On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 9:13 AM, Petr Bena <[email protected]> wrote:
> As to why: > > AWS is more flexible and more reliable than wikimedia-labs, other than > that it's basically the same. If they really need to use AWS it's > probably because they don't like the restrictions that come with > wikimedia labs (stuff must be open source, comply with policies, only > ubuntu or debian, no proprietary software, hard-to-get public IP, long > waiting time for stuff that you can't do yourself (request new > project), no IPv6 and many others) > > Assuming you don't use NFS, Labs is likely as reliable or possibly more reliable than EC2, since effort is put into saving instances when hardware is having issues (which AWS does not do). Project creation is usually pretty fast in Labs. When you create a new account in AWS, you have to get approved for most of the features before you can use them, so it's not quite as quick as you're making out. Getting public IPs in Labs is restricted, but it's also the most restricted thing in AWS too. For the most part it's unnecessary to get/use public IPs. In AWS basically everything goes in through ELBs and in Labs there's an ELB equivalent. As for the rest of the restrictions, yep. Those totally make sense and fit with the intent of Labs. I think some of the benefits of Labs are being ignored here. You may be limited to ubuntu/debian, but you also create an instance that's pre-configured, that you (and any other project member) can immediately SSH into. DNS is handled for you, load balancers are easy to use, cross-project access is way easier (no need to manage IAM and VPCs), and networking is pre-configured (which is actually non-trivial in AWS). Most importantly it's free for end-users. - Ryan _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
