HP Cloud now in Public Beta | Hacker News Reader

HP Cloud now in Public Beta

hpcloud.com

21 pointsridruejo18 comments

Maybe the offerings are better at the highend but some quick calculations has me paying about 33% more for their x-small vs EC2.

Are they offering something else (Cus. service, HA, uptime?) that I can't currently get on AWS?

Ignoring every about the product, the "Go Ahead. Sign Up for the Public Beta" caption on the sign up button seems like it's taunting or threatening me.

I've been playing with the private beta for a few weeks now, and I'm impressed with how quickly they are adding features.

OpenStack (which HPCloud is based on) has a long way to go, but I think this is a promising (if overdue) start.

If you want to play with OpenStack for free I can recommend https://trystack.org/

It seems to about 10% of the cost of other CDNs... Where's the catch ?

AWS CloudFront is $0.12 and HP CDN is $0.16/GB for first 10TB for USA. What pricing are you looking at?

You're right, it's not 10% of the industry. Misread the pricing structure. Thanks for the correction.

Odd that CDN billing is based on "billing address" not the location of their CDN nodes you want to use. For what reason does a person in India pay 4 times as much for CDN as a person in USA?

The catch is: that is not true.

Where are you finding prices for HP Cloud?

https://www.hpcloud.com Click on Products, then on compute or CDN, etc. and then on pricing ...

Wow, thanks. I was completely missing that nav with overview, pricing, etc.

clickable: https://www.hpcloud.com/pricing#CDN

Looks like they copied the limitations of EC2 almost exactly. Boring.

Limitations? Do you mean the instance sizes, or architecture / capabilities?

The architecture, like one IP per VM and non-shared block storage. The sizes are even worse than EC2.

The IP part is not correct - on hpcloud you can assign any number of IPs to a server. I'm not sure if ec2 interface supports it, but openstack one definitely does.

But a shared block storage? You mean a read-only one? Otherwise it's a bit difficult to synchronise access in any useful way. I don't know of any FS that could handle a shared RW block storage.

Cloud Stockholm Syndrome strikes again. Try GFS2, OCFS2, StorNext, etc.

I thought you meant something else (transparent mounting of the device with synchronisation done by the provider).

To be honest, I don't know if openstack implementation supports block device sharing at the moment, but there's definitely an open possibility (from the api response fragment): `"attachments": [],` - it's an array for a reason ;) I'd recommend actually checking before you say it's not there...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com