

HP Cloud now in Public Beta - ridruejo
https://www.hpcloud.com/

======
yardie
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?

------
jc4p
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.

------
nl
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/>

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

~~~
sjs382
Where are you finding prices for HP Cloud?

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

~~~
sjs382
Wow, thanks. I was completely missing that nav with overview, pricing, etc.

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

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

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

~~~
viraptor
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.

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

~~~
viraptor
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...

