The ability to choose amount of RAM and HD space seperately.
For many of my servers, I only need a few gigs of HD space, but much more memory. We should be able to choose HD and RAM separately.
It would be great to be able to provision disks which can then be attached to either a single cloud server, or maybe even multiple servers. The idea of this is to separate server data from the core OS so that in the event of one server going down, the data and config can simply be attached to a duplicate instance and service can continue.
I hear that block storage devices are coming. I'm desparate, one of my clients needs another 40 or 80 gb partition now in the worst sort of way. When is the launch? Can I get in on a beta test perhaps?
We need to be able to park a large amount of data.
But very little need for processing power on this particular server.
It would be nice to have a low cost solution for this on rackspace - vs
having to create an account over on say Amazon :)
A seperate mountable volume like amazon EBS
Add an option to mount a second storage volume to a server. Like Elastic Volumes at EC2, having to availability to add more storage to my server would be awesome!
We need the ability to tailor our servers for what is needed rather than choosing a cookie-cutter config. I may only need 50GB of hard drive space, but 8GB of RAM and 100MB connection
Want to help us shape how Cloud Block Storage will appear in our control panel? Sign up to participate in our user experience research. Just click the link below.
Andor Admiraal commented
Now space can be controlled separately through block storage, it's also time to get rid of the old fashioned tying of disk space forcibly to instance sizes. Especially as this is the reason why Windows servers cannot be scaled down.
By really separating disk space from instance size, Windows servers at Rackspace will become true Cloud Servers, with all the basics including the ability to downscale servers. It's fine that Rackspace didn't offer the option for so long, but now that others are already offering scalable Windows servers for some time, it is high time for Rackspace to catch up!
So it looks like this thing is never going to get done huh?
Chris Gountanis commented
It would be perfect at the lower end price point to include just a smidgen more RAM. Seems unfair to more than double the price. You want every personal site and small business site to not think twice when paying your bill but to upgrade memory to something more realistic the cost goes through the roof.
Is there any moderator following these Ideas actually ? Seems like this backlog directly went to dev/null =)
Christian Felde commented
I'll add my comment hoping for high-cpu instances (as compared to ram).
4G ram with 4 cores, like the old first gen servers fits my app perfectly. It's sad I need to consider AWS for this..
Casey Woods commented
I'll chime in. I would love to be able to launch and instance and specify the number of CPU cores, RAM, and HD. The preset Rackspace sizes are not very flexible. Example, I would love to get a 2 Core, 1 GB Ram, 20 GB HD server.
I'm not quite sure why the "Admin" set's this to "Started" and post a link to a survey that addresses a totally different topic ? Did they actually read the ideas ?
I think since this Idea is like 2,5 Years old...this won't be happening anywhere soon...so sad.
I don't need more HDD - i need RAM.
Great idea, I don't need nearly as much disk space as has been allocated so its just wasting resources.
Any chance of being able to add only RAM and not disk?
John Greg Hossbach commented
And I am the opposite -- I don't need much CPU or RAM, just HDD space (personal email server)
Kyle C commented
+1 to this idea!
aric lasry user commented
Is the beta test reliable or not at all ? We also need it asap for our web service (we already are a Rackspace Cloud customer with ~10 servers).
Allow choice of RAM and Storage separately. I'd really like much higher storage over which the default 8GB RAM server choice offers now. For several multi-node Cassandra cluster.
And, an ETA for this?
Grant H commented
Any chance of getting a rough ETA?
Colin Talbot commented
I agree with what Matthew said (02/01/2012), what about having more RAM?
Cameron Perry commented
What is the ETA on this?
I see your addressing the storage part of this, but what about RAM? I have a dedicated IIS server and store most of my data in a DB and/or Cloud Files. I don't need more then the HDD space I have now but I could use a bump up in RAM.
Tom Maiaroto commented
One important thing that I hope will be possible with the cloud block storage is the ability to have our databases hosted on that storage... MongoDB, MySQL, etc. Especially for MongoDB... It's a database that is meant to work with large amounts of data and I can't think of any better match because while we can very easily put individual files on S3 or Cloud Files... An actual system like a database is going to just simply need more storage space whether it be on the actual machine or as a separately connected block store.
Roberto Aguilar commented
@Darren: you might be able to use something like NFS to share a single drive or if you need more performance HDFS to distribute data across multiple servers.