9 posts • joined Thursday 20th November 2008 08:07 GMT
Danger Will Robinson!
After about 12 years with Fasthosts, I recently moved my last domain away. For many years I found them reasonably reliable, but over the last year they have become pretty much unusable for me. I was getting so many failures it was untrue. Technical support was pretty much non-existent. Added to that, the rest of the world has added features and dropped costs of their hosting packages, making Fasthosts incredibly expensive in comparison. My advice? Handle with care!
Would just like to point out that 1and1 didn't buy Fasthosts as a previous poster said. The company that owns 1and1 bought Fasthosts. Same parent company, but two separate hosting companies. :)
Re-brand to hide the failures...
Too many references to the epic fails Azure has had since its introduction. Getting rid of the Azure brand may help to hide these failures from new customers...
Consumer adoption will take a long time. I know lots of people that only replace kit when it breaks. As long as IP4 is still supported, they will not move. Many companies still have no issues with IP4. They have plenty of address space on their internal networks, so they are not going to be in a rush to move.
It wouldn't surprise me if we are still having this conversation in 2020.
I think recent events (think SOPA) have proved that the US are more than capable of ruining the cloud (and the internet in general) for everyone.
People should look a little closer to home before criticizing others.
Wasn't this originally because of an issue in Germany, not UK?
I've been able to access my account using either "gmail.com" or "googlemail.com" since the issue occurred, so it would seem a conversion is unnecessary.
God help us when the WoW movie comes out...
If Avatar freaked these people out, what is going to happen when the World of Warcraft movie comes out? There are millions of WoW junkies who live in WoW already. If they see something even half the standard of Avatar they will probably be so depressed with they "real lives" that they will top themselves.
It's the new natural selection!
Bad summary of an OK article...
The Original article was OK. The guy understood the differences between RAC and VMware and was basically saying if you are using RAC for High availability, not performance, you can get "almost" the same availability from VMware, at a reduced cost. This is true.
The writer of this summary doesn't have a clue what he's talking about and has badly summarized the original article and come up with something that is not representative of it.
The use of "it is said" as justification for statements is not the best reporting I've heard. I'm sure some of those statements were said, by people who don't understand RAC or VMware.
I find it highly amusing that OracleVM is described as, "poor - less robust and mature - compared to VMware." I admit the management tools are a way behind VMware, but the hypervisor, which afterall is the main bit of the virtualization solution, is bang on the money.
He then goes on to mention Sun's virtualization solution. Well their bare-metal solution is Xen based like Oracle's. Perhaps he means VirtualBox, which is not Bare-Metal and so not suitable for server virtualization.
So the writer knows nothing about Oracle and nothing about virtualization. Sounds like the perfect person to write an article summarizing someone elses work on those subjects...
Please read the original article, not this summary.
Virtualization all the way...
I agree entirely. For most people even the current quad core offerings are massively over specced. There are many projects around that don't even take a single core of CPU during their day-to-day operations. Add to this the problems with per-core licensing and multi-core servers become a needless and costly waste, unless you consider virtualization.