Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Ah the 5x multiplier i understand...

But as far as AWS micro is concerned, it was an example for starter size. These are easily scalable I believe either through Elastic Beanstalk tools or manually. On RDS for example (which I am more familiar with) if you have a small DB instance that is hitting CPU limits, you right click & hit modify... about a minute later it is now whatever size you want. And I think their instances get large enough that you would have to be running a reallll heavily-trafficked app to actually hit a wall. (I haven't read enough about EB which is why I asked the question but I think it is auto-scaling)

Again, maybe not as cost effective as dedicated but I think at this point it may be a good compromise between the two while the container community works out some deployment hurdles.




AWS micro instances are heavily throttled CPU wise, and can only burst for extremely short periods of time. RDS can take upwards of 5-10 minutes to come back after you've changed the database instance type and restarted.

We use Elastic Beanstalk + RDS in a production environment. Its okay, but expensive and the performance is lackluster. We'll be moving to physical hardware shortly.


How is the performance relative to Heroku though? I have a lot of terrible, inexplicable problems with Heroku (random huge amounts of request queue-ing even at times when our site is below normal load).

I think these are all "noisy neighbor" issues and I would gladly leapfrog up from one host to another so long as the process isn't much more complicated and the performance is more reliable.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: