Re: [cfaussie] Re: Amazon EC2 hosting services viability
Amazon doesn't lose your data on restart if you use EBS... Mark On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 3:59 PM, Paul Kukiel kuki...@gmail.com wrote: Steve Take a look at Rackspace cloud options. I've been looking at them and chatting with Phil and they are also really good value for money and they don't loose your data like Amazon do upon restart. -- E: mark.man...@gmail.com T: http://www.twitter.com/neurotic W: www.compoundtheory.com cf.Objective(ANZ) + Flex - Nov 17, 18 - Melbourne Australia http://www.cfobjective.com.au 2 Devs from Down Under Podcast http://www.2ddu.com/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups cfaussie group. To post to this group, send email to cfaussie@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to cfaussie+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cfaussie?hl=en.
Re: [cfaussie] Re: Amazon EC2 hosting services viability
Steve, I have to agree with where you are coming from. When you compare physical to virtual, it does seem very expensive to run. But I also understand the benefits that Virtual gives you as well, and I am with you in that I am not sure that for small and I refer to you as small in the space of it all, could justify the cost of Cloud Computing. -- Regards, Andrew Scott WebSite: http://www.andyscott.id.au/ Google+: http://plus.google.com/108193156965451149543 On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 3:56 PM, Steve Onnis st...@cfcentral.com.au wrote: Yes paying by the hour is great but when you are using them as production instances which need to be up 24/7 then the paying by the hour doesn't really come into it. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups cfaussie group. To post to this group, send email to cfaussie@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to cfaussie+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cfaussie?hl=en.
Re: [cfaussie] Re: Amazon EC2 hosting services viability
Don't forget to also look into Amazon's 'Reserved Instance' pricing as that is a much more cost effective solution when running instances, especially 24/7. On 09/08/2011 04:21 PM, Andrew Scott wrote: Steve, I have to agree with where you are coming from. When you compare physical to virtual, it does seem very expensive to run. But I also understand the benefits that Virtual gives you as well, and I am with you in that I am not sure that for small and I refer to you as small in the space of it all, could justify the cost of Cloud Computing. -- Regards, Andrew Scott WebSite: http://www.andyscott.id.au http://www.andyscott.id.au// Google+: http://plus.google.com/108193156965451149543 On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 3:56 PM, Steve Onnis st...@cfcentral.com.au mailto:st...@cfcentral.com.au wrote: Yes paying by the hour is great but when you are using them as production instances which need to be up 24/7 then the paying by the hour doesn't really come into it. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups cfaussie group. To post to this group, send email to cfaussie@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to cfaussie+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cfaussie?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups cfaussie group. To post to this group, send email to cfaussie@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to cfaussie+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cfaussie?hl=en.
Re: [cfaussie] Re: Amazon EC2 hosting services viability
Sure but its not just simply setup and your database is persistent you need to offload to EBS at intervals or snap shot the instance. Where as rackspace is more like a typical VPS/colo machine just in an elastic environment. I'm just saying this is something to consider when making the move Paul On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 4:21 PM, Mark Mandel mark.man...@gmail.com wrote: Amazon doesn't lose your data on restart if you use EBS... Mark On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 3:59 PM, Paul Kukiel kuki...@gmail.com wrote: Steve Take a look at Rackspace cloud options. I've been looking at them and chatting with Phil and they are also really good value for money and they don't loose your data like Amazon do upon restart. -- E: mark.man...@gmail.com T: http://www.twitter.com/neurotic W: www.compoundtheory.com cf.Objective(ANZ) + Flex - Nov 17, 18 - Melbourne Australia http://www.cfobjective.com.au 2 Devs from Down Under Podcast http://www.2ddu.com/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups cfaussie group. To post to this group, send email to cfaussie@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to cfaussie+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cfaussie?hl=en. -- Paul Kukiel -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups cfaussie group. To post to this group, send email to cfaussie@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to cfaussie+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cfaussie?hl=en.
