4 ms·
I think he's comparing an EC2 small (we can tell because he says the memory is between 1GB and 2GB); it looks like the headings on the table are wrong. I think
by justinsb 17y ago
I think he's comparing an EC2 small (we can tell because he says the memory is between 1GB and 2GB); it looks like the headings on the table are wrong.
I think he's comparing this to a Rackspace 1GB, which is actually cheaper than EC2's small instance; the more direct comparison is to the Rackspace 2GB.
You m1 large is $0.34 per hour, vs $0.06 per hour on the Rackspace machine in the blog (I believe). You only got twice as many request per second out of it, so on the requests per second per dollar metric (the real metric, I think), ec2 is lagging.
- ckeck 17y agoYes, this was a typo on my part and has been corrected. In the "Medium Instances" section it was an Amazon EC2 Small instance that was used which is in line with the 1024MB Rackspace Cloud Server and the Linode 1080 server instance.
- rbranson 17y agoWith microbenches sucking in general, this test is especially CPU bound. I ran it on a c1.medium instance ($0.17/hr) with -c 160 -n 100000 and got 8602.92 [#/sec] (mean). That's more than 3x the performance at <3x the cost. EC2 gives you all that CPU continuously, not just in bursts.