50 comments

Add a comment…

Sign in

prestine

Your email address

Check!

invalid email

(thinking…)

Reset

or sign in with

• 
• 

UserVoice password

Forgot password?

Create a password

Your name

I agree to the terms of service

You'll receive a confirmation email with a link to create a password (optional).

Signed in as (Sign out)

Close

Close

Post comment Submitting...

• Anonymous commented  ·  Apr 20, 2012 7:43 am  ·  Flag as inappropriate  ·  Delete

  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  ·  Mar 15, 2012 11:16 am  ·  Flag as inappropriate  ·  Delete

  Any chance of getting a rough ETA?

• Colin Talbot commented  ·  Feb 28, 2012 11:06 am  ·  Flag as inappropriate  ·  Delete

  I agree with what Matthew said (02/01/2012), what about having more RAM?

• Cameron Perry commented  ·  Feb 07, 2012 3:09 pm  ·  Flag as inappropriate  ·  Delete

  What is the ETA on this?

• Matthew commented  ·  Jan 10, 2012 9:44 am  ·  Flag as inappropriate  ·  Delete

  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  ·  Jan 02, 2012 10:23 am  ·  Flag as inappropriate  ·  Delete

  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  ·  Dec 09, 2011 11:02 am  ·  Flag as inappropriate  ·  Delete

  @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.

  https://help.ubuntu.com/community/SettingUpNFSHowTo
  http://hadoop.apache.org/hdfs/

• Darren commented  ·  Dec 09, 2011 3:04 am  ·  Flag as inappropriate  ·  Delete

  We'd like to be able to create a drive that we can mount to multiple instances - so that we can do our compute in serval places (Asterisk in this case) and then store such things as Call Recordings in another.

• Rahul GUha commented  ·  Dec 05, 2011 9:41 pm  ·  Flag as inappropriate  ·  Delete

  Very important feature - especially for development shops.

• Johan Barelds commented  ·  Nov 29, 2011 12:40 am  ·  Flag as inappropriate  ·  Delete

  Great idea! I have several servers which i don't host at Rackspace because the demand for their (large) diskspace give's me a server type with to much memory and therefor to much costs.

• Brad Knowles commented  ·  Nov 11, 2011 1:27 pm  ·  Flag as inappropriate  ·  Delete

  I'm perfectly happy to live with less disk space "inside" the machine, if we can connect to a virtual SAN that has good performance and good reliability to the block storage. But you do also need to consider the issue of mounting the same storage on multiple machines, a la GFS.

• acgann commented  ·  Nov 03, 2011 2:00 pm  ·  Flag as inappropriate  ·  Delete

  As I discussed with the product team, we would need to be able to mount this block storage on multiple web servers. As a hillbilly workaround we may be able to mount the block storage to an intermediary machine and then mount that one on all the web servers, but it adds complexity to something that really shouldn't be that hard.

• Yaniv Aknin commented  ·  Oct 03, 2011 6:52 am  ·  Flag as inappropriate  ·  Delete

  This should also be true for the network caps. In fact, in my case, the only thing I care about is network caps...

• acgann commented  ·  Sep 16, 2011 3:55 pm  ·  Flag as inappropriate  ·  Delete

  Hopefully the Block Storage solution will also consider the impact of disk i/o on the machine. Having tons of disk is useless if heavy disk writes tank it. I agree that scaling RAM separate would be nice too.

• gordonml commented  ·  Sep 14, 2011 4:13 pm  ·  Flag as inappropriate  ·  Delete

  I'm waiting on this feature too. I need to be able to set up servers with lots of RAM irrespective of the disk space. I want to be able to increase the capacity of the server without being forced to double the disk space every time too. If this feature isn't implemented, I'll be forced to go elsewhere as my server needs grow; so too, I expect, will a lot of other customers. I don't think the Cloud Block Storage solution sounds like it will address this issue, especially because Megan is product manager of Cloud *Files*. For a lot of people on this thread, *RAM* is what is important, not storage.

• Ben Johnson commented  ·  Sep 09, 2011 12:03 pm  ·  Flag as inappropriate  ·  Delete

  Any updates on the Block Storage solution? We definitely need to be able to have more HD space with a lower amount of RAM. I'm seeing that other providers are starting to do this - Krypt, SoftLayer to name a couple.

• Craig Miller commented  ·  Aug 27, 2011 11:00 pm  ·  Flag as inappropriate  ·  Delete

  I would like to see less RAM, with the internal 620GB of storage as an option!

• Roberto Aguilar commented  ·  Aug 17, 2011 2:14 pm  ·  Flag as inappropriate  ·  Delete

  I can see Rackspace cutting off configurability at RAM and disk. The way I think VM hosts work is that your CPU is capped only if other VMs require the CPU, otherwise yours can burst, so, really, if you don't need it others will use it anyway.

• Joel Hough commented  ·  Aug 17, 2011 1:01 pm  ·  Flag as inappropriate  ·  Delete

  I need much more ram, not CPU or Disk.

• julie sigwart commented  ·  Aug 13, 2011 12:08 am  ·  Flag as inappropriate  ·  Delete

  I am also interested in scaling more memory but not disk space.