Re: [cfaussie] Re: Amazon EC2 hosting services viability
Yeah, to replace an entire hosting setup, it may not be cost effective. But for specific applications, it can make a lot of sense when you look at the wider functionality available. If you are looking at massive dips and spikes in traffic - you can't go past being about to expand and collapse in the cloud (Elastic Load Balancer). If you are going to do massive asynchronous batch processing of data off and on - spot instances make a lot of sense here. You need a CDN - cloudfront makes a lot of sense, building your own would suck Massive MySQL replication - RDS can make a lot of sense (although their performance on mySQL isn't crash hot in my experience). If you want to split up your application into lots of micro boxes that each have their own tasks - SQS and Micro Instances, are awesome. (Trickier to do this on traditional architectures). The list goes on. It's pretty neat set of tools, but if you were to look at it as a straight 'I have a server here, vs I have a server somewhere in the sky', it doesn't necessarily match up. Mark On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 4:28 PM, Josh Wines j...@joshwines.com wrote: ** Don't forget to also look into Amazon's 'Reserved Instance' pricing as that is a much more cost effective solution when running instances, especially 24/7. On 09/08/2011 04:21 PM, Andrew Scott wrote: Steve, I have to agree with where you are coming from. When you compare physical to virtual, it does seem very expensive to run. But I also understand the benefits that Virtual gives you as well, and I am with you in that I am not sure that for small and I refer to you as small in the space of it all, could justify the cost of Cloud Computing. -- Regards, Andrew Scott WebSite: http://www.andyscott.id.au/ Google+: http://plus.google.com/108193156965451149543 On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 3:56 PM, Steve Onnis st...@cfcentral.com.auwrote: Yes paying by the hour is great but when you are using them as production instances which need to be up 24/7 then the paying by the hour doesn't really come into it. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups cfaussie group. To post to this group, send email to cfaussie@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to cfaussie+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cfaussie?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups cfaussie group. To post to this group, send email to cfaussie@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to cfaussie+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cfaussie?hl=en. -- E: mark.man...@gmail.com T: http://www.twitter.com/neurotic W: www.compoundtheory.com cf.Objective(ANZ) + Flex - Nov 17, 18 - Melbourne Australia http://www.cfobjective.com.au 2 Devs from Down Under Podcast http://www.2ddu.com/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups cfaussie group. To post to this group, send email to cfaussie@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to cfaussie+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cfaussie?hl=en.
Re: [cfaussie] Re: Amazon EC2 hosting services viability
Well, you can use RDS or Oracle offerings. But if you have an EBS based AMI, what is the issue there? It's persistent between restarts in my experience (I tend to only host websites on them, not DBs) I rebooted our stage server yesterday, and it came back just fine with everything on it. So? Colour me confused? Mark On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 4:32 PM, Paul Kukiel kuki...@gmail.com wrote: Sure but its not just simply setup and your database is persistent you need to offload to EBS at intervals or snap shot the instance. Where as rackspace is more like a typical VPS/colo machine just in an elastic environment. I'm just saying this is something to consider when making the move Paul On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 4:21 PM, Mark Mandel mark.man...@gmail.com wrote: Amazon doesn't lose your data on restart if you use EBS... Mark On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 3:59 PM, Paul Kukiel kuki...@gmail.com wrote: Steve Take a look at Rackspace cloud options. I've been looking at them and chatting with Phil and they are also really good value for money and they don't loose your data like Amazon do upon restart. -- E: mark.man...@gmail.com T: http://www.twitter.com/neurotic W: www.compoundtheory.com cf.Objective(ANZ) + Flex - Nov 17, 18 - Melbourne Australia http://www.cfobjective.com.au 2 Devs from Down Under Podcast http://www.2ddu.com/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups cfaussie group. To post to this group, send email to cfaussie@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to cfaussie+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cfaussie?hl=en. -- Paul Kukiel -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups cfaussie group. To post to this group, send email to cfaussie@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to cfaussie+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cfaussie?hl=en. -- E: mark.man...@gmail.com T: http://www.twitter.com/neurotic W: www.compoundtheory.com cf.Objective(ANZ) + Flex - Nov 17, 18 - Melbourne Australia http://www.cfobjective.com.au 2 Devs from Down Under Podcast http://www.2ddu.com/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups cfaussie group. To post to this group, send email to cfaussie@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to cfaussie+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cfaussie?hl=en.
