4 ms·
Ah the 5x multiplier i understand... But as far as AWS micro is concerned, it was an example for starter size. These are easily scalable I believe either throu
by fat0wl 13y ago
Ah the 5x multiplier i understand...
But as far as AWS micro is concerned, it was an example for starter size. These are easily scalable I believe either through Elastic Beanstalk tools or manually. On RDS for example (which I am more familiar with) if you have a small DB instance that is hitting CPU limits, you right click & hit modify... about a minute later it is now whatever size you want. And I think their instances get large enough that you would have to be running a reallll heavily-trafficked app to actually hit a wall. (I haven't read enough about EB which is why I asked the question but I think it is auto-scaling)
Again, maybe not as cost effective as dedicated but I think at this point it may be a good compromise between the two while the container community works out some deployment hurdles.
- toomuchtodo 13y agoAWS micro instances are heavily throttled CPU wise, and can only burst for extremely short periods of time. RDS can take upwards of 5-10 minutes to come back after you've changed the database instance type and restarted. We use Elastic Beanstalk + RDS in a production environment. Its okay, but expensive and the performance is lackluster. We'll be moving to physical hardware shortly.
- fat0wl 13y agoHow is the performance relative to Heroku though? I have a lot of terrible, inexplicable problems with Heroku (random huge amounts of request queue-ing even at times when our site is below normal load). I think these are all "noisy neighbor" issues and I would gladly leapfrog up from one host to another so long as the process isn't much more complicated and the performance is more reliable.