BlazeCP - The Ultimate Server Control Panel

[Ron H]

How would you guys like an all-in-one control panel? I don't mean only for game servers but, a controller for Virtual Private Servers(OpenVZ and KVM), dedicated servers, and game servers. This project is already deep in development. This control panel will not be bug ridden. Templates and designs can be customized to the liking of your company. The control panel is utilizing a framework I built in PHP for the web side and Java for the nodes nicknamed Inferno. The entire control panel uses it's APIs, both the web end and Inferno. With that said it is possible to make a mobile application to control your servers.

This will not be a bull shit panel, filled with graphic and useless features. This control panel is built for serious power users, who needs everything centralized and wanting to cut costs for their company. I look forward to interacting with the MC Market community regarding this project.

Spoiler: Screenshots Up-to-date

 

[Klanx]

Looks Clean.

 

[Samuel]

Why does it require special server software? What's wrong with plain ol' SSH?

 

[Ron H]

Why does it require special server software? What's wrong with plain ol' SSH?

To be fair, this is not directly pointed to people who needs to host one minecraft server which is best to just use SSH with screens. I posted it in the hosting section to get the attention of server providers. Plain ol' SSH would be a pain in the arse for them to deal with thousands of clients. Having things done at a click of a button saves time and it's way more efficient than using SSH. Hosts also don't want to hand out SSH access to their staff. Keep in mind this is not only for Minecraft servers.

 

[Samuel]

To be fair, this is not directly pointed to people who needs to host one minecraft server which is best to just use SSH with screens. I posted it in the hosting section to get the attention of server providers. Plain ol' SSH would be a pain in the arse for them to deal with thousands of clients. Having things done at a click of a button saves time and it's way more efficient than using SSH. Hosts also don't want to hand out SSH access to their staff. Keep in mind this is not only for Minecraft servers.

My point is this:
If you're leasing a VPS/Dedi out to someone, you aren't supposed to install additional software at all. So SSH offers no disadvantage to those that follow that principle. Those who don't follow that... well. They shouldn't be hosts.

I am looking at this as a server provider. Not as some Minecraft Let's Play'er.

 

[Ron H]

My point is this:
If you're leasing a VPS/Dedi out to someone, you aren't supposed to install additional software at all. So SSH offers no disadvantage to those that follow that principle. Those who don't follow that... well. They shouldn't be hosts.

I am looking at this as a server provider. Not as some Minecraft Let's Play'er.

I think you understood "controller" wrong. Inferno allows you to create, start, stop, restart, suspend and delete VPS. It's up to the host to allow SSH access to the client which they should in the first place. Of course Inferno will not be installed on the VPS, it's installed on the parent machine and only controls the VPS. For the dedicated side, the host has to install Inferno on the dedicated machine to allow actions to be made from the controller.

You aren't supposed to install additional software at all. So SSH offers no disadvantage to those that follow that principle. Those who don't follow that... well. They shouldn't be hosts.

This can be argued, but this argument isn't for me.

 

[Samuel]

I think you understood "controller" wrong. Inferno allows you to create, start, stop, restart, suspend and delete VPS. It's up to the host to allow SSH access to the client which they should in the first place. Of course Inferno will not be installed on the VPS, it's installed on the parent machine and only controls the VPS. For the dedicated side, the host has to install Inferno on the dedicated machine to allow actions to be made from the controller.

This can be argued, but this argument isn't for me.

I guess it works if it's a managed service, but either way the overhead could be removed by using SSH (to the dedi, for example).

 

[FTSOwner]

Those who don't follow that... well. They shouldn't be hosts.

I completely understand why you're frustrated about this project but I believe this is just a couple of misunderstanding.

Firstly the OP as far as I read is allowing hosts to use this like a VPS control panel. Think like SolusVM or Vituralizor. Where the hypervisiors have the software but the vpses does not.

On the other hand the dedicated servers' side of things (the one that is installed on the clients" machines) does have it drawbacks. HOWEVER provided it is built where it secured AND runs like say an agent on the clients' machines. Then security concerns and overheads should be very minimal.

