4 ms·
The first thing is that it is virtual hosting. You don't really get a machine, you get a virtual one . And you can have a lot of virtual machines under a Physic
by fgblanch 16y ago
The first thing is that it is virtual hosting. You don't really get a machine, you get a virtual one . And you can have a lot of virtual machines under a Physical one. SO this divides costs a lot.
Also I'm not sure but I read somewhere that in the beginning the idea for companies like Amazon or google was to reuse their infrastructure(hardware, bandwith, electricity) by selling virtual machines inside their servers. So they invest in the machines for their services but try to pay part of this inversion renting part of it.
- kraemate 16y agoEven with virtualization - how many virtual instances can you possibly fit on a single blade server to give reasonable performance? I'm guessing 4 to 8? A quick calculation shows that electricity costs for a 200W machine is 3 cents. Cooling costs same. So that's 6 cents/hour for just these two.
- RobGR 16y agoI think it is a lot more than 4 to 8. The probably have between 16 and 64 GB of RAM per machine, and if they are 512MB instances, they fill it up. So figure 32 to 128 instances per machine. Those machines may use more than 200 watts, and the "reasonable performance" may be not that good. Has anyone here ever tried out the Ubuntu Enterprise Cloud ?
- rubinelli 16y agoThese numbers look right. For low-end VPSs, I've seen a rule of thumb of 4-5 VMs per core. Amazon's Compute Units are probably close to (but not quite) 1 core/hour. Since they later launched micro instances, even one core must have been overkill for many customers.