> i2.xlarge looks vastly better than m2.2xlarge at about the same price, so I must be missing something: Is it the 120 IPs that explains why anyone would choose m2.2xlarge?
i2.xlarge is a relatively new instance type (December 2013). In our case, we're partway through a yearlong reservation of m2.2xlarges and won't be up for reconsidering that for a few months. I don't think that Amazon has ever dropped a legacy instance type, so there's bound to be some overlap as they roll out new ones. And I imagine someone setting up a huge memcached pool might rather have the extra RAM over the SSD, so it still makes sense for the m2.2xlarge to be around. It can be kind of hard to understand how the various parameters that make up an instance type get decided on, though. I have to consult that ec2instances.info link all the time to make sure I'm not missing something regarding what types we should be using. On Feb 1, 2014 1:51 PM, "Toke Eskildsen" <t...@statsbiblioteket.dk> wrote: > Michael Della Bitta [michael.della.bi...@appinions.com] wrote: > > Here at Appinions, we use mostly m2.2xlarges, but the new i2.xlarges look > > pretty tasty primarily because of the SSD, and I'll probably push for a > > switch to those when our reservations run out. > > > http://www.ec2instances.info/ > > i2.xlarge looks vastly better than m2.2xlarge at about the same price, so > I must be missing something: Is it the 120 IPs that explains why anyone > would choose m2.2xlarge? > > Anyhow, it is good to see that Amazon now has 11 different setups with > SSD. The IOPS looks solid at around 40K/s (estimated) for the i2.xlarge and > they even have TRIM ( > http://aws.amazon.com/about-aws/whats-new/2013/12/19/announcing-the-next-generation-of-amazon-ec2-high-i/o-instance/). > > - Toke Eskildsen
