
Cloud server showdown: Amazon AWS EC2 vs. Linode vs. DigitalOcean - remcobron
http://remcobron.com/cloud-server-review-and-comparison-amazon-aws-ec2-vs-linode-vs-digitalocean/
======
oogali
_sigh_

I call these "weekend benchmarks" \-- what you'd typically do when you have a
block of free time, then spend time optimizing for said benchmark. Roll in on
Monday with some staggering results, only to find one (or many) of your
variables were off.

Did the author try multiple instances on each provider? VM tenancy is a bitch.
(Think of how annoyed you get at the noise levels, when your neighbor in the
next apartment throws a party)

Is the author's source benchmarking machine, a physical machine, or a
virtualized guest? Does it have power savings turned off so that the process
is running at 100% speed, instead of a variably-clocked down core?

Did the author enable or disable TCP time-wait recycle? So he doesn't bump
into said ceiling when running such tests back to back?

Did the author run the tests back to back, or have a cool down period between
tests?

Where was the author's network upstream located when he tried said tests? Were
there any network issues at the time of the test? Would the author even be
aware of them?

Your page you're testing against, does the same database call, which is
presumably cached. Did he throw out the cached results? Can he identify the
cached results?

Are we firing up ApacheBench with HTTP keepalives enabled? With parallel
connections? How many parallel connections?

How many Apache servers (StartServers, MinSpareServers, etc)? Which httpd
modules were enabled? Which httpd modules were disabled? Which PHP modules
were enabled?

You're trying to benchmark CPU and I/O horsepower across three different
platforms but doing it through this narrow "straw" which consists of your
"independent server", your upstream, your upstream's upstream, your upstream's
upstream's peering connection with Amazon/Linode/DigitalOcean, your web server
and its PHP module, your application, and MySQL.

If you're rolling your eyes at this, then you shouldn't be doing weekend
benchmarks.

I'll leave you with this as well:

[http://zedshaw.com/essays/programmer_stats.html](http://zedshaw.com/essays/programmer_stats.html)

~~~
davidw
Do you have something better to point to? It's easy to complain about stuff,
but at least he's out there trying to do something. Presumably it can be
improved.

I'm particularly fond of the quote "lead, follow, or get the hell out of the
way", which is a bit harsh in this case because a lot of your advice is good.
It could be framed in a more constructive way, though - there's some Comic
Book Guy tone there in your comment.

~~~
oogali
Seriously?

My intended tone was not "don't try", but "try harder".

I've listed at least 5 ways to improve/normalize the testing, as well as
linking to a document that does a pretty good job of explaining statistics
(particularly, how programmers do a bad job of statistics; baselines for
benchmarks; etc).

"At least he's out there trying" \-- with this not-so-great benchmarking, the
author has just effectively SHITTED on 2/3 companies that have gone to great
lengths to build amazing infrastructure AND managed to spread his FUD around
the web, to the point where it reached the HN front page -- and you want
credit for trying?

Get the hell out of the way.

~~~
ignostic
It's true: you don't say something like _" Well, Amazon just sucks."_ without
backing the statement up with something more credible. As someone a little
less savvy on the topic I'm glad to know that the test wasn't even close to
the final word and why. Thank you.

It's probably also true that your tone is more abrasive than it needs to be.

~~~
bluedino
Part of the problem is a benchmark like this, put together with plain
ignorance, and published on the web will give people who don't know any better
all kinds of false perceptions.

------
mgkimsal
Yes, amazon is 'overpriced' if what you're looking at is CPU or disk speed
(which is not a bad metric, really). Where amazon shines is the amount of
programmatic interaction you can do with it - have build scripts kick off an
EC2 instance to run tests, send reports, shut it down. Programmatically bring
up more instances during peak times, spin them down at night, etc.

AFAICT, Linode doesn't offer that, and they probably won't. Amazon's been
ahead in this arena for awhile, and will probably keep that lead for the
forseeable future. EDIT: Apparently they do have an API which would cover a
decent variety of use cases.

What's sad is the number of people that migrate over to Amazon because it's
the done thing, without realizing what they're paying for (and that they're
not utilizing the unique features of EC2).

~~~
pjungwir
The other thing Amazon offers is investor confidence. I've worked with several
clients who could save tons of money every month by going to Linode, DO, etc.,
but stay with Amazon (or Heroku) because they feel it reassures investors they
are following "best practices." I can understand lots of reasons not to
switch, e.g. just having higher priorities, but this reason seems particularly
silly.

