Am I correct in assuming, that the performance bottleneck is always going to be the disk IO?
I.e. the most expensive component of the server is going to be the drives and the controller? Cal On 25/04/2011 21:35, Sylvain Munaut wrote: > Hi, > >> I am new on the Mailing List, but why don't you host on EC2? >> There it would be scaleable and I guess with 15$ per run you could even cover >> a High-CPU Instance > There is even GPU instance ... but doesn't help. > > But have you looked up the price it would cost to first upload then > maintain and access 2To of data on the cloud ? > Also, the latency for theses storage is horrible. > > On the server I'm describing, I'm talking 4*512Go of SSD each capable > of 30k random access per second. You're not gonna even approach that > on EC2. > > Cheers, > > Sylvain > _______________________________________________ > A51 mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.lists.reflextor.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/a51 > _______________________________________________ A51 mailing list [email protected] http://lists.lists.reflextor.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/a51
