On 6/4/07, Tracy R Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Bob La Quey wrote:
> If the group does not mind I would love to hear what
> you see as the advantages of using M5 over say
> Amazon Web Services. Compare and contrast.
My amazon EC2 instance is down right now. Apparently the network stack
died or something yesterday. And since I don't have physical access I
can't get on the console and see what is going on and fix it. I could
restart my instance but then I have to restore the whole system from
backup which is a real pain. I have someone from Amazon looking into the
problem and hopefully they can resurrect it without a restart of the
instance. I can wait because this is just my personal web server and not
all that important. EC2 is cheaper than a hosted box and has awesome
bandwidth but this is one of the inconveniences you will run into.
EC2 is really ideal for webfarm situations where rebooting any one of
the machines and restoring it from your Amazon Machine Image and then
letting cfengine/rsync do all of the rest of your
configuring/data-populating but for one-off boxes or situations where
any one box might be mission critical it is probably not the right tool
for the job.
Now I'm glad I didn't move my email server onto it like I was
considering a couple weeks ago. I seriously hate bounced mail. I'm on a
lot of mailing lists I would hate to get bounced off of.
Good report Tracy.
Do you know of any decent data on the reliability of AWS?
I don't much like the idea of any substantial system being
designed so that "any one box might be mission critical" so
I am really interested in the aggregate statistics for AWS.
BobLQ
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