~~~
cstejerean
It's not that silly when you consider the security track record of AWS
compared to Linode.

~~~
aarondf
Can you elaborate on their track records?

~~~
adrianpike
[1] - [https://blog.linode.com/2013/04/16/security-incident-
update/](https://blog.linode.com/2013/04/16/security-incident-update/) [2] -
[http://arstechnica.com/business/2012/03/bitcoins-
worth-22800...](http://arstechnica.com/business/2012/03/bitcoins-
worth-228000-stolen-from-customers-of-hacked-webhost/)

I believe there may have been other incidents.

That said, I still have a number of services running happily on Linode. :)

~~~
threeseed
It's more than just those incidents though. It's about basic security
practices. No security audits. Passwords stored in plain text. Major
discrepancies in the story from what Linode says versus the hacker
specifically around whether the private key was compromised and credit cards
stolen.

And it's just a continued pattern of incompetence and cover up.

------
PaulHoule
The 'small' instance he's testing is the worst deal Amazon offers. If you buy
certain instances you get can a better connection to EBS, and then you can
allegedly buy better I/O for $. A fair analysis is going to involve pages and
pages of graphs and charts...

It is hard to beat AMZN's flexibility and easy provisioning. For instance,
even my sister-in-law can walk up to AWS, spin up an instance with Windows,
log in with RDP and then enjoy everything you can enjoy on Windows other than
high-end gaming. (For you mac-ers in the audience, this is a clean and
economical way to make sure that your landing page works for "the rest of us")

But you don't have to choose because you can work with Linux. On top of that,
AMZN layers services such as Elastic Map-Reduce which are compatible with
industry standards but eliminate so much time you could waste sysadmining.

~~~
oblio
> If you buy certain instances you get can a better connection to EBS, and
> then you can allegedly buy better I/O for $

You actually buy provisioned IO. The throughput can be actually smaller in
some scenarios than for non-provisioned IO, provided you: don't have neighbors
or they are not noisy. And boy, is that provisioned IO expensive (we've bought
quite a bit of EBS volumes).

------
qeorge
I've been able to make good utilization of Linode's multiple cores for our
Sphinx server ([http://sphinxsearch.com/](http://sphinxsearch.com/))

In sphinx's config files, its super easy to split an index up into 4 parts,
and then assign each partial index to one core.

Doing this, we find that all 4 cores are utilized nicely (>50%) almost all of
the time. I feel like we're getting a really good value out of that machine.

AirBnB has a good writeup on this config: [http://nerds.airbnb.com/how-we-
improved-search-performance-b...](http://nerds.airbnb.com/how-we-improved-
search-performance-by-2x/)

~~~
iriche
Now you can increase that to 6 parts since Linode increased to 6 cores :)

~~~
kbar13
8* cores

[https://blog.linode.com/2013/03/18/linode-nextgen-the-
hardwa...](https://blog.linode.com/2013/03/18/linode-nextgen-the-hardware/)

------
bdcravens
EC2 always comes out behind in these comparisons. However, EC2's benefit is
the synergy of the platform: painless images, flexible volume management, VPC,
programmatic DNS, queue services, Heroku style service, baked-in Chef support,
easy RDBMS cloning and replication, etc.

------
uts_
ServerBear does everything the OP is already trying to do:

[http://serverbear.com/237-small-amazon-web-
services#benchmar...](http://serverbear.com/237-small-amazon-web-
services#benchmarks)

[http://serverbear.com/10-linode-1gb-
linode](http://serverbear.com/10-linode-1gb-linode)

[http://serverbear.com/1990-2gb-ssd--2-cpu-
digitalocean](http://serverbear.com/1990-2gb-ssd--2-cpu-digitalocean)

------
imperialWicket
These are fine benchmarks for consideration, IFF you are interested in using
AWS EC2 instances as a vps. This might not be a terrible endeavor, but it's
really not the intended use.

EBS performance is an issue - Yes it is, don't use EBS. Use instance store and
push to S3 for persistence. If you need performance I/O for something, there
is likely a separate service available that pushes your I/O bottleneck further
away (RDS, ElastiCache, SQS, etc.).