Re: [cfaussie] Re: Amazon EC2 hosting services viability
No Issue its just different. Ie you can just install SQL server, put data in the database, shut down the instance fire it back up again the next day and expect the data to be there. At rackspace it does work like this however. Paul. On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 4:37 PM, Mark Mandel mark.man...@gmail.com wrote: Well, you can use RDS or Oracle offerings. But if you have an EBS based AMI, what is the issue there? It's persistent between restarts in my experience (I tend to only host websites on them, not DBs) I rebooted our stage server yesterday, and it came back just fine with everything on it. So? Colour me confused? Mark On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 4:32 PM, Paul Kukiel kuki...@gmail.com wrote: Sure but its not just simply setup and your database is persistent you need to offload to EBS at intervals or snap shot the instance. Where as rackspace is more like a typical VPS/colo machine just in an elastic environment. I'm just saying this is something to consider when making the move Paul On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 4:21 PM, Mark Mandel mark.man...@gmail.comwrote: Amazon doesn't lose your data on restart if you use EBS... Mark On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 3:59 PM, Paul Kukiel kuki...@gmail.com wrote: Steve Take a look at Rackspace cloud options. I've been looking at them and chatting with Phil and they are also really good value for money and they don't loose your data like Amazon do upon restart. -- E: mark.man...@gmail.com T: http://www.twitter.com/neurotic W: www.compoundtheory.com cf.Objective(ANZ) + Flex - Nov 17, 18 - Melbourne Australia http://www.cfobjective.com.au 2 Devs from Down Under Podcast http://www.2ddu.com/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups cfaussie group. To post to this group, send email to cfaussie@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to cfaussie+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cfaussie?hl=en. -- Paul Kukiel -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups cfaussie group. To post to this group, send email to cfaussie@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to cfaussie+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cfaussie?hl=en. -- E: mark.man...@gmail.com T: http://www.twitter.com/neurotic W: www.compoundtheory.com cf.Objective(ANZ) + Flex - Nov 17, 18 - Melbourne Australia http://www.cfobjective.com.au 2 Devs from Down Under Podcast http://www.2ddu.com/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups cfaussie group. To post to this group, send email to cfaussie@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to cfaussie+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cfaussie?hl=en. -- Paul Kukiel -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups cfaussie group. To post to this group, send email to cfaussie@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to cfaussie+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cfaussie?hl=en.
[cfaussie] Re: Amazon EC2 hosting services viability
I have an ex colleague that work projects uses EC2... how do you arrive at 450-500 per instance excluding data? With my discussions with him and a few others, it is very hard to estimate your actual usage till you get on it. For me the potential lies in - Ability to exist beyond different regions (the likely hood of all the datacenters going down in all the region is very very small) - scalable (you can switch the instance type, and I also believe there is the ability to create/increase capacity via code/conditions) - Not needing to worry about hardware So for my understand so far, for you to get maximum benefit from EC2 is to architect the app/site whereby it can exists between different regions , know how to interface with EC2 to scale when needed... not needing to worry about hardware is common with any hosting provider, cloud or non cloud. Besides the fact that it is cheaper, due to scale of economics. Just my uneducated 2 cents :) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups cfaussie group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/cfaussie/-/c3O9Fa64BxMJ. To post to this group, send email to cfaussie@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to cfaussie+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cfaussie?hl=en.
[cfaussie] Re: Amazon EC2 hosting services viability
That's just it though. I own all of my hardware outright, so the only costs at the moment for us is the data centre costs which current is a little over 2k a month and includes 100 Gb of data. I have full control of security, firewalls, the servers, environments and if needed i can walk up to the server, plug a USB drive in and either do backups or transfer large amounts of data to my servers. I have a full rack available to me and i agree that if i was looking to expand, then the cost of hardware will be more than a new instance in the cloud. Looking at the figures starting out fresh, the TCO is much higher with the typical data centre infrastructure on a hardware level and possible hardware maintenance level but the ongoing costs of a cloud seems to be just as high or higher than traditional data center services for running systems. Yes cloud scaling is nice but when then ongoing costs of basic infrastructure ends up being more what would be the compelling argument to move to a cloud? Steve On Sep 8, 11:43 am, Chong kck...@gmail.com wrote: I have an ex colleague that work projects uses EC2... how do you arrive at 450-500 per instance excluding data? With my discussions with him and a few others, it is very hard to estimate your actual usage till you get on it. For me the potential lies in - Ability to exist beyond different regions (the likely hood of all the datacenters going down in all the region is very very small) - scalable (you can switch the instance type, and I also believe there is the ability to create/increase capacity via code/conditions) - Not needing to worry about hardware So for my understand so far, for you to get maximum benefit from EC2 is to architect the app/site whereby it can exists between different regions , know how to interface with EC2 to scale when needed... not needing to worry about hardware is common with any hosting provider, cloud or non cloud. Besides the fact that it is cheaper, due to scale of economics. Just my uneducated 2 cents :) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups cfaussie group. To post to this group, send email to cfaussie@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to cfaussie+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cfaussie?hl=en.
Re: [cfaussie] Re: Amazon EC2 hosting services viability
Steve: what's the Data Center's/your's disaster recovery plan?** How critical is it for you to deliver, say, 99.5% (or whatever in your SLA) uptime to your customers? no criticism, not having a go, just curious if these are factors to consider (what you've got Vs what EC2 can do for you). me: no affil/bias either way. B ** IIRC, there were a couple of P-o-P's inside the WTC ... until Sept 11, that is (it's all about managing risk... and sometimes mitigating all the risk just costs too much to be competitive in business) On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 12:27 PM, Steve Onnis st...@cfcentral.com.au wrote: That's just it though. I own all of my hardware outright, so the only costs at the moment for us is the data centre costs which current is a little over 2k a month and includes 100 Gb of data. I have full control of security, firewalls, the servers, environments and if needed i can walk up to the server, plug a USB drive in and either do backups or transfer large amounts of data to my servers. I have a full rack available to me and i agree that if i was looking to expand, then the cost of hardware will be more than a new instance in the cloud. Looking at the figures starting out fresh, the TCO is much higher with the typical data centre infrastructure on a hardware level and possible hardware maintenance level but the ongoing costs of a cloud seems to be just as high or higher than traditional data center services for running systems. Yes cloud scaling is nice but when then ongoing costs of basic infrastructure ends up being more what would be the compelling argument to move to a cloud? Steve On Sep 8, 11:43 am, Chong kck...@gmail.com wrote: I have an ex colleague that work projects uses EC2... how do you arrive at 450-500 per instance excluding data? With my discussions with him and a few others, it is very hard to estimate your actual usage till you get on it. For me the potential lies in - Ability to exist beyond different regions (the likely hood of all the datacenters going down in all the region is very very small) - scalable (you can switch the instance type, and I also believe there is the ability to create/increase capacity via code/conditions) - Not needing to worry about hardware So for my understand so far, for you to get maximum benefit from EC2 is to architect the app/site whereby it can exists between different regions , know how to interface with EC2 to scale when needed... not needing to worry about hardware is common with any hosting provider, cloud or non cloud. Besides the fact that it is cheaper, due to scale of economics. Just my uneducated 2 cents :) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups cfaussie group. To post to this group, send email to cfaussie@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to cfaussie+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cfaussie?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups cfaussie group. To post to this group, send email to cfaussie@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to cfaussie+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cfaussie?hl=en.
