4 ms·

I agree that performances are bad on EC2. That's because of the overhead of virtualization. It's not a "Big Scam" though, it's just bad performances. It still

I agree that performances are bad on EC2. That's because of the overhead of virtualization. It's not a "Big Scam" though, it's just bad performances. It still has lots of pros, instant deployment to name only one.

cmer 15y ago
I agree that it is much more flexible. However, is it really worth paying 10-20 times more? I'm not sure. The price I got at Joe's is not even "that" cheap. You can get a MUCH faster box at Softlayer for not much more, making EC2 look even more pathetic. Performance/price wise, I think EC2 is definitely a scam. The flexibility aspect of it is what makes the comparison more difficult.
- mooism2 15y ago
  EC2 is a scam? Are you accusing Amazon of fraud?
  - cmer 15y ago
    Read the article. I'm simply saying that EC2 is at least 10 times more expensive than the competition but people don't seem to realize it. The performance on EC2 is basically equivalent to a 10 year old crappy computer.
    - mooism2 15y ago
      Yeah, I read it before you changed the title. I agree that EC2 isn't value for money if you're looking to rent a server for a month at a time.
- wavephorm 15y ago
  I think EC2 is definitely a scam You're saying scam when you really mean just "expensive".
- tluyben2 15y ago
  I have managed and coded a lot of sites on both dedicated, co-located servers I had full control over as well as on Amazon. From my POV it's definitely worth 10-20 times more. Unless you are a HUGE outfit, Joe's servers are very annoying to manage. It all depends on what you are doing do; you want Amazon (or any cloud service) to scale automatically and auto failover for sites which grow (and shrink) massively over time. I have no clue (at all) why people would run sites on Amazon which just use 1-2 servers and cannot scale automatically (and do not need to). In that case Softlayer or Iweb or something would be much better. Especially as they, these days, also have some 'hybrid' cloud experience where you can, not exactly at the speed/ease of Amazon, add dedicated or virtualized instances.

cmer 15y ago

I agree that it is much more flexible. However, is it really worth paying 10-20 times more? I'm not sure. The price I got at Joe's is not even "that" cheap. You can get a MUCH faster box at Softlayer for not much more, making EC2 look even more pathetic. Performance/price wise, I think EC2 is definitely a scam. The flexibility aspect of it is what makes the comparison more difficult.

mooism2 15y ago
EC2 is a scam? Are you accusing Amazon of fraud?
- cmer 15y ago
  Read the article. I'm simply saying that EC2 is at least 10 times more expensive than the competition but people don't seem to realize it. The performance on EC2 is basically equivalent to a 10 year old crappy computer.
  - mooism2 15y ago
    Yeah, I read it before you changed the title. I agree that EC2 isn't value for money if you're looking to rent a server for a month at a time.
wavephorm 15y ago
I think EC2 is definitely a scam You're saying scam when you really mean just "expensive".
tluyben2 15y ago
I have managed and coded a lot of sites on both dedicated, co-located servers I had full control over as well as on Amazon. From my POV it's definitely worth 10-20 times more. Unless you are a HUGE outfit, Joe's servers are very annoying to manage. It all depends on what you are doing do; you want Amazon (or any cloud service) to scale automatically and auto failover for sites which grow (and shrink) massively over time. I have no clue (at all) why people would run sites on Amazon which just use 1-2 servers and cannot scale automatically (and do not need to). In that case Softlayer or Iweb or something would be much better. Especially as they, these days, also have some 'hybrid' cloud experience where you can, not exactly at the speed/ease of Amazon, add dedicated or virtualized instances.