AWS costs more for weaker CPU - Indeed, this can be the case. But, it's often
cheaper (but not much) to put up an Elastic Load Balancer with an Auto Scaling
Group and dynamically support your peak traffic than it is to pay for an
enormous VPS that sits idle 60% of the time.

As these benchmarks suggest, I agree that if you're only using one EC2
instance (and you can't get away with a micro), you should probably be
investigating other solutions. If you want to architect your
app/project/service/whatever to be more distributed and fault-tolerant, AWS
can probably make that easier (not necessarily cheaper).

~~~
zwily
EBS sucks, but EBS+PIOPS is actually pretty great. We've gotten consistent
performance well within the guarantees ever since the launch last year. Highly
recommended.

On a side note - From a marketing perspective, Amazon probably should have
launched PIOPS as a separate product from EBS. The idea that "EBS sucks" is
pretty firmly entrenched, so EBS+PIOPS is fighting an uphill battle.

~~~
imperialWicket
I haven't had reason to use it yet, but definitely a valid note. Thanks for
the corrective note about EBS, and I'll be a little more cautious with my
comments in the future (because I think your marketing note is completely
valid).

------
leetrout
I am always surprised Rackspace Cloud Servers are left out. We've been using
them for over a year with only a handful of outages (VM host reboots- 3~5min
each).

For us it is worth the price (>$40/mo for 1 GB ram) for great stability and
support. The Openstack API is really nice, too.

~~~
shuzchen
I've used Rackspace cloud both when it used to be called Slicehost and after
the full transition to the Rackspace brand. In my experience past and present,
you get a better deal dollar for dollar with Linode (better disk, network, and
cpu performance). Personally, the only reason I'd use Rackspace cloud would be
as a part of their hybrid offering.

~~~
bluedino
Good call - lease a bigger 16-core 32GB box such as your database server on
their managed hosting platform (not cheap), and then just spin up cloud
instances connected to that server using RackConnect which seems to be some
fancy, cumbersome routing/vlan monstrosity.

------
throwit1979
...and the author is using Laravel, which delivers stunningly terrible latency
and throughput performance in the techempower benchmarks:

[http://www.techempower.com/benchmarks/](http://www.techempower.com/benchmarks/)

Would be nice to see similar benchmarks using a framework that doesn't
resemble a honeypot's tarpit.

~~~
trebor
Hi. Laravel user/contributor here. I suggest you try the framework before
judging it based on a _benchmark_. Not sure about their system/code, but a
large production application with APC (Laravel 3.2.14, just like the
benchmark) has a latency of 90-120ms, and some of those pages are pretty
complex.

~~~
throwit1979
Techempower invites SMEs and advocates of their language/platform to submit
pull requests to improve any overlooked performance problems in the specific
benchmarks.

You're more than welcome to help make laravel look better in these benchmarks.
But unless you're running the PHP through HipHop, I doubt you're going to get
anywhere near the statically-compiled platforms near the top.

------
harper
Here is the original post: [http://www.cosninix.com/wp/2013/06/amazon-aws-
ec2-linode-dig...](http://www.cosninix.com/wp/2013/06/amazon-aws-ec2-linode-
digitalocean-cloudserver-showdown/)

------
trimbo
"Is Amazon overpriced"

Well, yeah. If you use it as just commodity servers. At Radius, we migrated
our index build process over to using Elastic Map Reduce on spot-priced
servers and it's been a huge cost savings.

Long story short, move to Amazon if you want elasticity and can design around
saving from their services. Otherwise, look elsewhere.

------
mark_l_watson
Well, AWS does have some very useful value add services: Elastic MapReduce,
S3, and DynamoDB being my favorites.

Way back when, Amazon gave me about $1200 of free use credits over a two year
period, and I played, experimented, used it for most customer projects, etc. I
also used AWS for almost all of my own projects.

In the last year or two however, I have started going back to renting large
VPS by the month (I use RimuHosting, but there are a lot of good providers)
because you get so much more capabilities for the same amount of money.

A little off topic, but another way I have found to save money is to wean
myself off of Heroku by taking the little bit of time to set up a git
commit/push hook to automatically deploy my web apps. I was using a manual
deployment scheme before that took me a minute for each deployment - not so
good.

