Need the ability to charge an additional fee when a set bandwidth limit is reached and exceeded as opposed to an outright suspension of a KVM- VPS slice. Here’s a real world example…
This is written from the perspective of “Firm A” . As a systems integrator we often lease KVM-VPS instances for use by a third-party (our customer). That means that we configure and develop an application and then turn it over to one of our clients for use. A perfect example of this is a video conferencing server. Let’s call us “Firm A”, we are the integration experts. So we lease a VPS with a particular bandwidth limit. We’ve done our research and know approximately how much bandwidth provision, but since when operating the server, bandwidth usage is not only within our control. We build and configure a cloud server and then notify our customer who we shall designate “customer A”. Customer A is not technically savvy, they cannot work from the Linux command line and really don’t know anything about supporting the application. All “customer A” knows is that “Firm A” is providing them a solution.
So as a systems integrator we search the hosting landscape and find firms that offer KVM slices. We really are unaware that the hosting firm is utilizing a control panel “Solus VM. So in reality here’s what could happen due to the inability for the control panel to allow the hosting firm to charge for bandwidth over use.
In the above scenario “customer A” is running their application, and suddenly it stops working. They contact “Firm A”, who has the expertise to see what’s going on with the KVM server. It becomes very apparent that the KVM has been suspended because they bandwidth limit has been reached. “Firm A” then contacts the hosting provider that actually is in the data center controlling racks of servers that they have leased . They both agree that the bandwidth limit has been reached.
But here’s the problem; “customer A” is now angry at “firm A” that they can’t use the cloud application. “Firm A” is perfectly willing to pay the hosting provider for a additional bandwidth usage. Nothing nefarious is happening here, as “Firm A” wants to compensate the hosting provider for all services used. It turns out that the hosting provider would gladly sell additional bandwidth since “Firm A” has always kept a positive balance on their account in the hosting provider can simply invoice them an additional small fee for the bandwidth usage that exceeds the initial set limit instead of suspending the server. But when the hosting provider tries to do so they discover that the Solus VM control panel does not allow them to do this.
So as they say “stuff rolls downhill”. Firm A can no longer do business with the hosting provider that has a limitation in the control panel that suspends a KVM slice instead of just adding another fee. "Firm A” spends a lot of money on customer acquisition to acquire “customer A”. And they’re not going to lose a long-term customer because Solus VM does not have the feature of adding an additional billing fee for exceeding the set bandwidth limit.
Jim
supported this idea
·
Need the ability to charge an additional fee when a set bandwidth limit is reached and exceeded as opposed to an outright suspension of a KVM- VPS slice. Here’s a real world example…
This is written from the perspective of “Firm A” . As a systems integrator we often lease KVM-VPS instances for use by a third-party (our customer). That means that we configure and develop an application and then turn it over to one of our clients for use. A perfect example of this is a video conferencing server. Let’s call us “Firm A”, we are the integration experts. So we lease a VPS with a particular bandwidth limit. We’ve done our research and know approximately how much bandwidth provision, but since when operating the server, bandwidth usage is not only within our control. We build and configure a cloud server and then notify our customer who we shall designate “customer A”. Customer A is not technically savvy, they cannot work from the Linux command line and really don’t know anything about supporting the application. All “customer A” knows is that “Firm A” is providing them a solution.
So as a systems integrator we search the hosting landscape and find firms that offer KVM slices. We really are unaware that the hosting firm is utilizing a control panel “Solus VM. So in reality here’s what could happen due to the inability for the control panel to allow the hosting firm to charge for bandwidth over use.
In the above scenario “customer A” is running their application, and suddenly it stops working. They contact “Firm A”, who has the expertise to see what’s going on with the KVM server. It becomes very apparent that the KVM has been suspended because they bandwidth limit has been reached. “Firm A” then contacts the hosting provider that actually is in the data center controlling racks of servers that they have leased . They both agree that the bandwidth limit has been reached.
But here’s the problem; “customer A” is now angry at “firm A” that they can’t use the cloud application. “Firm A” is perfectly willing to pay the hosting provider for a additional bandwidth usage. Nothing nefarious is happening here, as “Firm A” wants to compensate the hosting provider for all services used. It turns out that the hosting provider would gladly sell additional bandwidth since “Firm A” has always kept a positive balance on their account in the hosting provider can simply invoice them an additional small fee for the bandwidth usage that exceeds the initial set limit instead of suspending the server. But when the hosting provider tries to do so they discover that the Solus VM control panel does not allow them to do this.
So as they say “stuff rolls downhill”. Firm A can no longer do business with the hosting provider that has a limitation in the control panel that suspends a KVM slice instead of just adding another fee. "Firm A” spends a lot of money on customer acquisition to acquire “customer A”. And they’re not going to lose a long-term customer because Solus VM does not have the feature of adding an additional billing fee for exceeding the set bandwidth limit.