4 ms·

$200 is a m.large instance (7.5.GB) plus the "provisioned i/o" charges (EBS volume). MS SQL is free since we're in BizSpark.

by jitbit 13y ago

Toshio 13y ago
> "[insert technology here] is free since we're in BizSpark." For how much longer? And then what?
- timdorr 13y ago
  http://aws.amazon.com/ec2/pricing/ http://aws.amazon.com/ec2/pricing/ There are tabs for SQL Server Web and Standard Editions. Depending on what version of SQL Server he needs, it's either a $0.136/hr additional cost to add Web Edition or $0.610/hr additional cost to add Standard Edition. That works out to an approximate $97.92 or $439.20 additional cost per month. So, not a huge jump in cost.
aetimmes 13y ago
What about the concerns with running your apps on a single server? Or do you Hyper-V within a single instance?
KaiserPro 13y ago
but one instance on Amazon is not high availability. The rest of your post could be read as apples with oranges, Charm was expensive because they made massive architectural mistakes. End of story. This is not to say that what you are doing/saying is incorrect. Your stuff works and is able to cope with the load thrown at it on one server. To be honest I'm quite mystified why startups boast about using n instances to serve a few thousand hits. Node, some python frameworks and ruby are ridiculously wasteful[1]. All it tells me is that you've not though about the best way to do things, you've just used the latest tools and smooshed them together. If you had to have more than one server to handle 2[2] tickets a minute and 1 hit a second on your website I'd be questioning your programming skill The one thing I do take issue with is your implied claim of high availability. Hourly backups, and no hot spare or active active replication is not high availability. Yes you can rebuild an instance in 5 minutes, but only in best case, and you've still lost up to an hour's worth of user data (around 60 tickets). That is a commendable recovery rate, but its still downtime. [1] depending on usage, of course. [2] using stats from the article
- cdrxndr 13y ago
  I'm a little late to the party, but can't believe so few people brought up the lack of availability admitted in this article. The OP is admitting that the company's official stance of availability is that it will restore from 1 hour ago ... and lose client data. Losing client data is the worst thing you could do as a SaaS. The second worst thing you could do is to not be online - e.g., as someone pointed out; because one app (or even something out of your control) took out all your services. MS is not really the story here. Cost of HA in typical Linux vs. MS stacks, which wasn't addressed at all in the article, is what is relevant.

$200 is a m.large instance (7.5.GB) plus the "provisioned i/o" charges (EBS volume). MS SQL is free since we're in BizSpark.

by jitbit 13y ago

$200 is a m.large instance (7.5.GB) plus the "provisioned i/o" charges (EBS volume). MS SQL is free since we're in BizSpark.

Toshio 13y ago

> "[insert technology here] is free since we're in BizSpark." For how much longer? And then what?

timdorr 13y ago
http://aws.amazon.com/ec2/pricing/ http://aws.amazon.com/ec2/pricing/ There are tabs for SQL Server Web and Standard Editions. Depending on what version of SQL Server he needs, it's either a $0.136/hr additional cost to add Web Edition or $0.610/hr additional cost to add Standard Edition. That works out to an approximate $97.92 or $439.20 additional cost per month. So, not a huge jump in cost.

aetimmes 13y ago

What about the concerns with running your apps on a single server? Or do you Hyper-V within a single instance?

KaiserPro 13y ago

but one instance on Amazon is not high availability. The rest of your post could be read as apples with oranges, Charm was expensive because they made massive architectural mistakes. End of story. This is not to say that what you are doing/saying is incorrect. Your stuff works and is able to cope with the load thrown at it on one server. To be honest I'm quite mystified why startups boast about using n instances to serve a few thousand hits. Node, some python frameworks and ruby are ridiculously wasteful[1]. All it tells me is that you've not though about the best way to do things, you've just used the latest tools and smooshed them together. If you had to have more than one server to handle 2[2] tickets a minute and 1 hit a second on your website I'd be questioning your programming skill The one thing I do take issue with is your implied claim of high availability. Hourly backups, and no hot spare or active active replication is not high availability. Yes you can rebuild an instance in 5 minutes, but only in best case, and you've still lost up to an hour's worth of user data (around 60 tickets). That is a commendable recovery rate, but its still downtime. [1] depending on usage, of course. [2] using stats from the article

cdrxndr 13y ago
I'm a little late to the party, but can't believe so few people brought up the lack of availability admitted in this article. The OP is admitting that the company's official stance of availability is that it will restore from 1 hour ago ... and lose client data. Losing client data is the worst thing you could do as a SaaS. The second worst thing you could do is to not be online - e.g., as someone pointed out; because one app (or even something out of your control) took out all your services. MS is not really the story here. Cost of HA in typical Linux vs. MS stacks, which wasn't addressed at all in the article, is what is relevant.