18:18 >> > *To:* William Herrin >> > *Cc:* NANOG list >> > *Subject:* Re: Hosting recommendations ... ? >> > Perhaps I'm missing something, but in your #1 example "Cloud", what >> > prevents me from running a Proxmox ISO (which is more or less Debian) >>
Re: Hosting recommendations ... ?
On 1/19/21 1:50 PM, William Herrin wrote: I haven't used Proxmox but from a 60 second glance through Google that looks like you're asking for nested virtualization. If it works at all, you'd take a double-hit on everything that wants to run in ring 0, a double-hit on virtualized I/O and a double-hit for OS overhead making the result more than a little sluggish. Kinda has "bad idea" written all over it. KVM, at least, and I think Xen as well, have some features for "shunting" I/O and hypervisor calls through to the bare-metal hypervisor where possible and avoiding double processing and trampolining. It's not nearly as bad as you might think in terms of performance as long as the hardware supports it (nested page tables being the big one). The little I've played with it mostly has proven to be an administrative hassle rather than performance. I would not recommend mixing and matching hypervisors (e.g. Xen on KVM or vice-versa), though. I'm not even sure you can do so meaningfully, though I bet someone's working on it. -- Brandon Martin
Re: Hosting recommendations ... ?
Proxmox specifically isn't much more than a wrapper for standard Linux KVM, which can support nested virtualization. In my limited experience with nesting, it doesn't work half bad as one would expect, but I haven't used it in a stressed environment with anything substantial running that way. On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 1:53 PM William Herrin wrote: > On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 9:18 AM Bryan Holloway wrote: > > Perhaps I'm missing something, but in your #1 example "Cloud", what > > prevents me from running a Proxmox ISO (which is more or less Debian) > > vs. a "standard" Debian install on the provider's virtual server? > > Hi Bryan, > > I haven't used Proxmox but from a 60 second glance through Google that > looks like you're asking for nested virtualization. If it works at > all, you'd take a double-hit on everything that wants to run in ring > 0, a double-hit on virtualized I/O and a double-hit for OS overhead > making the result more than a little sluggish. Kinda has "bad idea" > written all over it. > > As I understand it, you can "cat /sys/module/kvm*/parameters/nested" > in one of the service provider's VMs and if the answer is "1" or "Y" > for the CPU type which matches the exposed CPU then what you're asking > for will probably work. For some definition of work anyway. > > > I use Vultr for my primary BGP exit and have found it largely > painless. The VMs I have there DO NOT support nested virtualization. > They do claim a bare metal offering but it's currently listed as sold > out in all of their data centers. They also claim to provide mountable > block storage for compute instances up to 10TB per, but I haven't > worked with that feature, I presume it only applies to virtual > servers, and it looks like it's only available in one of their data > centers. > > Regards, > Bill Herrin > > > > -- > Hire me! https://bill.herrin.us/resume/ >
Re: Hosting recommendations ... ?
On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 9:18 AM Bryan Holloway wrote: > Perhaps I'm missing something, but in your #1 example "Cloud", what > prevents me from running a Proxmox ISO (which is more or less Debian) > vs. a "standard" Debian install on the provider's virtual server? Hi Bryan, I haven't used Proxmox but from a 60 second glance through Google that looks like you're asking for nested virtualization. If it works at all, you'd take a double-hit on everything that wants to run in ring 0, a double-hit on virtualized I/O and a double-hit for OS overhead making the result more than a little sluggish. Kinda has "bad idea" written all over it. As I understand it, you can "cat /sys/module/kvm*/parameters/nested" in one of the service provider's VMs and if the answer is "1" or "Y" for the CPU type which matches the exposed CPU then what you're asking for will probably work. For some definition of work anyway. I use Vultr for my primary BGP exit and have found it largely painless. The VMs I have there DO NOT support nested virtualization. They do claim a bare metal offering but it's currently listed as sold out in all of their data centers. They also claim to provide mountable block storage for compute instances up to 10TB per, but I haven't worked with that feature, I presume it only applies to virtual servers, and it looks like it's only available in one of their data centers. Regards, Bill Herrin -- Hire me! https://bill.herrin.us/resume/
Re: Hosting recommendations ... ?
