From: | Jon Asher <jon(dot)asher(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
Cc: | Josh Livni <josh(at)umbrellaconsulting(dot)com>, SF Postgres <sfpug(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Recommended/Not Recommended Hosts? |
Date: | 2009-12-10 19:54:00 |
Message-ID: | d24c7af0912101154t3fbd791cw926dce06747a17ab@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | sfpug |
>
> > Pure curiosity on my part here ... I use EC2 a bit, tho not as much as
> > the serious users. A few large and small instances on all the time, and
> > I boot up new ones for shorter periods all the time. First - I've
> > never had any issue getting my instances fulfilled right away (I always
> > use EAST-C, but perhaps other datacenters are generally more full, or
> > you are trying to boot up many tens of servers at once?).
>
> Yeah, the two issues I've had are (a) requisitioning high-end instances
> (like 32G/16core instances) and (b) allocating a lot at once. Sometimes
> instances just "aren't available" and there's no way to find out when
> they will be available.
>
> > Also, when you say they are slow, do you mean in terms of $/cycle,
> > or you wish you had burst access to other users unused cycles like on
> > some other vps offerings? something else?
>
> I mean that if you have an 8core/16GB instance, the actual processing
> throughput you get is about 1/6 to 1/4 that of a new HP DL380 machine
> with 8cores and 16GB. So you really need 4x as many EC2 instances to
> match bare metal. Partly this is due to CPU-stealing, and partly to
> erratic and lag-prone I/O, and partly to the fact that a lot of machines
> in the EC2 pool are 4 years old.
>
> > I like the bundle of offerings that AWS provides (EBS, especially), and
> > I've personally had great experience w/them (fwiw I've also had great
> > experience w/slicehost) -- but if I am getting missing out on how
> > they're screwing me, for example by stealing my CPU, I'd definitely love
> > to learn more.
>
> On EC2, other VMs on the same hardware are permitted to "steal" portions
> of the CPU which are allocated to you. So at any given time, you may
> have as little as 50% of the CPUs you're being billed for. And, when
> CPU availability is fluctuating up and down (as it does on EC2), real
> throughput tends to be based on the slowest second rather than peak
> availablity. Most Linux apps, especially databases, do quite poorly
> with erratic resource availability.
>
> --Josh
>
For a dev environment running a small database, we've had a great experience
with Rackspace cloud servers. The price point for server instances is
around $10 per 256 MB which is the low end for cloud services.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jason DiCioccio | 2009-12-10 19:55:11 | Re: Recommended/Not Recommended Hosts? |
Previous Message | Jason DiCioccio | 2009-12-10 19:52:22 | Re: Recommended/Not Recommended Hosts? |