3 ms·
I'd dive into EC2 if you're going to be experimenting. For my purposes it's great to be billed only for your exact usage. Transfers to and from S3 are fast and
by jokull 17y ago
I'd dive into EC2 if you're going to be experimenting. For my purposes it's great to be billed only for your exact usage. Transfers to and from S3 are fast and cheap too.
- keefe 17y agoEC2 is significantly more expensive (expressed as percent change) than VPS when you total up bandwidth etc.
- lsc 17y agoIf you pay by the year, especially if you don't use much bandwidth (and you won't, if you are just figuring things out) ec2 is quite competitive on price, if you don't mind the problem. the problem with the basic 'small' instances is that if there are system problems, you lose your storage. Sure, you can get around this by paying extra for EBS, but it's another problem you need to deal with (and pay for) that is largely taken care of on most VPSs. (which isn't to say you will never have data loss on a VPS, but all the major providers mirror disk, so it should be fairly rare.)
- jun 17y agoEC2 + S3 sounds great! Unfortunately server self-management is rather over my head at the moment but perhaps I could start out with S3 + shared hosting first, then switch to EC2 when I'm confident.
- keefe 17y agoYou're better off with EC2+EBS because EBS allows you to attach permanent storage to your device just as you are accustomed to. S3 is more for backups etc.