Maybe this will help: I use vultr. I have also brought my own address space and am announcing it to them from one of their instances (vm's) with BGP. They are set up such that you can use a private AS if you don't have your own and are ok with them announcing this from their AS (after they strip off the private as). If you told me right this second that you needed a Ubuntu Server spun up, I could be logged into the interface, select a location/size and have it running within 60 seconds - with the complete Ubuntu install done. Most of my instances are running under their $5 plan which is 25GB of disk space, 1 CPU, 1G of memory, and 1TB of transfer. Oh, and one or two are on the $6 plan which has slightly more disk and is on a faster CPU. They obviously have various options that go up from there all the way to dedicated servers. In a couple of locations, they also have a smaller IPv6-only server for $2.50. I haven't found anything I need anything larger than their $5 or $6 plan for, but I also am not running any heavy workloads. Basically a static webpage, a ticketing system, a couple of DNS servers, and the like. I'm currently testing voip(Asterisk) on the platform as well, and based on testing so far will likely be moving it into full production in the next few weeks. I used ubuntu as an example, they also have all of the mainstream linux distros and the BSD's and I think in some locations windows available. They also have a pretty good selection of preconfigured applications (aka common CMS'es, eCommerce platforms, etc). All of these are in the ~60 seconds to spin up category. You can also upload your own ISO or use a pre-uploaded one from their library of less commonly used applications/operating systems. I've been running on the platform for about a year after having enough of a shared hosting provider for some of the stuff and running on my own metal in a datacenter for other stuff. So far I'm very happy with them. If you want to try them out, I noticed as I logged in to look up what the $5 service includes that they're running a a "refer a friend and they get $100 to test the service" promo. I normally don't pass on referral codes but I figured if you're evaluating this you might want the $100 credit (for up to 30 days of service). If so, the link for that offer is https://www.vultr.com/?ref=8776996-6G . On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 10:39 AM Bryan Holloway wrote: > You make an excellent point, Martijn ... (and I suspect this is what > Bill was pointing out ...) > > Virtualization on top of virtualization is inherently not the best idea. > > I guess I'm looking for flexibility in the sense of being able to spin > up additional VMs at my leisure. In which case #2 could be suitable in > the right environment. > > ... in which case SLAs would be tantamount to success ... > > So ... that said, any recommendations? :) > > > On 1/19/21 6:32 PM, Martijn Schmidt wrote: > > For #1, are you trying to do "Cloud-ception" e.g. running your own > > proxmox virtualization on top of an already virtual machine, so that > > you're basically two layers deep? > > > > For #2, of course you need to be able to survive a hardware failure > > (using RAID1 or some flavour of DRBD for example) but having to think > > about such things is the "trade-off" of having access to the bare-metal > > layer.. it does have advantages, for example if you want to install your > > own virtualization layer without any involvement from the hosting > > provider. You'd usually have agreements with the hosting provider about > > how/when hardware replacements would be done. > > > > Best regards, > > Martijn > > -------- > > *From:* NANOG on > behalf > > of Bryan Holloway > > *Sent:* 19 January 2021 18:18 > > *To:* William Herrin > > *Cc:* NANOG list > > *Subject:* Re: Hosting recommendations ... ? > > Perhaps I'm missing something, but in your #1 example "Cloud", what > > prevents me from running a Proxmox ISO (which is more or less Debian) > > vs. a "standard" Debian install on the provider's virtual server? > > > > If I can, I've succeeded. That is the sort of hosting provider I'm > > looking for, if they exist. > > > > #2 would be suitable, but it seems to be that if leased bare-metal dies, > > it will be some time for ETR. Less desirable, but I'm open to ideas. > > > > #3 I do now. Trying to move away from that. > > > > > > On 1/19/21 5:44 PM, William Herrin wrote: > >> On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 8:31 AM Bryan Holloway wrote: > >>> I would like to stop personally dealing with bare-metal. That's what > I'm > >>&
Re: Hosting recommendations ... ?