The bottom line that up the hosts to be transparent to the customers what is installed on their systems and WHY. Which is out of the scope of the developer of this thread.

 

[Samuel]

I completely understand why you're frustrated about this project but I believe this is just a couple of misunderstanding.

Firstly the OP as far as I read is allowing hosts to use this like a VPS control panel. Think like SolusVM or Vituralizor. Where the hypervisiors have the software but the vpses does not.

On the other hand the dedicated servers' side of things (the one that is installed on the clients" machines) does have it drawbacks. HOWEVER provided it is built where it secured AND runs like say an agent on the clients' machines. Then security concerns and overheads should be very minimal.

The bottom line that up the hosts to be transparent to the customers what is installed on their systems and WHY. Which is out of the scope of the developer of this thread.

I caught onto the fact that it was like SolusVM pretty quickly after they replied to me (hell, my third reply even mentioned dedi!) - I simply don't see why the developer would go a route which requires extra care and attention when it comes to security and has more overhead (speaking of dedis).

Edit: and no, I am not frustrated.

 

[FTSOwner]

I simply don't see why the developer would go a route which requires extra care and attention when it comes to security and has more overhead (speaking of dedis)

While I don't completely know what's features the dedicated servers portion will boasts since it TBA. However think of this way...

You have 20,000 boxes laying inside racks.

Would you rather...

Have/hire people to load OSes into EVERY order/reloading request?

OR...

Preprovisioned the machines with the agent or whatever it will be and just have it auto (re)load the OSes whenever needed? Worrying only having to reconfigure the hardware upon request(s)?

Again I don't know if it will have this EXACT capability but it should reflect the similar concept behind the project.

Personally if it done right I would like something for smaller operations to be able have some affordable bare metal automation and controls around.

Currently there is little/overpriced options for these sort of things UNLESS you do it inhouse. Like Reliablesite is doing.

 

[Samuel]

While I don't completely know what's features the dedicated servers portion will boasts since it TBA. However think of this way...

You have 20,000 boxes laying inside racks.

Would you rather...

Have/hire people to load OSes into EVERY order/reloading request?

OR...

Preprovisioned the machines with the agent or whatever it will be and just have it auto (re)load the OSes whenever needed? Worrying only having to reconfigure the hardware upon request(s)?

Again I don't know if it will have this EXACT capability but it should reflect the similar concept behind the project.

Personally if it done right I would like something for smaller operations to be able have some affordable bare metal automation and controls around.

Currently there is little/overpriced options for these sort of things UNLESS you do it inhouse. Like Reliablesite is doing.

"Have/hire people to load OSes into EVERY order/reloading request?"

"Preprovisioned the machines with the agent or whatever it will be and just have it auto (re)load the OSes whenever needed? Worrying only having to reconfigure the hardware upon request(s)?"

My argument isn't the automation. My argument is that it can all be done without a new piece of software on the servers.

 

[FTSOwner]

My argument isn't the automation. My argument is that it can all be done without a new piece of software on the servers.

I see that is understandable. Personally though as long as the providers who want to take this particular route advertise that the servers are equipped with this software. Then I don't see this being any problems to the end users like yourself (as you can accept or decline these offerings).

 

[Ron H]

Here is a view of the node information, more updates will be coming soon.

 

[Ron H]

There is a lot of changes and more features added to the panel that I won't expose at this time. This project is still in heavy development and it's near the beta testing stages. A few days before the beta release I will post once more to this thread before opening an official thread on the company's account here on MCM. Please bear in mind that this is my personal account and I speak on behalf of myself on this account.

 

[Adam]

I look forward to testing this once its out

 

[Ron H]

Here is an image of the server view, keeping things simple makes it easy for your clients and yourself to manage the server. Stay tuned for more updates!

 

[Ron H]

BlazeCP will be providing you guys with one of the best consoles in the market! Take a look for yourself. The console has endless, useful features.

 

[Ron H]

Looking good, very good however I do question how you get above 100%... Was that intended?

Yes, my laptop has 4 CPU cores. The percentage can reach up to 400% on my machine. In the controller settings you can limit the value to 100% displayed.