> Uh huh... using EC2 for storage sounds like a bad idea, especially since data on EC2 instances isn't persistent... There are workarounds, involving multiple

> Uh huh... using EC2 for storage sounds like a bad idea, especially since data on EC2 instances isn't persistent... There are workarounds, involving multiple instances and hoping that not all of them die at the same time... ;-). This is probably EC2's biggest current weakness, since you can't just rely on just one node, meaning it doesn't scale down as well as they claim. > While I'm sure they meant S3 They probably, correctly, mean EC2. >, you have to wonder about a company that uses them in their product yet still confuses the two. EC2 has per-instance (ephemeral) storage and S3 storage. They are designed to work together. S3's pricing includes free data transfer to/from EC2 instances (though the terms, last I checked, are vague about whether this includes per-request charges).