On 1/19/21 9:33 AM, Brandon Martin wrote: On 1/19/21 11:44 AM, William Herrin wrote: Cloud = you get virtual servers with virtual storage, generally adjustable to meet your needs. You manage the operating systems and storage within the virtual environment. You DO NOT manage the host operating systems or hypervisors. It's worth pointing out that nested virtualization is a thing these days, and some providers might even support it! That means you could buy one large instance and sub-divide it yourself into multiple VMs if you want to. In practice, unless you need that flexibility to dynamically spin the VMs up and down with various specs AND don't want to or cannot use a provider's API for that, I'm not sure why you'd want to if you didn't have to for some crazy reason. Except for the problem that you pay a premium for larger vm's. you can't compete with t instances on aws, for starters. Mike
Re: Hosting recommendations ... ?
On 1/19/21 6:33 PM, Brandon Martin wrote: On 1/19/21 11:44 AM, William Herrin wrote: Cloud = you get virtual servers with virtual storage, generally adjustable to meet your needs. You manage the operating systems and storage within the virtual environment. You DO NOT manage the host operating systems or hypervisors. It's worth pointing out that nested virtualization is a thing these days, and some providers might even support it! That means you could buy one large instance and sub-divide it yourself into multiple VMs if you want to. In practice, unless you need that flexibility to dynamically spin the VMs up and down with various specs AND don't want to or cannot use a provider's API for that, I'm not sure why you'd want to if you didn't have to for some crazy reason. I'm very curious about your assertion: Is nested virtualization really a thing? I mean, I'm not exactly trying to render Pixar's latest movie ... just trying to push some bits around (light web-sites, some e-mail ...) It just seems inherently prone to issues. Could you back this up with any white-papers or documentation on the subject? I'm genuinely interested ... - bryan
Re: Hosting recommendations ... ?
AceHost.com or Hivelocity. Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/ghei36> From: NANOG on behalf of Bryan Holloway Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2021 12:37:14 PM To: Martijn Schmidt ; William Herrin Cc: NANOG list Subject: Re: Hosting recommendations ... ? You make an excellent point, Martijn ... (and I suspect this is what Bill was pointing out ...) Virtualization on top of virtualization is inherently not the best idea. I guess I'm looking for flexibility in the sense of being able to spin up additional VMs at my leisure. In which case #2 could be suitable in the right environment. ... in which case SLAs would be tantamount to success ... So ... that said, any recommendations? :) On 1/19/21 6:32 PM, Martijn Schmidt wrote: > For #1, are you trying to do "Cloud-ception" e.g. running your own > proxmox virtualization on top of an already virtual machine, so that > you're basically two layers deep? > > For #2, of course you need to be able to survive a hardware failure > (using RAID1 or some flavour of DRBD for example) but having to think > about such things is the "trade-off" of having access to the bare-metal > layer.. it does have advantages, for example if you want to install your > own virtualization layer without any involvement from the hosting > provider. You'd usually have agreements with the hosting provider about > how/when hardware replacements would be done. > > Best regards, > Martijn > > *From:* NANOG on behalf > of Bryan Holloway > *Sent:* 19 January 2021 18:18 > *To:* William Herrin > *Cc:* NANOG list > *Subject:* Re: Hosting recommendations ... ? > Perhaps I'm missing something, but in your #1 example "Cloud", what > prevents me from running a Proxmox ISO (which is more or less Debian) > vs. a "standard" Debian install on the provider's virtual server? > > If I can, I've succeeded. That is the sort of hosting provider I'm > looking for, if they exist. > > #2 would be suitable, but it seems to be that if leased bare-metal dies, > it will be some time for ETR. Less desirable, but I'm open to ideas. > > #3 I do now. Trying to move away from that. > > > On 1/19/21 5:44 PM, William Herrin wrote: >> On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 8:31 AM Bryan Holloway wrote: >>> I would like to stop personally dealing with bare-metal. That's what I'm >>> doing now. >> >> Hi Bryan, >> >> Cloud = you get virtual servers with virtual storage, generally >> adjustable to meet your needs. You manage the operating systems and >> storage within the virtual environment. You DO NOT manage the host >> operating systems or hypervisors. >> >> Bare metal = you lease physical equipment. You manage all software on >> the equipment including any hypervisors needed to run virtual servers. >> You DO NOT deal with hardware break/fix, that problem belongs to the >> service provider. >> >> Colocation = You lease space in a data center. You provide physical >> equipment in your custom configuration. >> >> With this terminology, at least one of your requirements is unmeetable >> for contradicting the others. So I ask again for clarification: which >> of these do you seek? >> >> Regards, >> Bill Herrin >>
Re: Hosting recommendations ... ?
