Benutzer:Stp/private infrastructure/provider comparison

General -> good things, great features -> criticism -> pricing -> good or not for our infrastructure? (layout for each fulltext)

Rackspace

Rackspace as the founder of the openstack initiative has a great relationship to opensource communities, which is providing customers with more choices and ease to switch providers. The usual virtual machines and block storage (ssd or disk) are provided. Furthermore a wide range of other services (mysql, loadbalancers, object storage, etc.) are offered. The object storage with the ability to use Akamai as CDN and additional features (expiring objects, static site hosting, etc.) is something to consider for public objects. Hosting with Rackspace provides you with a lot of choices, backed by opensource projects. Switching providers is made easier compared to others. The hosting location and Rackspace being an US company raises privacy concerns.
Rackspace is providing dedicated servers and the ability to connect them to virtual machines to provide a hybrid hosting solution, but one of the key components for the "private infrastructure" is data privacy and therefore Rackspace is not usable for the planned infrastructure.
(Virtual machines, block storage and object storage are considered for cloud-bursting of public data)

Amazon Webservices

AWS is the biggest cloud provider in the market. Key products include virtual machines (EC2), block storage (EBS) and object storage (S3). AWS gives you a great amount of additional services (mysql, nosql, loadbalancer, etc.). Using these gives the possibility to develop less and strengthen your key ideas(code).
The downside of using AWS, especially the additional services, is lock-in. It is not easy to switch providers if you need to. Another downside is the server location and US company status.
Building projects/services on-top of AWS is great, but considering no dedicated servers, the lock-in problem and the privacy issues, AWS is not usable for the planned infrastructure.
(No consideration for cloud-bursting weighting the closed infrastructure)

Google Compute Engine

Google Compute Engine is providing virtual machines on a massive scale to customers. With products such as object storage (Cloud Storage) and services for crunching massive amounts of data. Google has entered the market late, but is providing a great deal of products. It is designed for more specialized workloads (data crunching, batch-processing etc.) and not as general purpose as AWS and Rackspace. As with AWS, Google is using a closed system and lock-in problems can arise, furthermore no dedicated servers can be provided.<br\> (No consideration for cloud-bursting weighting the closed infrastructure)

domainFactory

DomainFactory is one of a few "Cloud providers" in Germany, where you have the possibility to scale as you need. (Jiffybox.de) With all locations within Germany data privacy is no issue with domainFactory. Additional products available are shared hosting and managed servers, unfortunately no dedicated servers can be purchased and therefore we can not host the private infrastructure within their ecosystem. (Jiffybox could not be considered for cloud-bursting, because of missing api compatibility to scalr)

Noris

Noris is providing datacenter services to subcompanies (providing colocation). They sell shared hosting and virtual machines, therefore they were dismissed, after the decision for not using colocation was made.
(Mainlab could not be considered for cloud-bursting, because of missing api compatibility to scalr)

inter.net

Inter.net is providing dedicated servers and colocation with a few great features like high availability and load balancing. Additionally shared hosting and virtual machines can be purchased. Inter.net is providing great products and a great infrastructure within their datacenter. For the planned infrastructure dedicated servers from inter.net were considered, but in the end not used as a result of a higher price for less resources than possible from other providers.

mainlab.de

Mainlab is providing virtual machines and colocation through (rackbase.de) to their costumers. No detailed information looked up.<br\> (Mainlab could not be considered for cloud-bursting, because of missing api compatibility to scalr)

rh-tec.de

With colocation and dedicated server hardware provided rh-tec started out as a reasonable possibility for hosting the private infrastructure, but the dedicated servers are not commodity hardware and therefore have a bad pricing point compared to other commodity hardware products. For the private infrastructure with failure handling build in, paying more for a non commodity server is not resulting in great availability gains and therefore is something not worth it. As a result rh-tec.de is not usable for the private infrastructure.

interxion.com

Interxion.com has a wide range of server housing locations and is considered a great place for multi datacenter colocation solutions. Data privacy depends on the chosen datacenter location. Be careful.<br\> Interxion was dismissed from the list of considered providers, after the decision for not using colocation was made.

imt-systems.com

From shared hosting over dedicated servers to colocation imt-systems is providing a few solutions for their customers, but with the decision not to use colocation and only non commodity server leasing available, the choices was made to not use imt-systems for the planned infrastructure.

datacenter.de

Datacenter.de was dismissed from the list of considered providers, after the decision for not using colocation was made. No detailed information was dug up, as the provider was only supplying colocation and virtual machines.
(Datacenter.de could not be considered for cloud-bursting, because of missing api compatibility to scalr)

Vollmar.net

[TODO: critism about providers] [TODO: price aspects -> price winner] [TODO: feature pricing ...hetzner] [TODO: additional features available/ease of use relevant to project] [TODO: summary which provider was choosen and why in the end]