4 ms·
AWS, no hesitation. AWS isn't that hard to configure. ElasticFox puts a nice GUI to it and while it will take a short while to get used to the AWS way of doin
by mdasen 18y ago
AWS, no hesitation.
AWS isn't that hard to configure. ElasticFox puts a nice GUI to it and while it will take a short while to get used to the AWS way of doing things, you're better off.
With AWS, you have a nice spray files everywhere storage in S3, EC2 provides lots of RAM and CPU muscle, EBS provides RAID-level reliable persistent storage for EC2 that can be backed up to multiple data centers with a single API call, CloudFront even gives you the chance to have static files served from 12 different locations in the world making your latency very small. If you need more servers, no problem just wait a few minutes for them to boot. If you need more bandwith, it's automatic. If you need more storage, S3 is infinite and EBS can always give you more (you can even stripe the drives so that you could have terrabyte after terrabyte of storage as a single drive).
Dedicated servers have little upside. You're relying on physical hardware in a very acute fashion. While AWS runs on real hardware, there's an abstraction level which helps a lot. Let's say you're small and want a single box. That box fails, you call your host and get a new one in a couple hours, you restore from backups for another couple hours maybe and you're back online. Of course, many often don't test their disaster recovery scenarios that well and are often met with little problems. With AWS, you simply boot another machine off that image and you're good. Worst case, your EBS gets trashed and you say, "hey, S3, rebuild that EBS drive". Easy by comparison.
Real boxes are a pain. You have to deal with RAID, backups, how fast your company can provision new boxes, bleh! AWS (or even Slicehost and Linode) isolate you from a lot of that mess. There's a reason virtualization is the hot new topic.
AWS isn't that hard to use. It's definitely different, but it makes so many other things so much less painful. If you want some of the benefits of AWS with a "simple as dedicated" feel, try Slicehost. You can get instances with as much as 15.5GB of RAM and they just give you the instance with your choice of Linux on it. From there, you can install Apache, MySQL, other. And you get benefits like cheap and easy backups - they just store an image of the machine. Then, if you need more capacity, you can boot one of those images as a new instance, now you have another server. If one of their servers fails, they can easily migrate your instance to another box. RAID10 is already set up. Easy.
If you're worried about AWS' management being a little different, don't worry too much. It's not that bad once you start using it - just a tad hard to imagine without trying it. If you're still worried, Slicehost will give you instances that will work like you're used to dedicated hosting working, but with many of the advantages of AWS.
- thesethings 18y agomdasen, i frequently learn from your infrastructure comments, and find myself wanting more. I'm sure all sysadmins wish you had a blog/book in your profile :D
- raghus 18y agoI use and recommend Slicehost. I'll tweak just one thing and that is that SH offers backups only for slices upto 2GB - for the 4/8/15G slices, there is no backup option. I am not sure why though.
- raghus 18y agoI asked Slicehost and they say that because of the way they currently do backups, they can't guarantee that backups of slices larger than 2GB will get done in a reasonable amount of time
- mattmaroon 18y agoIf you ask support, they'll tell you they've got some backup options in the works supposedly.
- davidw 18y agoAll other things being equal (which I don't know for a fact), Linode is significantly cheaper than Slicehost, considering the differences in memory usage between x86 (32 bit) and x86_64: http://journal.dedasys.com/2008/11/24/slicehost-vs-linode http://journal.dedasys.com/2008/11/24/slicehost-vs-linode
- astine 18y agoI find EC2 to be a bit pricey for webapps if thats what we're going for here. It seems to be optimized for high performance and high availability compute clusters, not for persistent webapps. A traditional VPS (like Slicehost) is a more economical solution for that, IMHO.
- mdasen 18y agoSlicehost can be cheaper because of the included bandwidth, but AWS can be really helpful too. Here's two examples: Database server. EBS is a high-performance disk system offering speeds of 70MB/s in the real world. Databases love fast disks. Slicehost's disks are slow (at least for high performance databases). Xen doesn't have great disk access speed and they're just plain old local disks. So, if you need to scale up a database, AWS is going to accommodate that better. Infinidisk! With Slicehost, you have a fixed disk size and you can't buy more. With EBS, you can just keep getting more and more disk - you can even stripe volumes so that they show up as a single disk to your instance. Life is about trade-offs. I love Slicehost and use them for all my stuff. I've set up EC2 stuff for other people who wanted it. So, it really depends on what you need.