4 ms·

Just a quick datapoint for you on EC2 vs SSD... we tried restoring a 30GB pgsql database to a Large EC2 with RAID0'd EBS stores for testing purposes. It took ~4

Just a quick datapoint for you on EC2 vs SSD... we tried restoring a 30GB pgsql database to a Large EC2 with RAID0'd EBS stores for testing purposes. It took ~4 days. I tried doing the same thing on a Macbook Pro i7/SSD and it took ~1 hour. EBS disk performance is reliable, but miserable.

moe 15y ago
EBS disk performance is reliable, but miserable. EBS performance is unreliable and miserable. There, fixed that for you. However, EBS also has a couple things going for it. Namely: easy snapshots, fast/seamless provisioning (need another 1T?), mobility (need that volume on another instance?) and quite a fair price point when you take all that into account.
- whacker 15y ago
  easy snapshots, fast/seamless provisioning (need another 1T?) All of which are doable with LVM.
  - moe 15y ago
    Sure, within the boundaries of your disk array. Assuming a non-trivial size you'll need 1-2 fulltime people to run and scale that array, plus a nice chunk of investment into hardware. EBS is just a mouse-click.
    - count 15y ago
      If you are so unconcerned with your storage that you're just mouse clicking around EBS setups, you don't' need 1-2 full-time people to run an array.
      - moe 15y ago
        Sounds like you've never dealt with storage at scale. It's far from "rack and forget" once you've grow beyond 2 racks.
        count 15y ago
        I think you read the opposite of what I was trying to say. I have dealt with storage 'at scale' enough to require a full team of storage people. Some guy clicking buttons on the Amazon website is usually not a very effective way of dealing with storage 'at scale'.
        moe 15y ago
        Yes, sorry for reading you backwards. However I maintain that EBS has it's place in a wide range of applications where raw I/O performance isn't the main concern (e.g. archival).
dmk23 15y ago
EBS disk performance is unacceptable for high scalability applications. There I said it!

moe 15y ago

EBS disk performance is reliable, but miserable. EBS performance is unreliable and miserable. There, fixed that for you. However, EBS also has a couple things going for it. Namely: easy snapshots, fast/seamless provisioning (need another 1T?), mobility (need that volume on another instance?) and quite a fair price point when you take all that into account.

whacker 15y ago
easy snapshots, fast/seamless provisioning (need another 1T?) All of which are doable with LVM.
- moe 15y ago
  Sure, within the boundaries of your disk array. Assuming a non-trivial size you'll need 1-2 fulltime people to run and scale that array, plus a nice chunk of investment into hardware. EBS is just a mouse-click.
  - count 15y ago
    If you are so unconcerned with your storage that you're just mouse clicking around EBS setups, you don't' need 1-2 full-time people to run an array.
    - moe 15y ago
      Sounds like you've never dealt with storage at scale. It's far from "rack and forget" once you've grow beyond 2 racks.
      - count 15y ago
        I think you read the opposite of what I was trying to say. I have dealt with storage 'at scale' enough to require a full team of storage people. Some guy clicking buttons on the Amazon website is usually not a very effective way of dealing with storage 'at scale'.
        moe 15y ago
        Yes, sorry for reading you backwards. However I maintain that EBS has it's place in a wide range of applications where raw I/O performance isn't the main concern (e.g. archival).

dmk23 15y ago

EBS disk performance is unacceptable for high scalability applications. There I said it!