4 ms·

I moved up from a small instance to a medium instance on a server that I never thought I would need more power on, it took me less than 5 minutes to make the sw

by javery 17y ago

I moved up from a small instance to a medium instance on a server that I never thought I would need more power on, it took me less than 5 minutes to make the switch. (unattach the IP and EBS and attach to the new instance) This is why I pay for EC2. My dedicated boxes are on a yearly contract and when it comes to move it's a couple hours to move data, IP addresses, etc.

DanBlake 17y ago
The amount you pay for a "small" instance on EC2 is the same price as a machine you can get with gigenet that is more powerful than the "Large" instance. Hence the major problem with ec2- Cost. Yes, you can instantly scale up to a less powerful server than you would have got in the first place from a dedicated provider. Also, You do know you can do things like upgrade the processor and ram on a dedicated, usually within a hour also. You just send in a ticket. What server provider makes you do a contract?
- javery 17y ago
  The contract isn't required, but I use it to get the best deal. And if you do the reserved instance the EC2 instances get pretty cheap. Upgrading hardware involves more downtime, and it's not anywhere near as easy to scale back down if I need to.
  - DanBlake 17y ago
    If you are signing contracts to get a deal, it sounds like you are price conscious. You should see in comments above where I spec out the needs for a typical website. However, Assuming you only need 1.2ghz of single core processing power and nobody needs to visit your website, ec2 is perfect. It only starts sucking when you actually have to serve files and do it quickly.
    - javery 17y ago
      I haven't had a problem with speed yet, but then again I use CloudFront and don't serve files directly from the server. For me its worth the money for the flexibility and the ability to scale as needed. I might be able to save a little money if I went with blended dedicated/EC2 but honestly the extra headache and latency for cross-communication wouldn't be worth the hassle.
- moe 17y ago
  The amount you pay for a "small" instance on EC2 is the same price as a machine you can get with gigenet that is more powerful than the "Large" instance. That is simply false. No idea what kind of beef you have with amazon but please get your facts straight. You seem to consequently ignore that with amazon you not only pay for a piece of hardware but also for the flexibility and infrastructure that comes with it. Yes, your cheapo host might give you a gig more RAM and a few more megahertz for your dollar - but it doesn't have equivalents to EBS, S3, CloudFront, instant provisioning and all the other goodies that make EC2 worthwhile. It will probably also not give you means to recover within minutes when your shiney, dedicated pizza box decides to blow a fuse.
  - DanBlake 17y ago
    Cheapo host? Theplanet and others have significantly more servers and datacenters than amazon. Most servers sold from either provider come with 1-2TB of bandwidth. How much does 2TB of bandwidth cost on amazon again? Right. I already said /multiple times/ that the other amazon services are well worth it. I only said EC2 /in my mind/ is not worth it, unless its for your overflow. If you have a static need for a server- As in, a webserver that will always be on, Then you are better off getting a dedicated. The bandwidth will cost less. The server itself will cost less. You will get more processing power.. You will get more RAM. You will not get instant provisioning. But then again, I dont randomly change the specs on my webservers now either way.
    - moe 17y ago
      Most servers sold from either provider come with 1-2TB of bandwidth. How much does 2TB of bandwidth cost on amazon again? Right. 340 dollars. If 340 dollars matter in your equation then I think we're talking about different things here. I only said EC2 /in my mind/ is not worth it Actually you come across like talking ultimo, just like in your next sentence... If you have a static need for a server- As in, a webserver that will always be on, Then you are better off getting a dedicated. See? That sentence simply doesn't work in that general form. If you have a need for a single webserver then yes, EC2 is probably not cost effective (although it can be even there, depending on the use-case). Once you're talking about a deployment with multiple servers the picture changes. Not always in the favor of Amazon but often enough to refute such a general statement. Looking at it again it seems like all your arguments come from the angle of renting a single server. - In that light you make some sense. But please also see that amazon starts to make a lot of sense in the mid-range and up, in many situations.

by javery 17y ago

DanBlake 17y ago

The amount you pay for a "small" instance on EC2 is the same price as a machine you can get with gigenet that is more powerful than the "Large" instance. Hence the major problem with ec2- Cost. Yes, you can instantly scale up to a less powerful server than you would have got in the first place from a dedicated provider. Also, You do know you can do things like upgrade the processor and ram on a dedicated, usually within a hour also. You just send in a ticket. What server provider makes you do a contract?

javery 17y ago
The contract isn't required, but I use it to get the best deal. And if you do the reserved instance the EC2 instances get pretty cheap. Upgrading hardware involves more downtime, and it's not anywhere near as easy to scale back down if I need to.
- DanBlake 17y ago
  If you are signing contracts to get a deal, it sounds like you are price conscious. You should see in comments above where I spec out the needs for a typical website. However, Assuming you only need 1.2ghz of single core processing power and nobody needs to visit your website, ec2 is perfect. It only starts sucking when you actually have to serve files and do it quickly.
  - javery 17y ago
    I haven't had a problem with speed yet, but then again I use CloudFront and don't serve files directly from the server. For me its worth the money for the flexibility and the ability to scale as needed. I might be able to save a little money if I went with blended dedicated/EC2 but honestly the extra headache and latency for cross-communication wouldn't be worth the hassle.
moe 17y ago
The amount you pay for a "small" instance on EC2 is the same price as a machine you can get with gigenet that is more powerful than the "Large" instance. That is simply false. No idea what kind of beef you have with amazon but please get your facts straight. You seem to consequently ignore that with amazon you not only pay for a piece of hardware but also for the flexibility and infrastructure that comes with it. Yes, your cheapo host might give you a gig more RAM and a few more megahertz for your dollar - but it doesn't have equivalents to EBS, S3, CloudFront, instant provisioning and all the other goodies that make EC2 worthwhile. It will probably also not give you means to recover within minutes when your shiney, dedicated pizza box decides to blow a fuse.
- DanBlake 17y ago
  Cheapo host? Theplanet and others have significantly more servers and datacenters than amazon. Most servers sold from either provider come with 1-2TB of bandwidth. How much does 2TB of bandwidth cost on amazon again? Right. I already said /multiple times/ that the other amazon services are well worth it. I only said EC2 /in my mind/ is not worth it, unless its for your overflow. If you have a static need for a server- As in, a webserver that will always be on, Then you are better off getting a dedicated. The bandwidth will cost less. The server itself will cost less. You will get more processing power.. You will get more RAM. You will not get instant provisioning. But then again, I dont randomly change the specs on my webservers now either way.
  - moe 17y ago
    Most servers sold from either provider come with 1-2TB of bandwidth. How much does 2TB of bandwidth cost on amazon again? Right. 340 dollars. If 340 dollars matter in your equation then I think we're talking about different things here. I only said EC2 /in my mind/ is not worth it Actually you come across like talking ultimo, just like in your next sentence... If you have a static need for a server- As in, a webserver that will always be on, Then you are better off getting a dedicated. See? That sentence simply doesn't work in that general form. If you have a need for a single webserver then yes, EC2 is probably not cost effective (although it can be even there, depending on the use-case). Once you're talking about a deployment with multiple servers the picture changes. Not always in the favor of Amazon but often enough to refute such a general statement. Looking at it again it seems like all your arguments come from the angle of renting a single server. - In that light you make some sense. But please also see that amazon starts to make a lot of sense in the mid-range and up, in many situations.