|
|
|
|
|
|
by meskyanichi
5097 days ago
|
|
|
^ This. You'll do it if you care enough or if it's absolutely required. Everyone knows in advance that this kind of shit can and will happen. Also, if people don't plan on hosting in multiple areas/AZs, I wonder why the hell anyone would even consider overpriced cloud technology while you can get practically 5 powerful dedicated servers for the same price, except that it's more performant than a shitty VM on EC2. That said, if you have 5 dedicated servers, why even bother with EC2? It's more expensive in every way. "Pay more as you grow" is actually extremely expensive for what you actually get. Infinite scalability? Please. When people think about scalability, they think about adding a few gigs of ram to their VM with a little more I/O throughput (e.g. migrating from VM1 to VM2) for hundreds of dollars, and it's still shitty VM performance compared to raw metal. Instead, why not spend that money on a few good dedicated boxes with 96-128gb+ ram and a bunch of true (not virtual) CPU cores, then you're done for a while, and for the same price. Hardware is dirt cheap these days. The only useful/sane use case I can see in Amazon EC2 would be for services like Heroku where they need to automatically be able to manage a truckload of VM's as their rapidly growing infrastructure, unless you want to do it yourself which I imagine is quite a headache unless you work closely with someone like Amazon or Rackspace. |
|
|
Yes white boxes are cheap. Site negotiations, design, procurement, networking, operations, and maintenance are expensive in dollars and time. Personally I run "a bunch" of physical sites across the globe. It would be waaaay easier to be able to turn up rackspace/aws/google instances as needed.