5 ms·
AWS never fit into my definition of a "cloud" solution. It's a VPS with a rich API and a lot of addons (load balancer, EBS, S3...). From what I'm reading, Bea
by latch 16y ago
AWS never fit into my definition of a "cloud" solution. It's a VPS with a rich API and a lot of addons (load balancer, EBS, S3...).
From what I'm reading, Beanstalk changes this and clearly puts AWS in the category they've long claimed to be in. Not that their service wasn't great/unique before. This just puts them that much further ahead.
It's along the lines of what Heroku does with their routing mesh layer (as far as I understand it).
- chanri 16y agoAmazon's execution with EC2 over the past few years has been excellent. If Amazon makes a Rails version of Beanstalk, Heroku should be worried as Beanstalk could take some market share from Heroku.
- rchowe 16y agoHeroku will probably still have the advantage of being git-based. I doubt Amazon will support git with beanstalk. Now, Amazon may start siphoning off python users that switched to rails just to use Heroku.
- _pdeschen 16y agoAccording to press release “We’re working with AWS to provide an Elastic Beanstalk Ruby on Rails container that leverages the optimized Engine Yard stack which has been battle-tested by thousands of high-growth companies.” John Dillon, CEO of Engine Yard http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20110119005591/en/Amazon-Web-Services-Introduces-AWS-Elastic-Beanstalk http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20110119005591/en/Amaz...
- evanjacobs 16y agoI was curious why Amazon let Heroku be acquired by Salesforce late last year. Now I know it's because they were already working on Beanstalk.
- tybris 16y agoWhat's your definition of a "cloud" solution?
- fookyong 16y agoautomatic scaling would be a good benchmark for the true definition of cloud. a lot of "cloud" services these days are nearly identical to VPS services of yore, with the added new ability to create/destroy VPS nodes whenever you want. very few of the big "cloud" providers actually handle auto scaling (as it's difficult in a world where all apps are not made the same).
- latch 16y agoupvoted, but since I'm the OP, just wanted to say that yes, this is what I meant.
- rmc 16y agoautomatic scaling would be a good benchmark for the true definition of cloud. You can do this with EC2. You can set up monitors based on CPU usage over a time period and it'll start new nodes if required. S3 is 'autoscaling' for serving files. Just upload your files and pay for what you use.
- riffraff 16y agobut storage cannot be scaled like this, you have to design your own mechanic to handle it.
- rmc 16y agoNot necessarily. If you have a popular website you can put all your images and big content on S3 and just include the URLs in your HTML. It'll magically automatically scale then.
- fookyong 16y agoyou'll still have to build your application in such a way that supports these new nodes, though. Sessions, load balancing etc. a "true" cloud would just handle all that stuff transparently.
- ghshephard 16y agoCan we please all agree to disagree that there is no formal definition for cloud? I tripped across an article the other day where they were suggesting that these "PaaS" offering's weren't considered a "Cloud" by purists, and only "IaaS" (Infrastructure) - servers, cpus, network, storage - should be considered such. I was one of the original employees at Loudcloud - we certainly considered "Databases", "Applications Servers" to be cloud services. Cloud = "That service/infrastructure/platform that you need that will be hosted by someone else in their data center" If we wanted to be precise, we could refer to it as "Storage Clouds", "App Server Clouds", "Database Clouds", etc...