All that said, AWS is really awesome for some jobs like periodically crunching
data with MapReduce, etc. I bought a very useful little book "Programming
Amazon EC2" a few years ago, and I recommend that as a good reference for
using the AWS APIs.

~~~
mark_l_watson
BTW, I wrote up how I use git commit/push hooks for deploying
[http://blog.markwatson.com/2013/06/automating-clojure-web-
ap...](http://blog.markwatson.com/2013/06/automating-clojure-web-app-
deployments/)

~~~
Ixiaus
Using a VCS as your deployment strategy is The Wrong Way to do it.

I won't go into it in this comment because it's been beaten to death and you
can find information about deployments everywhere; even the commenter on your
blog post makes a better suggestion than your VCS deployment strategy.

Continuous integration, source/binary distributions, automated provisioning,
sandboxing, versioning, etc...; it's all out there.

~~~
mark_l_watson
For a lot of cases, you are correct that continuous testing, integration,
deployment is the way to go, especially when deployed systems have many moving
parts. However for small projects, mimicking a Heroku style of testing
locally, commit changes, and use git hooks for deployment seems like a good
solution.

------
stevedomin
I found your conclusion a bit misleading and unfortunately a lot of people
often comes to the same conclusion.

Indeed the CPU is limiting factor in your bench, and while you say you're
comparing apples to apples, it's not true in my opinion.

Maybe I'm wrong but I never see these actors as really competing in the same
market : of course if you're looking for the best CPU perfomance/price ratio
AWS is one the worst choice. But that's not what you're paying for imo, as
someone already mention you're paying for the programmatic access, the
ecosystem, the auto-scaling ability, monitoring, etc. Move to AWS if you need
the "Elastic" part in EC2 (Elastic Cloud Compute) or if you know what you're
doing and what you're paying for.

Same for DO, what you're paying for is the SSD, they're advertising about it
everywhere, so it's kind of obvious that a big part of what you'll pay for is
the SSD.

------
mratzloff
If security is a consideration, I personally wouldn't use Linode at this
point. AWS has a dedicated security team. I don't know about DigitalOcean.

------
dschiptsov
Oh, I'm too late to the party.) Nevertheless, virtualization is not for
production.) Even para- or hvm. I/O is a bottleneck.

Linode is just plain xen, and domUs packed not so tightly, so it performs more
or less quickly if other instances are 100% idle.)

The main assumption about virtualization is that there is no two high load
domU instances running in parallel, same scenario as it was with primitive
apache virtual host based hostings - we could pack them tightly, each one have
100 requests per week on average.

So, virtualization works fine for almost always idle development servers, but
everything would fall apart in a I/O intense production environment.

The mantra is "I/O request should be separated and data partitioned". In case
of cheap virtualized "servers" storage is the first bottleneck, because you
share it with other domUs. Once they're idle, you're OK. Should one next to
you running, say, a torrent tracker - you're screwed.

It doesn't matter what you're running under - Xen or just FreeBSD's jails
(still love them). The problem is that a HDD could perform only one operation
(read or write) at a time.) So, your dom0 is deeply in IOwait, and your, say,
mysql on domU locked all your tables, waiting for insert/update completion.

I could write a brochure, but in short - virtualization on productions is the
same unnecessary complications as a Java Virtual Machine. They are nice toys,
but in production everything is better without them.)

------
bryanlarsen
Did you try multiple instances on each provider? Performance between VPS's
from the _same_ provider varies wildly. If there are 64 VPS's on a server, you
will probably get a lot more than 1/64th of the processing power of that
server because most of the other VPS's are idle. But how much more than 1/64th
you get will vary wildly from machine to machine.

~~~
corresation
_Performance between VPS 's from the same provider varies wildly._

This absolutely should _not_ be true, and in my experience it isn't true on
Amazon -- you will neither be starved for resources if others do intensive
things, nor will you enjoy riches if they are quiet: You will get what you are
paying for.

I have a personal experience from Digital Ocean that is a bit different.
Firstly let me say that I think they have a great service and compelling
prices, but I set up a test server (the 2GB/2CPU variant) to trial leveraging
it in the platform mix, as a solution that crosses host providers =
awesomeness.

