3 ms·
Is AWS really that great for startups (under $100/month hosting)? What about Linode et al? AFAIK, AWS is min $70/month to host a regular dynamic website, wherea
by todsul 15y ago
Is AWS really that great for startups (under $100/month hosting)? What about Linode et al? AFAIK, AWS is min $70/month to host a regular dynamic website, whereas Linode starts at $19/month. With intelligent caching (ESI, etc), that $19 can handle 500+ req/sec. Or say 20k+ req/sec for static files (i.e full-page cached sites). Sure there are limitations, but I'd imagine Linode/Slicehost/Rackspace (unmanaged) being better for statups who run regular dynamic websites (with little need for serious elasticity). These VPS providers have load balancing, great communities, good doco, month-to-month contracts, etc.
Admittedly, this isn't my field, so I'd love to hear from someone in-the-know about whether Linode is on par with AWS with regard to most startups (who don't need the extra services Amazon provide over VPS providers).
- captaincrunch 15y agoAWS is great for start-ups, specially with the one year free tier. Anyone else giving away a free server, with a load balancer these days?
- seunosewa 15y agoAWS is a distraction for startups. The free tier is just bait.
- moe 15y ago"Server" is an euphemism. The micro's run on the leftover capacity of their host. This means they're not suited to tasks that need any kind of responsiveness (as implied by the word "server"). They're meant for long-term crunching such as video transcoding or batch-jobs. And in most cases you'll want to have a lot more than one because a single micro has about the throughput of a modern android phone...