5 ms·
Eh, it's not so complicated. io1/io2 is about $12/month per 100 GB, and $60/m per 1000 IOPS. So 200 GB and 10,000 iops would be $624 With the caveat that (io
by phonon 6y ago
Eh, it's not so complicated.
io1/io2 is about $12/month per 100 GB, and $60/m per 1000 IOPS.
So 200 GB and 10,000 iops would be $624
With the caveat that (io2) cannot support more than 500 IOPS per GB.
gp2 is $10/m per 100 GB, and you get 3 IOPS/GB (with potential to burst to 3000 IOPS for volumes under 1 TB).
GP2 IOPS max out at 16,000 per volume.
io1/io2 IOPS max out at 64,000
Basically, use io2 if you need more than 16,000 IOPS. or you need a large amount of IOPS for only a small amount of storage.
io2 also has a 0.001% annual failure rate, while the others have a .2% failure rate.
E.g., to get 10,000 IOPS with gp2, you would get a 3.33 TB volume, which would cost $333/m.
Local storage is far, far faster (up to millions of IOPS!)...but not as reliable, and does not have all the EBS features. https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AWSEC2/latest/UserGuide/storage-optimized-instances.html https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AWSEC2/latest/UserGuide/storage-...
- dx034 6y ago> io2 also has a 0.001% annual failure rate, while the others have a .2% failure rate. Is failing once every 5 years really different from failing once every 1000 years? You should have disaster recovery plans anyway and configuration errors are the most likely cause of failure, not the underlying storage system.
- phonon 6y agoFor companies that have a few hundred of these running at a time, it sure does! Also, it's a 2000x ratio, not 200..., and 1/500 years vs. 1/1,000,000 years.
- votepaunchy 6y agoAWS’s claimed 99.999% ratio is 1/100,000 years. Claimed improvement of 100x in the article.
- phonon 6y agoHmmm, it said "2000x more reliable than a commodity disk drive" in the article which I misunderstood (I guess that is a comparison to a local HD) + plus my inability to do math late at night :-) Thank you for the correction!
- usr1106 6y agoWell, I am playing in a different league. I have single digit budgets per volume per month. Of course they are smaller and have more modest performance requirements. But still, exceeding my budget by 30% is not acceptable over longer time. And EBS (as well as all other Amazon stuff) makes it really easy to exceed it by 300%. For standard volumes you pay by IO operations (absolute calls). For the newer types you pay by provisioned IOPS (a max rate). That's a particular difficult decision to make if you move in that area. The less advanced competition has simpler pricing, but then you might be more unsure about what you get. Again for high requirements you know that if someone offers you 25 or even 50 GB for 1€ per month you know it's too good to be true. For modest requirements that's something you need to consider.
- skywhopper 6y agoSounds like AWS may not be the right place for your workloads.
- usr1106 6y agoOften it is not. But smaller/cheaper competitors might have more downtime (hard to quantify in advance), problems to keep their kernels maintained, less predictable capacity and product lifetime. So it's not without risks going for cheaper options.
- phonon 6y agoAWS Lightsail might be a better fit for you.
- usr1106 6y agoThanks for that tip, they don't seem to advertise that a lot! Launched 11/16 and somewhat reasonably priced since 08/18. Still more expensive than some others I also use, but at these prices it might be an easier decision if you want to avoid risks with the more aggressively priced competitors. Edit: Even with a terraform provider, nice!