Networking and 1U Colocation
-
@jaredbusch said in Networking and 1U Colocation:
@scottalanmiller said in Networking and 1U Colocation:
@jaredbusch said in Networking and 1U Colocation:
@scottalanmiller said in Networking and 1U Colocation:
The price is not horrible. BUT....
10Mb/s is ridiculous, that's not even good for a lab in most cases.
What tier datacenter is it? Not likely a very good one.I disagree that 10/10 is horrible for the price point.
It's just horrible. Price point not important. At some point, even for free, the speed is too slow to really consider it.
No, it is not. What workload are you using that needs that speed? Unless it is file services, nothing will use it.
We hit it with things like backups, every few hours.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Networking and 1U Colocation:
@jaredbusch said in Networking and 1U Colocation:
@scottalanmiller said in Networking and 1U Colocation:
@jaredbusch said in Networking and 1U Colocation:
@scottalanmiller said in Networking and 1U Colocation:
The price is not horrible. BUT....
10Mb/s is ridiculous, that's not even good for a lab in most cases.
What tier datacenter is it? Not likely a very good one.I disagree that 10/10 is horrible for the price point.
It's just horrible. Price point not important. At some point, even for free, the speed is too slow to really consider it.
No, it is not. What workload are you using that needs that speed? Unless it is file services, nothing will use it.
We hit it with things like backups, every few hours.
Right backups are one where that would suck. yes.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Networking and 1U Colocation:
The price is not horrible. BUT....
10Mb/s is ridiculous, that's not even good for a lab in most cases.
What tier datacenter is it? Not likely a very good one.Yeah I didn't catch that 10 Mbit until after I posted... that is bad. My VPS is 1 gig... i wonder why it's so bad on colo?
-
@bnrstnr said in Networking and 1U Colocation:
@jaredbusch said in Networking and 1U Colocation:
I disagree that 10/10 is horrible for the price point. What are you doing in a colo (lab expecially), that you need more than 10/10?
For $30 a month you can do a lot of stuff on Vultr...
Not a lot, really. That's six dinky servers, three tiny servers, and less than half one big website. Even my LAMP server on Vultr is $40/month.
-
@tim_g said in Networking and 1U Colocation:
@scottalanmiller said in Networking and 1U Colocation:
The price is not horrible. BUT....
10Mb/s is ridiculous, that's not even good for a lab in most cases.
What tier datacenter is it? Not likely a very good one.Yeah I didn't catch that 10 Mbit until after I posted... that is bad. My VPS is 1 gig... i wonder why it's so bad on colo?
Because I know people that colo a 1U server to run private torrent stuff.
-
@tim_g said in Networking and 1U Colocation:
@scottalanmiller said in Networking and 1U Colocation:
The price is not horrible. BUT....
10Mb/s is ridiculous, that's not even good for a lab in most cases.
What tier datacenter is it? Not likely a very good one.Yeah I didn't catch that 10 Mbit until after I posted... that is bad. My VPS is 1 gig... i wonder why it's so bad on colo?
Because this isn't enterprise colo, this is just some cheap crap. This is what is sold to people as "cheap local colo" because lots of people see all colo as the same and forget that each is unique.
Colocation America is $50/mo and 1Gb/s unmetered!
-
@jaredbusch said in Networking and 1U Colocation:
@tim_g said in Networking and 1U Colocation:
@scottalanmiller said in Networking and 1U Colocation:
The price is not horrible. BUT....
10Mb/s is ridiculous, that's not even good for a lab in most cases.
What tier datacenter is it? Not likely a very good one.Yeah I didn't catch that 10 Mbit until after I posted... that is bad. My VPS is 1 gig... i wonder why it's so bad on colo?
Because I know people that colo a 1U server to run private torrent stuff.
@scottalanmiller said in Networking and 1U Colocation:
@tim_g said in Networking and 1U Colocation:
@scottalanmiller said in Networking and 1U Colocation:
The price is not horrible. BUT....
10Mb/s is ridiculous, that's not even good for a lab in most cases.
What tier datacenter is it? Not likely a very good one.Yeah I didn't catch that 10 Mbit until after I posted... that is bad. My VPS is 1 gig... i wonder why it's so bad on colo?
Because this isn't enterprise colo, this is just some cheap crap. This is what is sold to people as "cheap local colo" because lots of people see all colo as the same and forget that each is unique.
Colocation America is $50/mo and 1Gb/s unmetered!
Good points
-
We used to use dirt cheap colo in Scranton. It was cheap because it was old, beat up racks, in a nasty falling down old warehouse, with no services, no redundancy on the ISPs, constant outages, and most of their "servers" were $50 old desktops with open cases and fans blowing on them.
-
@scottalanmiller How fast of a connection do you need to run a site like ML? Could your $40 Vultr LAMP server run well on a 10Mbit connection?
-
@bnrstnr said in Networking and 1U Colocation:
@scottalanmiller How fast of a connection do you need to run a site like ML? Could your $40 Vultr LAMP server run well on a 10Mbit connection?
