Yes, I agree, the cloning process should have more options that allow application database name, crudentials, ect.
This is really needed.
This would be great. This would be very useful.
10 votesAdminCloudways (Admin, Cloudways) responded
The logic behind keeping same creds is that many people use this feature to create test/dev environments, so it is convenient for them to have it like this.
In any case, for the flow you mention, you could clone a template from server A to server B. Then on server B, keep the first copy of the app as a template and clone it (on the same server) as many times as needed. Cloning on the same server changes all credentials, so this should work for you?.
Yes, this would be awesome. It requires 2x cloning to make this work right now. First I have to clone to current server. Then I have to clone that new clone to other server. Then I have delete the first clone. Insane process. There should be an option that allows you to checkmark, "keep installation name, or create new name" when cloning to another server.
https://getflywheel.com/why-flywheel/blueprints/ - This allows you to create multiple backups, Something like this would be ideal.
After some difficulties with Cloudflare, we have spoken now with Sucuri (https://sucuri.net/). They offer malware removal, website firewall (providing DDoS protection among other things, requires DNS redirection to point to their firewalls) and site scanning (via local agent). All features independent (we can offer all or some).
We are thinking that a better approach to solving our customers problems when it comes to security and performance will be to offer (as add-ons) Sucuri (security centric and very focused on our most common apps) and MaxCDN (pure CDN focused on performance).
Any one has had experience with Sucuri? We have already tested (and in talks with them) and looks very promising.
Let us know thoughts on this (Sucuri + MaxCDN) approach (vs Cloudfront). We know this is well overdue and want to get it rolling.
Yes, please add.
Please add something like this so we can monitor all our applications and know what resources they are using.
3 votesScamando shared this idea ·
I agree with the many comments here. The pricing is inconsistent with both other providers and provider them self. You should be charging a flat% across the board for all providers. Taking the cheapest provider and adding higher cost because "you can" does not leave a good taste for most people here.