The IO performance I got was terrible, despite all of the talk about SSDs.
Simple operations would stall, the CPU endlessly waiting on _wa_. I submitted
a support ticket and quickly they toggled some priority flags and I started
getting performance more along the the lines of expectations, but ultimately
it seems like a classic case where single tenants can completely monopolize
the platform, enjoying the entirety of the storage platform at the cost of
everyone else. I'd rather that they cap consumption and do appropriate IO
quanta allocations rather than leaving VMs starved.

And it really makes me concerned for the future -- do I have to constantly do
benchmarks and analysis, hopping VMs just to find one that isn't an
abomination? That isn't how these things are supposed to run.

~~~
rschmitty
This absolutely _is_ true, and in my experience it has been on AWS. Search for
past benchmarks on HN for examples.

Regardless, we stick to AWS at work for the entire suite.

When it comes to my money though, DO is making very large strides imo

~~~
corresation
_Search for past benchmarks on HN for examples_

Can you provide any more specific search criteria?

I've found Amazon instances to be quite consistent. They vary, of course, but
quite contrary to your initial statement that they vary _wildly_ , I find the
variances quite small, and there isn't a need to constantly hunt for ripe
instances. I have absolutely found what you said to be sadly true on quite a
few other VM hosts.

~~~
j-kidd
[http://blog.sciencelogic.com/netflix-steals-time-in-the-
clou...](http://blog.sciencelogic.com/netflix-steals-time-in-the-cloud-and-
from-users/03/2011)

tl;dr: Netflix kills slow performing AWS machines due to resource contention

------
franklaemmer
My two cents here: Benchmarking is all fine, but from my point of view, the
performance-price-ratio is not sooooo important in hosting.

This discussion here reminds me of PC customers buying behavior in the 90ies.
What's better AMD or Intel? ... Nowadays other features are key: What's the
weight of this device? How thick is it even? Apple has changed the way we look
at these things today.

Convenience also matters in hosting a lot. How much time do i have to spend to
have my app up and running? Do i really want to set up and maintain everything
myself? How good is the support? Do i want just bare metal computing resources
or a solution provider with an eco system?

What matters the fastest server ever, when the queries are slow? The
performance of any app/website relies heavily on the engineering skills of the
developers. See caching, see i/o load, see frontend technolgies, see
#perfmatters.

disclaimer: i am co-founder of a PHP PaaS.

------
calinet6
And compare it to a dedicated box, and they _all_ suck. If you're looking for
a stationary server and just need raw power, get a dedicated server plan and
good backups.

If you need what Amazon offers, all of the AWS services or most of them, then
go for it. But you don't use AWS for raw power.

------
okrasz
There are at least two tools which are very useful in such comparisons -
[http://www.cloudorado.com](http://www.cloudorado.com) for pricing, and
[http://cloudharmony.com/](http://cloudharmony.com/) for benchmarks.

~~~
patja
Those are interesting sites but I didn't see Digital Ocean in their benchmarks
or lists of offerings. Seems like a big omission.

~~~
anizan
Check out [http://www.serverbear.com](http://www.serverbear.com)

------
ausjke
Linode for hosting, DO for experimenting and Amazon for Glacier, the
combination worked well for me.

~~~
threeseed
Given Linode's abysmal security record you might consider swapping the first
two.

------
yellow
I'm interested in seeing Google's Compute Engine show up in some of these
benchmarks. Any reason why someone would not want to use them? Some
benchmark's I've seen show them with awesome stats.

------
henryw
Something to consider is that DO doesn't offer internal network IP's. So if
you have something like a cache farm, you have to access them via external
IP's. Linode is supposed to internal IP's, although some manual tickering is
required. I'm not sure about EC2, but I'll assume they do.

On a cost per hour basis, DO is the cheapest. Linode next. And Amazon most
expensive.

Also, DO is only located in NY, while the others offer central and west cost
locations.

~~~
garretruh
DO actually offers both San Francisco and Amsterdam locations in addition to
New York.

------
akurilin
What's the recommendation for hosting Postgres on a VPS these days?
DigitalOcean doesn't seem to offer NAS drives, and I believe Linode is in the
same boat.

~~~
joevandyk
Don't use a NAS. Use replication.

~~~
akurilin
Not sure I follow. What do you do if you need more space than what comes with
the instance?

------
hcarvalhoalves
This is only true with the small instance type though, which is severely CPU
handicapped. The larger instances (> medium) get the full CPU throughput.
Their "EC2 Compute Unit" rating is mostly marketing, I could never verify it
by practice. Some instances with twice the ECU actually give more than twofold
performance, while instances with 1 ECU should be renamed to 0,25 ECU.

I would expect anyone who works with AWS to know this by now.