ML needs power, we don't really measure the bandwidth needs. It might be fine on 10Mb/s, but we do some serious traffic, so it would definitely be pushing it.
Our $40 LAMP server could run on 10Mb/s.
But neither of those could run in a non-production facility, so that they CAN use 10Mb/s individually isn't really a factor. They would need to use them altogether and they'd need a production level facility. None of which they could get.
-
The colo my stuff is in has 10/10 metered. I often spike 100 mbps but never deal with overages because the usage still comes out < 10/10.
-
@jaredbusch said in Networking and 1U Colocation:
The colo my stuff is in has 10/10 metered. I often spike 100 mbps but never deal with overages because the usage still comes out < 10/10.
That's a bit different, that's just a pricing model, rather than a 10Mb/s limit.
-
This is the one I currently use, but $20/month because I got it when it was on special:
-
@tim_g said in Networking and 1U Colocation:
This is the one I currently use, but $20/month because I got it when it was on special:
That's not colo, though.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Networking and 1U Colocation:
@tim_g said in Networking and 1U Colocation:
This is the one I currently use, but $20/month because I got it when it was on special:
That's not colo, though.
Yes, he was clear stating he currently used them for VPS. Did you miss that?
-
@jaredbusch said in Networking and 1U Colocation:
@scottalanmiller said in Networking and 1U Colocation:
@tim_g said in Networking and 1U Colocation:
This is the one I currently use, but $20/month because I got it when it was on special:
That's not colo, though.
Yes, he was clear stating he currently used them for VPS. Did you miss that?
I saw it earlier, but then was confused here.
-
I'm trying to think through how I'd configure my network using a VM on my KVM host as my router/firewall. This is the first draft of how I see this working.
The networks with which I've worked in the past have a firewall that would have one interface with a public IP (100.100.100.2/30) and one with a private IP (192.168.1.1/24), which connects to a switch, which connects to everything else. NAT would be used to direct traffic to specific hosts, such as NATing inbound traffic for 100.100.100.2:80 to a webserver at 192.168.1.10.
I'm trying to wrap my head around how to make that concept work in an virtualized environment where I have a single hypervisor and no networking appliance. I'd obviously have a virtual switch which wouldn't have any connection to a physical NIC on the host for the guest VMs (the 192.168.1.0/24 network). I'd have another virtual switch which would have a connection to the physical NIC. The firewall VM would have a connection to each virtual switch.
The question becomes what NIC receives the public IP address I'll be assigned. My first thought was the interface of the firewall VM that's attached to the virtual switch that's attached to the NIC of the physical host. However, that seems problematic, as at the moment, I don't know how a packet destined for 100.100.100.2 coming in on eth0 of the host would be forwarded to the virtual switch.
There are other questions; however, I think this has to be addressed first.
-
With a /30 it is hard because you have to setup your host without a valid IP on the colo network.
So you will need a private management network to access the host remotely.
You will have to rely on the colo's KVM for console access to your dom0 to fix anything if it breaks.
You should easily be able to configure this ahead of time.
-
This will get into how you want to configure your KVM host's networking in the first place.
I don't have network connectivity from my KVM host in my home lab to my guests because I have full access to the host's main IP and never bothered to set anything else up.
-
@eddiejennings said in Networking and 1U Colocation:
I'm trying to think through how I'd configure my network using a VM on my KVM host as my router/firewall. This is the first draft of how I see this working.
The networks with which I've worked in the past have a firewall that would have one interface with a public IP (100.100.100.2/30) and one with a private IP (192.168.1.1/24), which connects to a switch, which connects to everything else. NAT would be used to direct traffic to specific hosts, such as NATing inbound traffic for 100.100.100.2:80 to a webserver at 192.168.1.10.
I'm trying to wrap my head around how to make that concept work in an virtualized environment where I have a single hypervisor and no networking appliance. I'd obviously have a virtual switch which wouldn't have any connection to a physical NIC on the host for the guest VMs (the 192.168.1.0/24 network). I'd have another virtual switch which would have a connection to the physical NIC. The firewall VM would have a connection to each virtual switch.
The question becomes what NIC receives the public IP address I'll be assigned. My first thought was the interface of the firewall VM that's attached to the virtual switch that's attached to the NIC of the physical host. However, that seems problematic, as at the moment, I don't know how a packet destined for 100.100.100.2 coming in on eth0 of the host would be forwarded to the virtual switch.
There are other questions; however, I think this has to be addressed first.
Maybe try this, lets see if I can explain myself well.
Attach your physical interface to a linux-bridge (lets call it br0) and then assign the br0 interface only to your firewall vm. Set the static address 100.100.100.2 on the vms interface this will be your wan port .
Create a private network and set it to isolated, it will create a virbrX interface in your host. Add an interface to your vm inside the isolated private network (using virbrX), this will be your firewalls lan interface.
Your virtual network gives you internal and host only routing, so you will have access to your guest through this ip range.
Any new vm you create add it interface to be part of your virtual network and set their gateway to your firewall-vms lan port.
I believe that should do what you want.
