4 ms·

Amazon EC2 has a large VM if you don't want to purchase or lease hardware yet: "Extra Large Instance 15 GB of memory, 8 EC2 Compute Units (4 virtual cores with

by wehriam 18y ago

Amazon EC2 has a large VM if you don't want to purchase or lease hardware yet: "Extra Large Instance 15 GB of memory, 8 EC2 Compute Units (4 virtual cores with 2 EC2 Compute Units each), 1690 GB of instance storage, 64-bit platform" $0.80/hour - about $730/month.

cconstantine 18y ago
I have very little experience with EC2 (or managing server farms). I have worked at Amazon and been responsible for an internal service there that ran on a server farm, but we didn't use EC2 and another department managed the machines. Has EC2 been reliable enough lately? I've heard horror stories of 8+ hour downtime multiple times a year.
lsc 18y ago
if you leave that on all the time, and plan on keeping it for more than a month, that's a horrible deal. I can build a super micro server w/ 32G ram and 8 cores for around $2500, and I get to keep it. Heck, I'll rent you one of mine and host it for $512/month. Of course, if you only need it during the day, or temporarily or something, ec2 is an awesome deal.
- wehriam 18y ago
  I won't dispute that in many situations owning machines is the most economical way to go. But keep in mind: * EC2 servers can be deployed quickly and cheaply - you don't have to overspend on hardware to meet an upper bound of predicted demand. The original poster needed between 10 and 20 machines - if he only needs 10 but purchases 20 he wastes $25k. * Co-location fees are included * Features like elastic IPs, elastic block storage, and security groups make managing machines easier.
  - lsc 18y ago
    you have a good point. It's hard to find a co-lo that doesn't have excessive fees for 'not knowing exactly what you will need for the next two years' - I myself have gotten in trouble with bandwidth contracts. My point is just that at $700 for 4 cores/15G, you are better off paying for a server if you need at least two and stay more than two months. (I pay under $2500 for 8 cores/32G ram) Even if you buy a dell and have to pay for the more expensive 4GB modules ('cause all the dells I know of only have 8 ram slots) and pay for the 'sales guy tax' I imagine you aren't more than twice that, unless you get silly on the CPUs, so even then you are talking only 4 months to make your investment back. You do need to be careful about co-lo contracts, though, they are professionals (by which I mean they are really good at screwing you.) so watch out, and always assume the worst of any document you sign. There are places that let you go month-to-month, especially on the low end. He.net usually lets you get full racks on a month to month basis, with a reasonable ($500) setup fee... I know lots of smaller providers that give you month-to-month on a per-U basis. (see rippleweb.net - I host my backup servers there. Something like $80 per U/month, but that includes 1TB data transfer, and they let you host one of the aforementioned 8 core monsters without charging extra, and they let you go month to month.)

by wehriam 18y ago

cconstantine 18y ago

I have very little experience with EC2 (or managing server farms). I have worked at Amazon and been responsible for an internal service there that ran on a server farm, but we didn't use EC2 and another department managed the machines. Has EC2 been reliable enough lately? I've heard horror stories of 8+ hour downtime multiple times a year.

lsc 18y ago

if you leave that on all the time, and plan on keeping it for more than a month, that's a horrible deal. I can build a super micro server w/ 32G ram and 8 cores for around $2500, and I get to keep it. Heck, I'll rent you one of mine and host it for $512/month. Of course, if you only need it during the day, or temporarily or something, ec2 is an awesome deal.

wehriam 18y ago
I won't dispute that in many situations owning machines is the most economical way to go. But keep in mind: * EC2 servers can be deployed quickly and cheaply - you don't have to overspend on hardware to meet an upper bound of predicted demand. The original poster needed between 10 and 20 machines - if he only needs 10 but purchases 20 he wastes $25k. * Co-location fees are included * Features like elastic IPs, elastic block storage, and security groups make managing machines easier.
- lsc 18y ago
  you have a good point. It's hard to find a co-lo that doesn't have excessive fees for 'not knowing exactly what you will need for the next two years' - I myself have gotten in trouble with bandwidth contracts. My point is just that at $700 for 4 cores/15G, you are better off paying for a server if you need at least two and stay more than two months. (I pay under $2500 for 8 cores/32G ram) Even if you buy a dell and have to pay for the more expensive 4GB modules ('cause all the dells I know of only have 8 ram slots) and pay for the 'sales guy tax' I imagine you aren't more than twice that, unless you get silly on the CPUs, so even then you are talking only 4 months to make your investment back. You do need to be careful about co-lo contracts, though, they are professionals (by which I mean they are really good at screwing you.) so watch out, and always assume the worst of any document you sign. There are places that let you go month-to-month, especially on the low end. He.net usually lets you get full racks on a month to month basis, with a reasonable ($500) setup fee... I know lots of smaller providers that give you month-to-month on a per-U basis. (see rippleweb.net - I host my backup servers there. Something like $80 per U/month, but that includes 1TB data transfer, and they let you host one of the aforementioned 8 core monsters without charging extra, and they let you go month to month.)