4 ms·
>You’re going to struggle to get the kind of performance you’d get from a commercial SAN or NAS, with battery-backed cache, but EBS is considerably cheaper. I
by papsosouid 14y ago
>You’re going to struggle to get the kind of performance you’d get from a commercial SAN or NAS, with battery-backed cache, but EBS is considerably cheaper.
I don't get this at all. It isn't a case of "struggling to get the performance", it is a case of "you will never come close to being in the same league, much less the same ballpark as the performance of a cheap entry level SAN". That would be fine if they offered something with reasonable performance, but they don't. Our only options for storage are "incredibly slow" and "incredibly slow and transient".
The really bad aspect of this, is that it isn't cheaper than a fibre channel SAN. When I last priced it, a HA + replication setup (3 devices, 2 in a HA cluster on site, one offsite being replicated to for disaster recovery) was the same price as the same amount of EBS storage for 1 year.
- sorenbs 14y agoThis is the reason why you can't run a large'ish website on sql server on AWS, and - i believe - a driving factor for adoption of alternative databases that are more easily sharded.
- seunosewa 14y agoThe need for sharding make hosting on AWS even more expensive relative to custom-tuned servers, and not cheaper.