
Startup now 100% on AWS (they're using AMQP, PostgreSQL, pgpool-II and Rails) - spif
http://aws.typepad.com/aws/2008/12/running-everything-on-aws-soocialcom.html
======
akronim
Believe it or not :) there are other uses for servers than web hosting. I can
see why amazon publicise these stories, but it's probably not the idea use
case.

If you're doing number crunching, where you need 100 machines to get results
in an hour, and then you're going to spend 3 days thinking about the result,
then EC2 is perfect - the key is that there is not cost difference between
using 100 servers for one hour, and 1 server for 100 hours. Slicehost doesn't
offer that.

Of course for this to be useful you need a problem that can use 100 machines
in parallel, but if that's the problem you have it's perfect for EC2.

------
mdasen
So, I guess I'm left wondering what makes AWS so much better for this purpose.
Slicehost (and others) similarly offer Xen instances going up to 15GB in size.
The big problem I have with AWS is the high cost of bandwidth.

With Slicehost, I can get a 2GB server with 80GB of persistent storage and
800GB of bandwidth for $130. With EC2, 800GB of transfer would cost $136
alone, plus $72 for the server, plus around $35 for the disk space and I/O
charges. $243 > $130 by a long shot.

I really want to like EC2, but it always seems expensive. Plus, I always feel
that elastic IPs are not heartbeat which other Xen providers do work with.

Maybe AWS is better because there's an implicit agreement that there will
always be bandwidth or storage as needed when one thinks that's more of a
question mark with other providers? Maybe there's an implicit thing that if
you need to, on very short notice, fire up 10-15 Extra Large instances, the
capacity will be there while others might not have the hardware?

Maybe someone has more experiences with high volume sites on these services?

~~~
ashleyw
Yeh, but if that $243 was your "base" price, it'd only cost $72 or what ever
to add a new server, or of course you could just use it for a few hours when
needed. Elasticity REALLY is the strong point of EC2, with the ability to
create your application to automatically scale (and de-scale) on its own, and
only pay for what you use.

You can cancel a Slicehost server at any time, but you pay for a day if you
only use an hour, and the refund is credited to your account as far as I know
-- if you need 100 servers for an hour, even 256 slices, its going to cost you
$2000, with $1934 credited to your account afterwards, compared to $10 on EC2.
If you have money to splash around (your not really spending $2000 for 100
server hours, but you still need it), you'd proberly be better with Slicehost
(or some other VPS host), but if you don't, EC2 is a very good option for
scaling on the cheap.

~~~
axod
"EC2 is a very good option for scaling on the cheap."

Until you start using serious bandwidth. Then it's extremely expensive.

As you say, if you have a massive spike for an hour or something due to the
nature of your service, maybe AWS makes sense rather than paying for the full
day, but I think that's an extremely rare usecase.

Also if you're using a language/setup that isn't too efficient, then AWS may
be a second best option to switching language/framework etc.

~~~
ashleyw
Sure, but that bandwidth is very flexible also; you GET 800GB bandwidth
mentioned in the above plan, but what if you just need 400GB...or 1600GB? AWS
will scale from your launch day till the day you go IPO, or at least are at
the stage when you can buy terabytes of bandwidth in bulk, cause you know
you'll use it.

Really don't agree with the last part though...unless your code is really
slow, a rewrite is only going to waste your time and focus your attention on
the rewrite rather than developing your business. Defiantly improve as you
go...most of us are geeks, we'd have a massive grin on our face if we saved a
few milliseconds from each request, but you should only do it if it's actually
worth it! :)

~~~
axod
I'm more meaning that changing architecture/language may mean you can run the
entire thing on a single server, rather than 10.

Doing that sort of optimization helps a lot with scaling later on.

~~~
blasdel
Not if that sort of optimazation means that you can _ONLY_ run it on a single
server!

------
speek
Maybe I'm a bit slow, but why is this special?

~~~
zitterbewegung
It allows them to leverage your contacts for marketing purposes?

~~~
axod
"Allow us to spam all of your contacts so we can 'go viral'?"

------
spolsky
In other news, I've now invested 100% of my money with this nice guy Bernie
Madoff. He beats the market every year!

------
goodkarma
I've never been able to get Rails set up on AWS - had problems with the AMIs
etc.

Can anyone point me in the right direction for a LAMP/Rails setup?

~~~
paulretherford
@goodkarma, you might try Rightscale management platform. It will give you
access to a number of public AMIs with that stack.