You make an excellent point, Martijn ... (and I suspect this is what Bill was pointing out ...) Virtualization on top of virtualization is inherently not the best idea. I guess I'm looking for flexibility in the sense of being able to spin up additional VMs at my leisure. In which case #2 could be suitable in the right environment. ... in which case SLAs would be tantamount to success ... So ... that said, any recommendations? :) On 1/19/21 6:32 PM, Martijn Schmidt wrote: For #1, are you trying to do "Cloud-ception" e.g. running your own proxmox virtualization on top of an already virtual machine, so that you're basically two layers deep? For #2, of course you need to be able to survive a hardware failure (using RAID1 or some flavour of DRBD for example) but having to think about such things is the "trade-off" of having access to the bare-metal layer.. it does have advantages, for example if you want to install your own virtualization layer without any involvement from the hosting provider. You'd usually have agreements with the hosting provider about how/when hardware replacements would be done. Best regards, Martijn *From:* NANOG on behalf of Bryan Holloway *Sent:* 19 January 2021 18:18 *To:* William Herrin *Cc:* NANOG list *Subject:* Re: Hosting recommendations ... ? Perhaps I'm missing something, but in your #1 example "Cloud", what prevents me from running a Proxmox ISO (which is more or less Debian) vs. a "standard" Debian install on the provider's virtual server? If I can, I've succeeded. That is the sort of hosting provider I'm looking for, if they exist. #2 would be suitable, but it seems to be that if leased bare-metal dies, it will be some time for ETR. Less desirable, but I'm open to ideas. #3 I do now. Trying to move away from that. On 1/19/21 5:44 PM, William Herrin wrote: On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 8:31 AM Bryan Holloway wrote: I would like to stop personally dealing with bare-metal. That's what I'm doing now. Hi Bryan, Cloud = you get virtual servers with virtual storage, generally adjustable to meet your needs. You manage the operating systems and storage within the virtual environment. You DO NOT manage the host operating systems or hypervisors. Bare metal = you lease physical equipment. You manage all software on the equipment including any hypervisors needed to run virtual servers. You DO NOT deal with hardware break/fix, that problem belongs to the service provider. Colocation = You lease space in a data center. You provide physical equipment in your custom configuration. With this terminology, at least one of your requirements is unmeetable for contradicting the others. So I ask again for clarification: which of these do you seek? Regards, Bill Herrin
Re: Hosting recommendations ... ?
On 1/19/21 11:44 AM, William Herrin wrote: Cloud = you get virtual servers with virtual storage, generally adjustable to meet your needs. You manage the operating systems and storage within the virtual environment. You DO NOT manage the host operating systems or hypervisors. It's worth pointing out that nested virtualization is a thing these days, and some providers might even support it! That means you could buy one large instance and sub-divide it yourself into multiple VMs if you want to. In practice, unless you need that flexibility to dynamically spin the VMs up and down with various specs AND don't want to or cannot use a provider's API for that, I'm not sure why you'd want to if you didn't have to for some crazy reason. -- Brandon Martin
Re: Hosting recommendations ... ?
For #1, are you trying to do "Cloud-ception" e.g. running your own proxmox virtualization on top of an already virtual machine, so that you're basically two layers deep? For #2, of course you need to be able to survive a hardware failure (using RAID1 or some flavour of DRBD for example) but having to think about such things is the "trade-off" of having access to the bare-metal layer.. it does have advantages, for example if you want to install your own virtualization layer without any involvement from the hosting provider. You'd usually have agreements with the hosting provider about how/when hardware replacements would be done. Best regards, Martijn From: NANOG on behalf of Bryan Holloway Sent: 19 January 2021 18:18 To: William Herrin Cc: NANOG list Subject: Re: Hosting recommendations ... ? Perhaps I'm missing something, but in your #1 example "Cloud", what prevents me from running a Proxmox ISO (which is more or less Debian) vs. a "standard" Debian install on the provider's virtual server? If I can, I've succeeded. That is the sort of hosting provider I'm looking for, if they exist. #2 would be suitable, but it seems to be that if leased bare-metal dies, it will be some time for ETR. Less desirable, but I'm open to ideas. #3 I do now. Trying to move away from that. On 1/19/21 5:44 PM, William Herrin wrote: > On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 8:31 AM Bryan Holloway wrote: >> I would like to stop personally dealing with bare-metal. That's what I'm >> doing now. > > Hi Bryan, > > Cloud = you get virtual servers with virtual storage, generally > adjustable to meet your needs. You manage the operating systems and > storage within the virtual environment. You DO NOT manage the host > operating systems or hypervisors. > > Bare metal = you lease physical equipment. You manage all software on > the equipment including any hypervisors needed to run virtual servers. > You DO NOT deal with hardware break/fix, that problem belongs to the > service provider. > > Colocation = You lease space in a data center. You provide physical > equipment in your custom configuration. > > With this terminology, at least one of your requirements is unmeetable > for contradicting the others. So I ask again for clarification: which > of these do you seek? > > Regards, > Bill Herrin >
Re: Hosting recommendations ... ?
