3 ms·

In the next few months we will be migrating a number of servers to EC2. The only reason is to take advantage of latency based routing -- we really really need t

In the next few months we will be migrating a number of servers to EC2. The only reason is to take advantage of latency based routing -- we really really need to reduce latency as far as possible. Anyway, there's your reason. The other reason is that big businesses just don't care. Margins are high enough on software that cost of EC2 over another provider is outweighed by the benefit of existing infrastructure, developer experience, and the risk limitation by choosing AWS.

dragontamer 14y ago
Fair enough. I consider that part of the "specialty" kind of service however. I still wouldn't touch their S3 compute stuff though, even if I'd use Amazon's DNS services. I know that you can use Amazon's CDN with other provider's VPSes or your own dedicated boxes somewhere. And certainly, for the small 2 or 3 server clusters that a small startup uses, Amazon's prices are much significantly higher than other providers. Anyway, I'd have to check out the latency based routing thing, and how it differs from typical Geo DNS or "Anycast" DNS that is offered by a number of providers. My bet is that its just Amazon marketing speak for GeoDNS or Anycast technology. EDIT: http://docs.aws.amazon.com/Route53/latest/DeveloperGuide/CreatingLatencyRRSets.html http://docs.aws.amazon.com/Route53/latest/DeveloperGuide/Cre... As far as I can tell, Amazon's "Latency based Routing" is just GeoDNS with much better marketing name. Its all about reducing latency, but at the end of the day, it is no different from GeoDNS. That said, Route53 does seem to be a good DNS service from Amazon. $0.75 per million anycast queries per month + $0.50 per zone is a good price methinks. So while I'd never use a compute instance at Amazon, I probably definitely keep their Route53 service on my list. Looks pretty nice from what I can tell.

dragontamer 14y ago

Fair enough. I consider that part of the "specialty" kind of service however. I still wouldn't touch their S3 compute stuff though, even if I'd use Amazon's DNS services. I know that you can use Amazon's CDN with other provider's VPSes or your own dedicated boxes somewhere. And certainly, for the small 2 or 3 server clusters that a small startup uses, Amazon's prices are much significantly higher than other providers. Anyway, I'd have to check out the latency based routing thing, and how it differs from typical Geo DNS or "Anycast" DNS that is offered by a number of providers. My bet is that its just Amazon marketing speak for GeoDNS or Anycast technology. EDIT: http://docs.aws.amazon.com/Route53/latest/DeveloperGuide/CreatingLatencyRRSets.html http://docs.aws.amazon.com/Route53/latest/DeveloperGuide/Cre... As far as I can tell, Amazon's "Latency based Routing" is just GeoDNS with much better marketing name. Its all about reducing latency, but at the end of the day, it is no different from GeoDNS. That said, Route53 does seem to be a good DNS service from Amazon. $0.75 per million anycast queries per month + $0.50 per zone is a good price methinks. So while I'd never use a compute instance at Amazon, I probably definitely keep their Route53 service on my list. Looks pretty nice from what I can tell.