[cfaussie] Re: Amazon EC2 hosting services viability
my disaster plan is an open ended ticket to mexico! :) kidding bi-daily backups etc The thing is even with all those backup plans it just adds more to the costs of running in a cloud. On Sep 8, 12:50 pm, Barry Beattie barry.beat...@gmail.com wrote: Steve: what's the Data Center's/your's disaster recovery plan?** How critical is it for you to deliver, say, 99.5% (or whatever in your SLA) uptime to your customers? no criticism, not having a go, just curious if these are factors to consider (what you've got Vs what EC2 can do for you). me: no affil/bias either way. B ** IIRC, there were a couple of P-o-P's inside the WTC ... until Sept 11, that is (it's all about managing risk... and sometimes mitigating all the risk just costs too much to be competitive in business) On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 12:27 PM, Steve Onnis st...@cfcentral.com.au wrote: That's just it though. I own all of my hardware outright, so the only costs at the moment for us is the data centre costs which current is a little over 2k a month and includes 100 Gb of data. I have full control of security, firewalls, the servers, environments and if needed i can walk up to the server, plug a USB drive in and either do backups or transfer large amounts of data to my servers. I have a full rack available to me and i agree that if i was looking to expand, then the cost of hardware will be more than a new instance in the cloud. Looking at the figures starting out fresh, the TCO is much higher with the typical data centre infrastructure on a hardware level and possible hardware maintenance level but the ongoing costs of a cloud seems to be just as high or higher than traditional data center services for running systems. Yes cloud scaling is nice but when then ongoing costs of basic infrastructure ends up being more what would be the compelling argument to move to a cloud? Steve On Sep 8, 11:43 am, Chong kck...@gmail.com wrote: I have an ex colleague that work projects uses EC2... how do you arrive at 450-500 per instance excluding data? With my discussions with him and a few others, it is very hard to estimate your actual usage till you get on it. For me the potential lies in - Ability to exist beyond different regions (the likely hood of all the datacenters going down in all the region is very very small) - scalable (you can switch the instance type, and I also believe there is the ability to create/increase capacity via code/conditions) - Not needing to worry about hardware So for my understand so far, for you to get maximum benefit from EC2 is to architect the app/site whereby it can exists between different regions , know how to interface with EC2 to scale when needed... not needing to worry about hardware is common with any hosting provider, cloud or non cloud. Besides the fact that it is cheaper, due to scale of economics. Just my uneducated 2 cents :) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups cfaussie group. To post to this group, send email to cfaussie@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to cfaussie+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/cfaussie?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups cfaussie group. To post to this group, send email to cfaussie@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to cfaussie+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cfaussie?hl=en.
Re: [cfaussie] Re: Amazon EC2 hosting services viability
As far as I can tell there are three main advantages of cloud infrastructure, and others have already mentioned most of them: 1) you don't have to manage your own hardware 2) pay by the hour - good for development, and ties into #3 3) you can bring up new instances effectively instantly - both adding more servers to handle load, and removing unused instances to reduce cost If you don't need for any of those, then you probably shouldn't go with EC2. Blair On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 2:24 PM, Steve Onnis st...@cfcentral.com.au wrote: my disaster plan is an open ended ticket to mexico! :) kidding bi-daily backups etc The thing is even with all those backup plans it just adds more to the costs of running in a cloud. On Sep 8, 12:50 pm, Barry Beattie barry.beat...@gmail.com wrote: Steve: what's the Data Center's/your's disaster recovery plan?** How critical is it for you to deliver, say, 99.5% (or whatever in your SLA) uptime to your customers? no criticism, not having a go, just curious if these are factors to consider (what you've got Vs what EC2 can do for you). me: no affil/bias either way. B ** IIRC, there were a couple of P-o-P's inside the WTC ... until Sept 11, that is (it's all about managing risk... and sometimes mitigating all the risk just costs too much to be competitive in business) On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 12:27 PM, Steve Onnis st...@cfcentral.com.au wrote: That's just it though. I own all of my hardware outright, so the only costs at the moment for us is the data centre costs which current is a little over 2k a month and includes 100 Gb of data. I have full control of security, firewalls, the servers, environments and if needed i can walk up to the server, plug a USB drive in and either do backups or transfer large amounts of data to my servers. I have a full rack available to me and i agree that if i was looking to expand, then the cost of hardware will be more than a new instance in the cloud. Looking at the figures starting out fresh, the TCO is much higher with the typical data centre infrastructure on a hardware level and possible hardware maintenance level but the ongoing costs of a cloud seems to be just as high or higher than traditional data center services for running systems. Yes cloud scaling is nice but when then ongoing costs of basic infrastructure ends up being more what would be the compelling argument to move to a cloud? Steve On Sep 8, 11:43 am, Chong kck...@gmail.com wrote: I have an ex colleague that work projects uses EC2... how do you arrive at 450-500 per instance excluding data? With my discussions with him and a few others, it is very hard to estimate your actual usage till you get on it. For me the potential lies in - Ability to exist beyond different regions (the likely hood of all the datacenters going down in all the region is very very small) - scalable (you can switch the instance type, and I also believe there is the ability to create/increase capacity via code/conditions) - Not needing to worry about hardware So for my understand so far, for you to get maximum benefit from EC2 is to architect the app/site whereby it can exists between different regions , know how to interface with EC2 to scale when needed... not needing to worry about hardware is common with any hosting provider, cloud or non cloud. Besides the fact that it is cheaper, due to scale of economics. Just my uneducated 2 cents :) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups cfaussie group. To post to this group, send email to cfaussie@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to cfaussie+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group athttp:// groups.google.com/group/cfaussie?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups cfaussie group. To post to this group, send email to cfaussie@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to cfaussie+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cfaussie?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups cfaussie group. To post to this group, send email to cfaussie@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to cfaussie+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cfaussie?hl=en.