I would assume that anyone providing a dedicated server has the means to facilitate timely hardware replacements. Ask for their SLA on that. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com - Original Message - From: "Bryan Holloway" To: "William Herrin" Cc: "NANOG list" Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2021 11:18:03 AM Subject: Re: Hosting recommendations ... ? Perhaps I'm missing something, but in your #1 example "Cloud", what prevents me from running a Proxmox ISO (which is more or less Debian) vs. a "standard" Debian install on the provider's virtual server? If I can, I've succeeded. That is the sort of hosting provider I'm looking for, if they exist. #2 would be suitable, but it seems to be that if leased bare-metal dies, it will be some time for ETR. Less desirable, but I'm open to ideas. #3 I do now. Trying to move away from that. On 1/19/21 5:44 PM, William Herrin wrote: > On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 8:31 AM Bryan Holloway wrote: >> I would like to stop personally dealing with bare-metal. That's what I'm >> doing now. > > Hi Bryan, > > Cloud = you get virtual servers with virtual storage, generally > adjustable to meet your needs. You manage the operating systems and > storage within the virtual environment. You DO NOT manage the host > operating systems or hypervisors. > > Bare metal = you lease physical equipment. You manage all software on > the equipment including any hypervisors needed to run virtual servers. > You DO NOT deal with hardware break/fix, that problem belongs to the > service provider. > > Colocation = You lease space in a data center. You provide physical > equipment in your custom configuration. > > With this terminology, at least one of your requirements is unmeetable > for contradicting the others. So I ask again for clarification: which > of these do you seek? > > Regards, > Bill Herrin >
Re: Hosting recommendations ... ?
I'm not sure spammers and AS paths really go together. Josh Luthman 24/7 Help Desk: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 11:27 AM William Herrin wrote: > On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 8:20 AM Josh Luthman > wrote: > > I'm kind of confused when your concern is the reputability and yet > you're providing your own IP space. > > Hi Josh, > > I'm not above discarding announcements with a "bulletproof" hoster in > the AS path. Are you? > > Regards, > Bill Herrin > > On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 8:20 AM Josh Luthman > wrote: > > > > I'm kind of confused when your concern is the reputability and yet > you're providing your own IP space. > > > > It sounds more to me like you want to put 2-3 boxes in a data center. > For that pretty much any decent sized data center in any state would work > for the US. > > > > Josh Luthman > > 24/7 Help Desk: 937-552-2340 > > Direct: 937-552-2343 > > 1100 Wayne St > > Suite 1337 > > Troy, OH 45373 > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 11:14 AM William Herrin wrote: > >> > >> On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 7:45 AM Bryan Holloway wrote: > >> > Looking for a reputable (i.e., no hosting of spammers or other > >> > ne'er-do-wells) hosting provider with possibly a global footprint. If > >> > not, US is #1 desire; EU #2. > >> > > >> > >> > * Desire to host 2-3 hypervisors, probably running something akin to > >> > Proxmox ... > >> > * ~5-10TB storage with the possibility of expansion ... > >> > >> Howdy, > >> > >> You should clarify what sort of hosting service you're looking for. A > >> normal cloud service won't see you running your own hypervisors. A > >> server farm will see you deploy your own hardware with whatever > >> storage you choose to install. Only a "bare metal" cloud service would > >> meet both of your listed requirements, where you lease both the > >> equipment and hosting service from the provider. However, combined > >> with your BGP requirement your options are very limited and expanding > >> storage usually means "lease a different one of our servers." > >> > >> Regards, > >> Bill Herrin > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Hire me! https://bill.herrin.us/resume/ > > > > -- > Hire me! https://bill.herrin.us/resume/ >
Re: Hosting recommendations ... ?
