
Amazon + Two Guys + $0 = Next YouTube - dood
http://blogs.smugmug.com/onethumb/2006/11/04/amazon-two-guys-in-a-dorm-0-the-next-youtube/
======
volida
The configuration for each virtual instance that Amazon Cloud gives you is a
1.86Ghz with 160GB non peristant storage. Which means that even if not more
computing power is required you will be required to pay for another instance
if you need more than 160GB. If we suppose you run one balancer, and two
instance for database for replication, you need to pay at least 3 instances.
Which is $72x3=$216/month=$2512/year. For the traffic of 1.5mbit/s which is
474GB, means you need at least $94/month=$1128/year. So, for me I don't see
really the advantage. If we suppose that with $2000 you buy a pc with 1TB and
two dual core's at 1.8Ghz. So, 512+1128=$1640/year for the bandwidth. You can
lease a dedicated T1 line (1.5mbits x 1.5bmits) for $5200/year. So, there is
not really advantage going to Amazon. The only thing you save is maintaining
hardware...

I would use Amazon only as backup like smugmug does...other than that for me,
there is not avdantage...

~~~
danw
O'r you could use Amazon S3 instead of EC2 for storage.

* Pay only for what you use. There is no minimum fee, and no start-up cost. * $0.15 per GB-Month of storage used. * $0.20 per GB of data transferred.

EC2 is designed for computation, S3 for storage.

~~~
volida
I would like to know your answer to this then:

http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/2007/01/05/best-web-server-program-for-a-
lot-of-static-files/#comment-19962

~~~
skillet-thief
If this is the question you are talking about:

"Leaving the files in S3 with global read perms would open up the possibility
of a botnet attack whereby an attacker could simply request all your files
continuously and thereby drain your bank account by using up bandwidth as fast
as Amazon can deliver it. Is there any way to address this kind of abuse?
Otherwise, agreed, serving directly from S3 would be a fine idea." (how do you
do blockquotes, btw?)

then it doesn't really apply. If you have an EC2 instance running as your
server, you aren't allowing global public access to your S3 data. You control
bandwidth usage through your EC2 server the same way you would with any other
server.

And I think that even with raw S3, there are ways, such as "use once URLs",
that allow you to get around this problem.

~~~
wensing
Exactly. You have control over the read-access permissions on any content on
S3. Anything set to 'private' cannot be accessed by the outside world without
a URL with an encrypted key salted with your private key and an expiration
date. I am already doing this with my startup and it is a wonderful feature,
with no fears of 'botnet attacks'.

------
jadams
I finally got around to trying EC2 this weekend, and it's pretty slick. I just
wanted a *nix box to try out SBCL threading. I love the convenience.

Anyone know off-hand what extended instruction set these machine instances
offer? I.e. MMX? SSE? SSE2?

