3 ms·

True, but the reason Amazon created EBS is that on EC2 local instance storage is transient, so they needed something nonvolatile but lower-level than S3. Cloud

by jbellis 17y ago

True, but the reason Amazon created EBS is that on EC2 local instance storage is transient, so they needed something nonvolatile but lower-level than S3. Cloud Server's local storage is already nonvolatile and RAID-1'd. /works for Rackspace

moe 17y ago
Well, I really like Rackspace and would love to find an excuse to use them - but this statement comes across as weaseling. :-) What does it matter why amazon introduced EBS here? It doesn't. What matters is that this is a serious constraint on the Rackspace side. You brought this up, so I'll take the chance to add that I really don't like the way you spin this on your comparison page (under Bullet 01, no less): http://www.rackspacecloud.com/cloud_hosting_products/servers/compare http://www.rackspacecloud.com/cloud_hosting_products/servers... Is Rackspace turning a Marketing-Company now? A fair comparison would include EBS and the associated costs. EBS is an integral part of the EC2 offering, just like your NAS options are an... Oh wait, those don't work with your CloudServers. The apple-to-oranges FUD you have there right now only leaves a bad taste in the mouth of an educated, potential customer. Smoke & mirror tactics like that are a big red flag ("Are they so insecure about their offering?").
- jbellis 17y ago
  > What does it matter why amazon introduced EBS here? It doesn't. Sure it does, because the reason is precisely that EBS is the only option for non-volatile storage in the Amazon cloud. This comes free for nonvolatile storage comes free with every Cloud Servers vm, up to the limits you mentioned, instead of having to pay extra for EBS to get that feature. All I was saying was this is a fine tradeoff for most users. No need to get defensive. :)
  - moe 17y ago
    No idea how my statement could come across as defensive - the intention was rather offensive. And I must say I'm quite disappointed by the response. Sorry if I acome across like an angry nerd by now but a) that's what I am and b) do you really think this is a good forum to play the smoke & mirrors game in? Many of us over here build systems like the ones you are selling. False claims like "rackspace is giving their storage away for free" simply don't work for us. I feel insulted when reading bollocks like that. Why do you try to treat me like an idiot? The rackspace storage does ofcourse not come "free". The cost was simply factored into the base-fee. Let's compare the largest instance where we can make a match, shall we: Monthly fee | Rackspace 8G Instance | EC2 "Large" -------------+------------------------+----------------- Monthly Fee | $345.60 | $288.00 640G Disk | $0.00 | $64.00 =============^========================+================ $345.60 | $352.00 Rackspace comes out ahead by a lousy $6.40 or 2%. That's your definition of free, yes? Want me to make that comparison with a reserved instance? Ah, thanks for asking, I knew you wanted. Monthly fee | Rackspace 8G Instance | "Large" reserved -------------+------------------------+----------------- Monthly Fee | $345.60 | $162.00 640G Disk | $0.00 | $64.00 =============^========================+================ $345.60 | $226.00 Oops. By the means of a simple 1 year commitment EC2 suddenly comes out ahead quite a worthwhile $119.60 or 35%. And know what, one great thing we could use these $120 saved bucks for would be to add 1.2T more storage! How's that? And what would the price for that be at rackspace anyways? Oh sorry, I forget, 640G ought to be enough for everybody... Well, I'll stop already, you see where it's headed. :-) For your own good, please refrain from bending facts the way you did above when speaking to a technical audience. Unless having nerds like me pop out of the wood and redact you in public is part of your marketing strategy...

by jbellis 17y ago

moe 17y ago

Well, I really like Rackspace and would love to find an excuse to use them - but this statement comes across as weaseling. :-) What does it matter why amazon introduced EBS here? It doesn't. What matters is that this is a serious constraint on the Rackspace side. You brought this up, so I'll take the chance to add that I really don't like the way you spin this on your comparison page (under Bullet 01, no less): http://www.rackspacecloud.com/cloud_hosting_products/servers/compare http://www.rackspacecloud.com/cloud_hosting_products/servers... Is Rackspace turning a Marketing-Company now? A fair comparison would include EBS and the associated costs. EBS is an integral part of the EC2 offering, just like your NAS options are an... Oh wait, those don't work with your CloudServers. The apple-to-oranges FUD you have there right now only leaves a bad taste in the mouth of an educated, potential customer. Smoke & mirror tactics like that are a big red flag ("Are they so insecure about their offering?").

jbellis 17y ago
> What does it matter why amazon introduced EBS here? It doesn't. Sure it does, because the reason is precisely that EBS is the only option for non-volatile storage in the Amazon cloud. This comes free for nonvolatile storage comes free with every Cloud Servers vm, up to the limits you mentioned, instead of having to pay extra for EBS to get that feature. All I was saying was this is a fine tradeoff for most users. No need to get defensive. :)
- moe 17y ago
  No idea how my statement could come across as defensive - the intention was rather offensive. And I must say I'm quite disappointed by the response. Sorry if I acome across like an angry nerd by now but a) that's what I am and b) do you really think this is a good forum to play the smoke & mirrors game in? Many of us over here build systems like the ones you are selling. False claims like "rackspace is giving their storage away for free" simply don't work for us. I feel insulted when reading bollocks like that. Why do you try to treat me like an idiot? The rackspace storage does ofcourse not come "free". The cost was simply factored into the base-fee. Let's compare the largest instance where we can make a match, shall we: Monthly fee | Rackspace 8G Instance | EC2 "Large" -------------+------------------------+----------------- Monthly Fee | $345.60 | $288.00 640G Disk | $0.00 | $64.00 =============^========================+================ $345.60 | $352.00 Rackspace comes out ahead by a lousy $6.40 or 2%. That's your definition of free, yes? Want me to make that comparison with a reserved instance? Ah, thanks for asking, I knew you wanted. Monthly fee | Rackspace 8G Instance | "Large" reserved -------------+------------------------+----------------- Monthly Fee | $345.60 | $162.00 640G Disk | $0.00 | $64.00 =============^========================+================ $345.60 | $226.00 Oops. By the means of a simple 1 year commitment EC2 suddenly comes out ahead quite a worthwhile $119.60 or 35%. And know what, one great thing we could use these $120 saved bucks for would be to add 1.2T more storage! How's that? And what would the price for that be at rackspace anyways? Oh sorry, I forget, 640G ought to be enough for everybody... Well, I'll stop already, you see where it's headed. :-) For your own good, please refrain from bending facts the way you did above when speaking to a technical audience. Unless having nerds like me pop out of the wood and redact you in public is part of your marketing strategy...