Perhaps I'm missing something, but in your #1 example "Cloud", what prevents me from running a Proxmox ISO (which is more or less Debian) vs. a "standard" Debian install on the provider's virtual server? If I can, I've succeeded. That is the sort of hosting provider I'm looking for, if they exist. #2 would be suitable, but it seems to be that if leased bare-metal dies, it will be some time for ETR. Less desirable, but I'm open to ideas. #3 I do now. Trying to move away from that. On 1/19/21 5:44 PM, William Herrin wrote: On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 8:31 AM Bryan Holloway wrote: I would like to stop personally dealing with bare-metal. That's what I'm doing now. Hi Bryan, Cloud = you get virtual servers with virtual storage, generally adjustable to meet your needs. You manage the operating systems and storage within the virtual environment. You DO NOT manage the host operating systems or hypervisors. Bare metal = you lease physical equipment. You manage all software on the equipment including any hypervisors needed to run virtual servers. You DO NOT deal with hardware break/fix, that problem belongs to the service provider. Colocation = You lease space in a data center. You provide physical equipment in your custom configuration. With this terminology, at least one of your requirements is unmeetable for contradicting the others. So I ask again for clarification: which of these do you seek? Regards, Bill Herrin
Re: Hosting recommendations ... ?
On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 8:31 AM Bryan Holloway wrote: > I would like to stop personally dealing with bare-metal. That's what I'm > doing now. Hi Bryan, Cloud = you get virtual servers with virtual storage, generally adjustable to meet your needs. You manage the operating systems and storage within the virtual environment. You DO NOT manage the host operating systems or hypervisors. Bare metal = you lease physical equipment. You manage all software on the equipment including any hypervisors needed to run virtual servers. You DO NOT deal with hardware break/fix, that problem belongs to the service provider. Colocation = You lease space in a data center. You provide physical equipment in your custom configuration. With this terminology, at least one of your requirements is unmeetable for contradicting the others. So I ask again for clarification: which of these do you seek? Regards, Bill Herrin
Re: Hosting recommendations ... ?
Fair questions -- answers in-line ... On 1/19/21 5:19 PM, Josh Luthman wrote: I'm kind of confused when your concern is the reputability and yet you're providing your own IP space. I care about the hosting environment's upstreams' opinions of the downstream. That is, I don't want to be in a situation where some jamoke (or jamokes) does something which affects me from a collateral damage standpoint. It sounds more to me like you want to put 2-3 boxes in a data center. For that pretty much any decent sized data center in any state would work for the US. I would like to stop personally dealing with bare-metal. That's what I'm doing now.
Re: Hosting recommendations ... ?
On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 8:20 AM Josh Luthman wrote: > I'm kind of confused when your concern is the reputability and yet you're > providing your own IP space. Hi Josh, I'm not above discarding announcements with a "bulletproof" hoster in the AS path. Are you? Regards, Bill Herrin On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 8:20 AM Josh Luthman wrote: > > I'm kind of confused when your concern is the reputability and yet you're > providing your own IP space. > > It sounds more to me like you want to put 2-3 boxes in a data center. For > that pretty much any decent sized data center in any state would work for the > US. > > Josh Luthman > 24/7 Help Desk: 937-552-2340 > Direct: 937-552-2343 > 1100 Wayne St > Suite 1337 > Troy, OH 45373 > > > On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 11:14 AM William Herrin wrote: >> >> On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 7:45 AM Bryan Holloway wrote: >> > Looking for a reputable (i.e., no hosting of spammers or other >> > ne'er-do-wells) hosting provider with possibly a global footprint. If >> > not, US is #1 desire; EU #2. >> > >> >> > * Desire to host 2-3 hypervisors, probably running something akin to >> > Proxmox ... >> > * ~5-10TB storage with the possibility of expansion ... >> >> Howdy, >> >> You should clarify what sort of hosting service you're looking for. A >> normal cloud service won't see you running your own hypervisors. A >> server farm will see you deploy your own hardware with whatever >> storage you choose to install. Only a "bare metal" cloud service would >> meet both of your listed requirements, where you lease both the >> equipment and hosting service from the provider. However, combined >> with your BGP requirement your options are very limited and expanding >> storage usually means "lease a different one of our servers." >> >> Regards, >> Bill Herrin >> >> >> >> -- >> Hire me! https://bill.herrin.us/resume/ -- Hire me! https://bill.herrin.us/resume/
Re: Hosting recommendations ... ?
