

IT Executives shouldn't keep their jobs if they recommend production services for EC2? - mootymoots
http://wizeline.wordpress.com/2009/01/14/amazon-ec2/

======
throw_away
Note that this guy runs a hosting company (<http://www.gni.com/>) & is a
potential competitor to EC2's offering. Also note that his primary complaint
is the EC2's SLA, but the link provided by GNi for their SLA
(<http://64.127.96.201/Support/ServiceLevelAgreement.aspx>) points to nowhere.

~~~
mootymoots
Good spot!

------
brk
I agree completely.

There seem to be a lot of web-startups that don't really have a firm grasp on
colo/hosting/virt servers/etc. It strikes me as strange that the server
availability part of their business is often seen as some uninteresting messy
thing to be outsourced to the lowest bidder.

EC2 is _great_ for giving you moderately cost effective dynamic computing
cycles. I personally think that EC2 makes for an expensive sucky web-host, and
my guess is that over time (by the end of 2009) people will better understand
EC2's niche.

------
gaius
"virtual web hosting from the 80s"

I would say that EC2 is considerably better than web hosting ever was in the
1980s.

~~~
brk
Name a SINGLE 80's webhost that ever had a verifiable SECOND of downtime.
Also, name an 80's webhost that even charged any money for storage OR
bandwidth.

Webhosting in the 80's was so much simpler than it is today, companies hardly
gave any thought at all to their hosting providers...

------
wmf
Of course, if your own datacenter is down you don't get a refund either. You
might get some psychological satisfaction from firing some of your own IT
people, but that's unlikely to help your business much.

------
teej
Startups shouldn't worry about uptime. Rapidly growing businesses should be
building in failover and redundancy. Your choice of host doesn't change either
of those facts.

------
mootymoots
Interesting read... not sure I whole-heartedly agree though!