[cfaussie] Re: Amazon EC2 hosting services viability
Yes paying by the hour is great but when you are using them as production instances which need to be up 24/7 then the paying by the hour doesn't really come into it. On Sep 8, 3:35 pm, Blair McKenzie shi...@gmail.com wrote: As far as I can tell there are three main advantages of cloud infrastructure, and others have already mentioned most of them: 1) you don't have to manage your own hardware 2) pay by the hour - good for development, and ties into #3 3) you can bring up new instances effectively instantly - both adding more servers to handle load, and removing unused instances to reduce cost If you don't need for any of those, then you probably shouldn't go with EC2. Blair On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 2:24 PM, Steve Onnis st...@cfcentral.com.au wrote: my disaster plan is an open ended ticket to mexico! :) kidding bi-daily backups etc The thing is even with all those backup plans it just adds more to the costs of running in a cloud. On Sep 8, 12:50 pm, Barry Beattie barry.beat...@gmail.com wrote: Steve: what's the Data Center's/your's disaster recovery plan?** How critical is it for you to deliver, say, 99.5% (or whatever in your SLA) uptime to your customers? no criticism, not having a go, just curious if these are factors to consider (what you've got Vs what EC2 can do for you). me: no affil/bias either way. B ** IIRC, there were a couple of P-o-P's inside the WTC ... until Sept 11, that is (it's all about managing risk... and sometimes mitigating all the risk just costs too much to be competitive in business) On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 12:27 PM, Steve Onnis st...@cfcentral.com.au wrote: That's just it though. I own all of my hardware outright, so the only costs at the moment for us is the data centre costs which current is a little over 2k a month and includes 100 Gb of data. I have full control of security, firewalls, the servers, environments and if needed i can walk up to the server, plug a USB drive in and either do backups or transfer large amounts of data to my servers. I have a full rack available to me and i agree that if i was looking to expand, then the cost of hardware will be more than a new instance in the cloud. Looking at the figures starting out fresh, the TCO is much higher with the typical data centre infrastructure on a hardware level and possible hardware maintenance level but the ongoing costs of a cloud seems to be just as high or higher than traditional data center services for running systems. Yes cloud scaling is nice but when then ongoing costs of basic infrastructure ends up being more what would be the compelling argument to move to a cloud? Steve On Sep 8, 11:43 am, Chong kck...@gmail.com wrote: I have an ex colleague that work projects uses EC2... how do you arrive at 450-500 per instance excluding data? With my discussions with him and a few others, it is very hard to estimate your actual usage till you get on it. For me the potential lies in - Ability to exist beyond different regions (the likely hood of all the datacenters going down in all the region is very very small) - scalable (you can switch the instance type, and I also believe there is the ability to create/increase capacity via code/conditions) - Not needing to worry about hardware So for my understand so far, for you to get maximum benefit from EC2 is to architect the app/site whereby it can exists between different regions , know how to interface with EC2 to scale when needed... not needing to worry about hardware is common with any hosting provider, cloud or non cloud. Besides the fact that it is cheaper, due to scale of economics. Just my uneducated 2 cents :) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups cfaussie group. To post to this group, send email to cfaussie@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to cfaussie+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group athttp:// groups.google.com/group/cfaussie?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups cfaussie group. To post to this group, send email to cfaussie@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to cfaussie+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cfaussie?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups cfaussie group. To post to this group, send email to cfaussie@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to cfaussie+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cfaussie?hl=en.