~~~
jasonmccay
I am curious about this. No doubt the Amazon small is quite the laggard, but
as price and capability scale on each platform, I would be curious to know
what the results look like.

Secondly, if you wanted to get truly accurate results, doing this same test
over an array of provisioned instances would be good, as quality can vary.

Still, interesting information nonetheless. Really surprised how much faster
Linode was than DigitalOcean.

~~~
longbeard
True. EC2 for example has 17 different instance types, but only one was
benchmarked in the post.

[http://aws.amazon.com/ec2/instance-types/instance-
details/](http://aws.amazon.com/ec2/instance-types/instance-details/)

------
wh-uws
Has anyone used Cloud66 or Cloudfoundry to deploy to either of these (Linode,
AWS, Digital Ocean)?

I'm about to deploy an app and I would like to get other impressions.

~~~
cobrabyte
I've used Cloud66 for a few sites and would recommend them.

I like the workflow for creating stacks and I really like the polyglot nature
of selecting which cloud to deploy to.

They did have a security incident a while back and I'd recommend reading up on
that. They had a blog post about it but it appears they've since pulled that.
I don't know what that's about.

I'll tell you that you'll be hard-pressed to find better customer
support/service in another company. They're open to suggestions and will help
you if you ever run into an issue deploying an app.

------
ww520
One of downsides of AWS is the bandwidth cost. It's 5x to 10x more expensive.
Running heavy media based websites is just not feasible.

~~~
tyw
you wouldn't want to do this straight out of EC2, but once you add
S3=>CloudFront to the mix it's much less bad. Only thing you want to be
serving from your EC2 boxes and load balancer is gzipped HTML/CSS/JS (could
even do CSS/JS on S3/CF if you wanted).

~~~
ww520
Doesn't CloudFront have the same outgoing bandwidth charge? $0.12/GB?
CloudFront does have caching and lessen load on EC2 boxes.

------
davidedicillo
I think the reason many choose Amazon is also all the other services they
offer, keeping everything under the same umbrella.

------
samcrawford
It would be helpful if the author included the round-trip latency (even some
simple pings) alongside the benchmark so we could judge how far the servers
are from the client.

This will have a significant impact on the ab numbers (particularly as he's
not using the -k option and therefore establishing a new TCP session for every
request).

------
akurilin
Those of you who made the switch from EC2 to any of the other providers, what
are you missing the most? I'm right now pretty integrated into the whole
VPC/Route53/IAM/S3/SES web and get the feeling that it'd be pretty rough to
untangle myself from that.

------
mzarate06
The benchmark is on web requests per second, so it really needs to cite each
server's location or ping latency relative to the machine doing the
benchmarks. It's unfair if one of the servers is on the opposite coast of the
other 2.

------
pindi
I don't know that comparing EC2 reserved instances to DigitalOcean is really
"apples-to-apples", since DigitalOcean has hourly billing and no upfront cost
just like EC2 on-demand, and unlike EC2 reserved.

------
cpolis
For perspective on pricing and different plan information, I built the
following tool last week:

[http://cloudpricegrid.com/](http://cloudpricegrid.com/)

------
mp99e99
Hi, rudimentary but interesting results. Please consider including
atlantic.net in your testing in the future.

------
tszming
I am quite surprised no one has mentioned SoftLayer. Isn't IBM buy SoftLayer
for their cloud offerings?

------
praguebakerr
Well depends on application you need, spot on instances are cheapest for batch
processing.

------
HyprMusic
Has anyone had any good experiences with any European VPS providers?

------
sunsu
If linode offered an RDS replacement, I would switch now.

------
sathishmanohar
Thanks for the comparison.

My first impression? graphs are better :)

------
daakus
fwiw, i had a similar experience as well. i tried prgmr too, and linode was
just much better and more consistent than all the others.

------
roma1n
I never see Gandi offerings mentioned. Anyone has a review / advice?

~~~
dangrossman
Their ridiculous contracts rule them out for business use from the start.
Start at "3.3 Use of Our services in a way that conforms to Our Ethical code"
in the general service agreement if you're curious.

------
lifeguard
Conclusion

Well, Amazon just sucks.

