4 ms·
(I work at AWS, but this is just for fun) Checking out AWS side, the closest I think you'd get is the x1.32xlarge, which would translate to 128 vCPU (which on
by dastbe 6y ago
(I work at AWS, but this is just for fun)
Checking out AWS side, the closest I think you'd get is the x1.32xlarge, which would translate to 128 vCPU (which on intel generally means 64 physical cores) and close to 2TB of RAM. nvme storage is only a paltry 4TB, so you'd have to make up the rest with EBS volumes. You'd also get a lower clock speed than they are getting out of the EPICs
- WatchDog 6y agoIf you eschew RDS, the largest you can go up to seems to be a u-24tb1.metal. 448 vcpu, 24TiB of RAM, $70 an hour. ~$52k per month.
- Aeolun 6y agoOh, only $70 per hour. I think I can start that for an hour or so before my wallet is exhausted :P
- ficklepickle 6y agoI spun up a 32 vCore spot instance to crack my own WiFi password once. It only cost ~$2 and I felt so powerful.
- PeterCorless 6y agospittakes reading the suggestion of replacing NVMe with EBS I mean, yeah, I guess you can. But a lot depends on your use case and SLA. If you need to keep ultra-low p99s — single digits — then EBS is not a real option. But if you don't mind latencies, then yeah, fine. Don't get me wrong: EBS is great. But it's not a panacea and strikes me as a mismatch for a high performance monster system. If you need NVMe, you need NVMe.
- dastbe 6y agoIt wasn't a suggestion of replacement, it was saying that even the closest instance still doesn't get you 24TB of on-host storage, having to use EBS instead.
- PeterCorless 6y agoThis starts going down a rabbit hole of tiered storage then. Because unless you design for that, you can only be as fast as your slowest storage. It'd be like tying a 20 kg weight to the leg of a sprinter otherwise.