4 ms·
Did nobody notice that his AWS figures are totally wrong? AWS is expensive as hell, but even still $1400/month for 3 instances immediately looked incredibly wr
by papsosouid 14y ago
Did nobody notice that his AWS figures are totally wrong? AWS is expensive as hell, but even still $1400/month for 3 instances immediately looked incredibly wrong to me.
>The instance types included in the Web Application customer sample are 2 small (for the front end), and 1 large (for the database).
Nope, the instance types are 2 small for web, 2 small for app, and 2 large for DB. That's fully double what he's claiming it is. And he's ignoring the 4 300GB EBS volumes that are in that $1400/month as well as the load balancer and 120GB of bandwidth. And that is entirely on-demand instances, if you are comparing to a colo setup, you should be using the much cheaper reserved instances.
- codinghorror 14y agoWe're just comparing the Amazon Web Application template as provided in their calculator, with no changes. You're right that it is x2 for each EC2 server which I didn't notice until later, but that doesn't change the economics or performance story very much.
- papsosouid 14y agoYes, we're comparing the web application template as provided. Except you compared less than half of it instead of comparing it. I think "I claimed that AWS is twice as expensive as it actually is" certainly changes the economics much. Your 3 servers is not 6 servers and a load balancer. Reliability counts too, not just performance. Especially since most web apps are going to be 90% idle on the AWS hardware.