I'm kind of confused when your concern is the reputability and yet you're providing your own IP space. It sounds more to me like you want to put 2-3 boxes in a data center. For that pretty much any decent sized data center in any state would work for the US. Josh Luthman 24/7 Help Desk: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 11:14 AM William Herrin wrote: > On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 7:45 AM Bryan Holloway wrote: > > Looking for a reputable (i.e., no hosting of spammers or other > > ne'er-do-wells) hosting provider with possibly a global footprint. If > > not, US is #1 desire; EU #2. > > > > > * Desire to host 2-3 hypervisors, probably running something akin to > > Proxmox ... > > * ~5-10TB storage with the possibility of expansion ... > > Howdy, > > You should clarify what sort of hosting service you're looking for. A > normal cloud service won't see you running your own hypervisors. A > server farm will see you deploy your own hardware with whatever > storage you choose to install. Only a "bare metal" cloud service would > meet both of your listed requirements, where you lease both the > equipment and hosting service from the provider. However, combined > with your BGP requirement your options are very limited and expanding > storage usually means "lease a different one of our servers." > > Regards, > Bill Herrin > > > > -- > Hire me! https://bill.herrin.us/resume/ >
Re: Hosting recommendations ... ?
On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 7:45 AM Bryan Holloway wrote: > Looking for a reputable (i.e., no hosting of spammers or other > ne'er-do-wells) hosting provider with possibly a global footprint. If > not, US is #1 desire; EU #2. > > * Desire to host 2-3 hypervisors, probably running something akin to > Proxmox ... > * ~5-10TB storage with the possibility of expansion ... Howdy, You should clarify what sort of hosting service you're looking for. A normal cloud service won't see you running your own hypervisors. A server farm will see you deploy your own hardware with whatever storage you choose to install. Only a "bare metal" cloud service would meet both of your listed requirements, where you lease both the equipment and hosting service from the provider. However, combined with your BGP requirement your options are very limited and expanding storage usually means "lease a different one of our servers." Regards, Bill Herrin -- Hire me! https://bill.herrin.us/resume/
Hosting recommendations ... ?
Hey gang ... Looking for a reputable (i.e., no hosting of spammers or other ne'er-do-wells) hosting provider with possibly a global footprint. If not, US is #1 desire; EU #2. Requirements, more or less: * Desire to host 2-3 hypervisors, probably running something akin to Proxmox ... * ~5-10TB storage with the possibility of expansion ... * 1G hand-off / 100 Mbps or less commit ... i.e., low BW, but burstable. * Bringing my own IP space and need to be able to peer BGP with vendor. * Cross-DC redundancy or mirroring or somesuch desirable. * Backups are of interest, although I can do my own if need be. Any recommendations that are non-Amazonian? Feel free to reach out off-list if you prefer. #1 requirement ... the reputability part ... Thank you all in advance! - bryan
Hosting recommendations
Fellow NANOGers, I realize the list rules prohibit people advertising/pushing their own products or companies, so I hope this doesn’t break that rule by asking. I’d like some recommendations for a solid hosting provider. Nothing hugely extensive. About 50 IMAP email users, basic web hosting for a few domains, some mailman lists and that’s about it. I’ve had us with our current host for several years but their e-mail infrastructure has been increasingly unreliable the last couple years. I don’t really want to go through the headache of switching providers but if it means less problems down the road, I’ll definitely do it. I have self-hosted in the past but it was a big enough challenge that I won’t go that route again. So, what do y’all recommend for a solid provider? Thank you in advance! Andy Ringsmuth a...@newslink.com News Link – Manager Travel, Technology & Facilities 2201 Winthrop Rd., Lincoln, NE 68502-4158 (402) 475-6397(402) 304-0083 cellular
