Softlayer Cloud: An operations guy's rant about really bad service • Hacker News Board

Re: Softlayer Cloud: An operations guy's rant about really bad service

#31

Post by kovyrin » Tue, May 03, 2011, 8:35 AM UTC

reitzensteinm wrote: post #30

kovyrin wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, even if one could scale up his web/app farms 2400% so fast, I'd really like to see a database that scales up/out this well :-)

You should look into NoSQL. It's web scale!

MongoDb? ;-)

Re: Softlayer Cloud: An operations guy's rant about really bad service

#32

Post by StavrosK » Tue, May 03, 2011, 11:12 AM UTC

rrwhite wrote: post #23

Wow this post was like reading a post from myself in the not so distant future. We had the exact same experience on SoftLayer CloudLayer. Random I/O failures, read-only mode and of course the most frustrating part was the support process around that. We had a week last month where we would lose a couple boxes a day to this issue at which point we said enough was enough and switched completely over to dedicated boxes…

> (so they could empathize but not really affect change)

In a rare reverse-typo, I think you actually mean "effect" there.

Re: Softlayer Cloud: An operations guy's rant about really bad service

#33

Post by chopsueyar » Tue, May 03, 2011, 12:26 PM UTC

StavrosK wrote: post #32

rrwhite wrote: post #23

Wow this post was like reading a post from myself in the not so distant future. We had the exact same experience on SoftLayer CloudLayer. Random I/O failures, read-only mode and of course the most frustrating part was the support process around that. We had a week last month where we would lose a couple boxes a day to this issue at which point we said enough was enough and switched completely over to dedicated boxes…

> (so they could empathize but not really affect change) In a rare reverse-typo, I think you actually mean "effect" there.

http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/affect-versus-effect.as...

Re: Softlayer Cloud: An operations guy's rant about really bad service

#34

Post by chernevik » Tue, May 03, 2011, 12:39 PM UTC

GoodIntentions wrote: post #21

mgkimsal wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Heh - I was beginning to wonder if it was making its intended impression on anyone. Must've been downvoted by AMZN longs :)

shoulda written it in sarcastica font or perhaps woosh-sans

some systems just can't route sarcasticout to stdin

Re: Softlayer Cloud: An operations guy's rant about really bad service

#35

Post by StavrosK » Tue, May 03, 2011, 12:49 PM UTC

chopsueyar wrote: post #33

StavrosK wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> (so they could empathize but not really affect change) In a rare reverse-typo, I think you actually mean "effect" there.

http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/affect-versus-effect.as...

Are you posting that to agree with me? Because the link does.

Re: Softlayer Cloud: An operations guy's rant about really bad service

#36

Post by lux » Tue, May 03, 2011, 12:53 PM UTC

How is their cloud storage? I was comparing prices between services the other day and it seemed pretty competitive, but haven't yet tested latency and such. Wondered what other HNers have found compared to Amazon and Rackspace in terms of service/issues. Thanks!

Re: Softlayer Cloud: An operations guy's rant about really bad service

#37

Post by chopsueyar » Tue, May 03, 2011, 12:58 PM UTC

StavrosK wrote: post #35

chopsueyar wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/affect-versus-effect.as...

Are you posting that to agree with me? Because the link does.

Yes. I upvoted you too, not like anybody can tell.

Re: Softlayer Cloud: An operations guy's rant about really bad service

#38

Post by StavrosK » Tue, May 03, 2011, 1:55 PM UTC

chopsueyar wrote: post #37

StavrosK wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you posting that to agree with me? Because the link does.

Yes. I upvoted you too, not like anybody can tell.

Ah, thanks, I couldn't judge intention from your previous post...

Re: Softlayer Cloud: An operations guy's rant about really bad service

#39

Post by jread » Tue, May 03, 2011, 1:58 PM UTC

I've done some benchmarking of softlayer cloudlayer and their "SAN" back cloud servers have about the worst IO performance of any provider. Even the largest 16 and 32GB instances performed extremely poorly. EC2 EBS is a much better performing storage platform. Stay away from cloudlayer if you have anything even remotely IO intensive.

http://blog.cloudharmony.com/2010/06/disk-io-benchmarking-in...

Re: Softlayer Cloud: An operations guy's rant about really bad service

#40

Post by MediaBehavior » Tue, May 03, 2011, 3:07 PM UTC

kovyrin wrote: post #24

rrwhite wrote: post #23

Wow this post was like reading a post from myself in the not so distant future. We had the exact same experience on SoftLayer CloudLayer. Random I/O failures, read-only mode and of course the most frustrating part was the support process around that. We had a week last month where we would lose a couple boxes a day to this issue at which point we said enough was enough and switched completely over to dedicated boxes…

Damn, this is exactly what I was experiencing: when I'd ask "wtf? how comes your management would not see the trend" I' d constantly receive "you're the only customer experiencing this problem!" bullshit.

> ...bullshit.

Worse: Lie. Bald-face lie.