3 ms·
IT Executives shouldn't keep their jobs if they recommend production services for EC2?
- mootymoots 18y agoInteresting read... not sure I whole-heartedly agree though!
- brk 18y agoI agree completely. There seem to be a lot of web-startups that don't really have a firm grasp on colo/hosting/virt servers/etc. It strikes me as strange that the server availability part of their business is often seen as some uninteresting messy thing to be outsourced to the lowest bidder. EC2 is great for giving you moderately cost effective dynamic computing cycles. I personally think that EC2 makes for an expensive sucky web-host, and my guess is that over time (by the end of 2009) people will better understand EC2's niche.
- gaius 18y ago"virtual web hosting from the 80s" I would say that EC2 is considerably better than web hosting ever was in the 1980s.
- brk 18y agoName a SINGLE 80's webhost that ever had a verifiable SECOND of downtime. Also, name an 80's webhost that even charged any money for storage OR bandwidth. Webhosting in the 80's was so much simpler than it is today, companies hardly gave any thought at all to their hosting providers...
- wmf 18y agoOf course, if your own datacenter is down you don't get a refund either. You might get some psychological satisfaction from firing some of your own IT people, but that's unlikely to help your business much.
- teej 18y agoStartups shouldn't worry about uptime. Rapidly growing businesses should be building in failover and redundancy. Your choice of host doesn't change either of those facts.
- throw_away 18y agoNote that this guy runs a hosting company (http://www.gni.com/ http://www.gni.com/) & is a potential competitor to EC2's offering. Also note that his primary complaint is the EC2's SLA, but the link provided by GNi for their SLA (http://64.127.96.201/Support/ServiceLevelAgreement.aspx http://64.127.96.201/Support/ServiceLevelAgreement.aspx) points to nowhere.
- mootymoots 18y agoGood spot!