The scaling issue, is very tricky. Zend actually worked with us on how there licensing and config files work, and there new server 5, you can create an image and launch, and relaunch over and over and they can just work in a cluster with no interaction.
Witango is going to have to work in this model, and have to work out the configuration and load group issues with autoscaling. We don't even attempt this now with witango. Not to mention, current licensing makes this prohibitive. With the witango licensing model, you are better off adjusting the size of your instance due to load and staying within a "standard" license. This adjustment requires some downtime. Zend is working on a model, and I know gear 6 and others use this. This is my suggestion. You setup AMIs with amazon that people pay extra for. So when a witango instance runs, witango gets paid a few cents an hour, and the price goes up per instance. This way, a witango licensee hosting apps will only pay for what he uses. Gear6 model is like this: small instance of gear6 memcache server: free, you just pay amazon costs larger instances you pay amazon costs plus a per hour license fee to gear6. This is all done through amazon dev pay, so it is very transparent. IMHO, the quicker you get to a model like that, the better for the growth of witango. Of course, you don't have to offer a free anything, but that is how gear6 does it. And there memcache servers are amazing. Imagine starting up a witango instance, just paying a few cents extra an hour, and billing your customer. Pay as you go. Need to scale up for a huge traffic spike? Just add more instances and pay for them while in use. That's the future in my opinion. -- Robert Garcia President - BigHead Technology VP Application Development - eventpix.com 15520 Coutelenc Rd Magalia, Ca 95954 ph: 530.645.4040 x222 fax: 530.645.4040 [email protected] - [email protected] http://bighead.net/ - http://eventpix.com/ On Oct 29, 2010, at 2:43 PM, Robert Shubert wrote: > Mikal, > > Great question. > > As I'm both working on ways to advance Witango usage as well as strengthen my > own hosting services, this question is frequently on my mind. > > On the Witango front, I have set the Standard Edition license, where I hope > that it is economical for customers taking advantage of virtual and cloud > computing. This is at least true when you are applying cloud computing to > static "always-on" services, which is I believe how Robert Garcia's setup is > [mostly] used. > > Cloud computing has the second connotation of being able to dynamically bring > up [many] more servers when demand is high. This is a tricky situation from > my prospective, but I have already made some notes on how I might be able to > publish an Amazon AMI under their DevPay program where you would only pay for > the Witango license while you are using it. The goal for this configuration > would be to allow a customer to own a single license for "everyday" traffic > and then "rent" additional licenses when they need greater performance. > > The complication to supporting this kind of scheme is that the load-balancer > and the configuration (most notably regarding data sources) would need to be > improved first. > > On the hosting side, I see cloud computing as filling in a large amount of > the mid-level hosting needs. I've found that Amazon and other cloud computing > setups aren't much cheaper than having my own servers "in the rack". For > low-end sites, where many tens or hundreds of sites sit on a single server > (and therefore have a reasonable ROI), and high-end configurations where > performance and security is of extreme importance and "hands-on" > administration is valuable, I think traditional hosting environments are > still worthwhile. > > As I middle-ground step, I have created my own small "cloud" where I have > multiple servers acting a nodes of a cluster, and all they do is support > virtual servers, which I can manipulate efficiently. > > I looked at possibly going into the cloud deeply (using Amazon) about 2 years > ago. I decided at that time to go with the above mentioned cluster. Since > then I think they've added a lot of services, like Windows servers, MySQL, > VPN, EBS, web management, etc. So I think it's much more realistic of an > option today. > > Robert > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Mikal Anderson [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Friday, October 29, 2010 4:19 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Witango-Talk: Cloud Computing & Witango Hosting > > Hello List -- > > I'm thinking of transferring my Witango servers to the Cloud. > > Has anyone on the list worked out the economics of setting up virtual > servers in the cloud vs. other options (such as maintaining an existing > server room or switching to a traditional hosting company)? > > Conclusions, hunches or thoughts as to how cloud computing pencils out? > > Is Amazon the only game in town or has anyone tried the other cloud > service providers? > > Thanks in advance for any insight into this topic. > > Mikal > > > > ---------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from this list, please send an email to [email protected] > with "unsubscribe witango-talk" in the body. > > > > ---------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from this list, please send an email to [email protected] > with "unsubscribe witango-talk" in the body. > ---------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this list, please send an email to [email protected] with "unsubscribe witango-talk" in the body.
