On Jul 9, 2008, at 10:59 AM, Adam Wiggins wrote: > On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 8:49 AM, jjhall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > >> Also, on a semi-related (but more off-topic) note, what does a simple >> Rails instance for a small (1-3 person) development team cost to run >> on Amazon's EC2 service? > > It's not related to the size of the dev team, but rather how much > resources (cpu, memory, disk) you want for your app. A small app can > easily be run from a single instance, which is $0.10 and hour, so at > 24 hrs a day that's about $70/mo. (This doesn't count the cost of an > IT/sysadmin/ops type person (maybe you) to keep tabs on everything, > which is actually the bigger cost on a decent-sized production site.) > If you wanted to break the database off onto its own machine, then > you're talking 2 x $70 = $140/mo, and so on.
More importantly, running a full stack Rails app on a single EC2 instance is not, in any way, equivalent to the hosting environment provided by Heroku. In order to get the same functionality as Heroku (minus any kind of scaling), you would need 6-8 EC2 instances. Much of the proxy balancing, caching, persistence, replication, and monitoring/self-healing functionality fundamentally can't be consolidated onto a single instance, regardless of the load on that machine. Running a web application on a single EC2 instance is not a viable solution. If you don't want to use Heroku and you also don't want to run and manage your own EC2 cluster, going with a traditional hosting provider is definitely the way to do it. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Heroku" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/heroku?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