Re: [cfaussie] Re: Amazon EC2 hosting services viability
Steve Take a look at Rackspace cloud options. I've been looking at them and chatting with Phil and they are also really good value for money and they don't loose your data like Amazon do upon restart. http://www.rackspace.com/cloud/ Paul. On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 3:56 PM, Steve Onnis st...@cfcentral.com.au wrote: Yes paying by the hour is great but when you are using them as production instances which need to be up 24/7 then the paying by the hour doesn't really come into it. On Sep 8, 3:35 pm, Blair McKenzie shi...@gmail.com wrote: As far as I can tell there are three main advantages of cloud infrastructure, and others have already mentioned most of them: 1) you don't have to manage your own hardware 2) pay by the hour - good for development, and ties into #3 3) you can bring up new instances effectively instantly - both adding more servers to handle load, and removing unused instances to reduce cost If you don't need for any of those, then you probably shouldn't go with EC2. Blair On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 2:24 PM, Steve Onnis st...@cfcentral.com.au wrote: my disaster plan is an open ended ticket to mexico! :) kidding bi-daily backups etc The thing is even with all those backup plans it just adds more to the costs of running in a cloud. On Sep 8, 12:50 pm, Barry Beattie barry.beat...@gmail.com wrote: Steve: what's the Data Center's/your's disaster recovery plan?** How critical is it for you to deliver, say, 99.5% (or whatever in your SLA) uptime to your customers? no criticism, not having a go, just curious if these are factors to consider (what you've got Vs what EC2 can do for you). me: no affil/bias either way. B ** IIRC, there were a couple of P-o-P's inside the WTC ... until Sept 11, that is (it's all about managing risk... and sometimes mitigating all the risk just costs too much to be competitive in business) On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 12:27 PM, Steve Onnis st...@cfcentral.com.au wrote: That's just it though. I own all of my hardware outright, so the only costs at the moment for us is the data centre costs which current is a little over 2k a month and includes 100 Gb of data. I have full control of security, firewalls, the servers, environments and if needed i can walk up to the server, plug a USB drive in and either do backups or transfer large amounts of data to my servers. I have a full rack available to me and i agree that if i was looking to expand, then the cost of hardware will be more than a new instance in the cloud. Looking at the figures starting out fresh, the TCO is much higher with the typical data centre infrastructure on a hardware level and possible hardware maintenance level but the ongoing costs of a cloud seems to be just as high or higher than traditional data center services for running systems. Yes cloud scaling is nice but when then ongoing costs of basic infrastructure ends up being more what would be the compelling argument to move to a cloud? Steve On Sep 8, 11:43 am, Chong kck...@gmail.com wrote: I have an ex colleague that work projects uses EC2... how do you arrive at 450-500 per instance excluding data? With my discussions with him and a few others, it is very hard to estimate your actual usage till you get on it. For me the potential lies in - Ability to exist beyond different regions (the likely hood of all the datacenters going down in all the region is very very small) - scalable (you can switch the instance type, and I also believe there is the ability to create/increase capacity via code/conditions) - Not needing to worry about hardware So for my understand so far, for you to get maximum benefit from EC2 is to architect the app/site whereby it can exists between different regions , know how to interface with EC2 to scale when needed... not needing to worry about hardware is common with any hosting provider, cloud or non cloud. Besides the fact that it is cheaper, due to scale of economics. Just my uneducated 2 cents :) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups cfaussie group. To post to this group, send email to cfaussie@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to cfaussie+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group athttp:// groups.google.com/group/cfaussie?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups cfaussie group. To post to this group, send email to cfaussie@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to cfaussie+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at
