Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Databases Data Storage The Internet

Amazon Cloud Adds Hosted MySQL 173

Posted by timothy
from the toss-your-data-here dept.
1sockchuck writes "Amazon Web Services has added a relational database service to host MySQL databases in the cloud, and is also dropping prices on its Amazon EC2 compute service by as much as 15 percent. Amazon says the new service lets users focus on development rather than maintenance, but it will probably be bad news for startups offering database services built atop Amazon's cloud. Cloud Avenue warns that Amazon RDS should serve as 'a warning bell for the companies that build their entire business on Amazon ecosystem. ... They are just one announcement away from complete destruction.' Data Center Knowledge has a roundup of analysis and commentary on Amazon RDS and its impact on the cloud ecosystem."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Amazon Cloud Adds Hosted MySQL

Comments Filter:
  • by Mateo_LeFou (859634) on Tuesday October 27, 2009 @09:10AM (#29882753) Homepage

    Turns out "the cloud" is just another name for "datacenter". Who knew?

    • by slim (1652) <john@hartn u p .net> on Tuesday October 27, 2009 @09:23AM (#29882873) Homepage

      I'm getting increasingly fed up of every cloud story getting piles of comments deriding cloud as "just" something else.

      - "The Cloud is just another name for datacenter"
      - "The Cloud is just another name for distributed computing"
      - "The Cloud is just another name for thin-client computing"
      - etc.

      In this particular case, yes, the backend of the Amazon cloud is a bunch of datacentres.
      And you could build a virtual datacentre in the Amazon cloud.

      But that doesn't mean that every datacentre is a cloud, because a cloud has properties that most datacentres do not.

      • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 27, 2009 @09:31AM (#29882959)

        The Cloud is just a buzz word. It makes non-techies feel clued in without having to understand the differences among a handful of technologies and how they work together.

        • by base3 (539820) on Tuesday October 27, 2009 @09:34AM (#29882975)
          And he forgot "The cloud is just another name for timesharing." The 1960s called; it wants it glass house computing model back.
        • by slim (1652) <john@hartn u p .net> on Tuesday October 27, 2009 @09:42AM (#29883081) Homepage

          The Cloud is just a buzz word. It makes non-techies feel clued in without having to understand the differences among a handful of technologies and how they work together.

          At first I thought you were contradicting me. But you're not, necessarily.

          "Cake is just a buzz word. It makes non-bakers feel clued in without having to understand the differences among a handful of ingredients and how they work together."

          Combine eggs, flour, baking powder, sugar, flavourings, in just the right recipe, you get a cake.
          Combine datacenter technogolies, virtualisation, parallelisation, timesharing, web based management, in just the right recipe, and you get a cloud.

          This doesn't mean that "cake" or "cloud" aren't useful shorthands.

          • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

            by fucket (1256188)
            So you're saying... the cake is a lie?
      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by mwvdlee (775178)

        a cloud has properties that most datacentres do not.

        Like what?

        • by slim (1652) <john@hartn u p .net> on Tuesday October 27, 2009 @12:51PM (#29885455) Homepage

          a cloud has properties that most datacentres do not.

          Like what?

          Like, a single node failing is routine, routed around in software, and not considered a problem. Yes, in a traditional datacentre you'd have dual or treble redundant servers, but if one goes down in the middle of the night it's a crisis and an operator's pager goes off. Not in a cloud.

          Like: Bringing up a new VM, or hundreds of new VMs, is something you can do on a whim. Yes, newer VM-oriented datacentres have the technology to do this, but because of the way they're managed and financed, usually you have to go through a time consuming approval/requisitioning process to even add one VM.

          Like: Dynamic scaling and location. For example, with S3, if your store is getting a lot of hits, you'll benefit from Akamai-like caching wherever in the world Amazon has a presence.

          And more. Anything you can imagine that comes from using a small fraction of a really huge pool of computing resources, spread across the planet.

    • by mcgrew (92797) *

      "The cloud" is simply Other People's Servers. Not too buzzwordy. Of course, buzzwords' only real use to to make people think you understand things you don't, so since people are starting to understand what "the cloud" is, you can use the new acronym "OPS". If they ask what "OPS" is you can tell them, but they won't ask because they'll be afraid you'll think they're stupid.

  • by Comatose51 (687974) on Tuesday October 27, 2009 @09:10AM (#29882761) Homepage
    I was a little disappointed that MySQL was the only choice offered. I was hoping for Postgres to be offered along side. It's strange to me that most ISPs/hosting companies still don't offer Postgres. MySQL is prevalent but its future is a bit shaky at the moment. Postgres is open source and offers some great features.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by skgrey (1412883)
      For a first step, MySQL was the obvious choice and it shows a move in the right direction.

      I do enjoy how everyone is trying to beat down Cloud Computing. It's basically a new technology, and just like every other new technology there are going to be bugs and issues that affect SLA right away. If you are putting all your eggs in the Cloud basket, it's the same as using that brand new bleeding-edge Cisco product or virtualization platform. You have to expect some pain until they hone the "technology".

      Su
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Fotograf (1515543)
        well i am not IT pro or something, but what exactly is "new" on this cloud? I mean i have been clouding my websites, databases and file storage for years, they are called ISP. My provides, virtual or physical PC, SMB host, or full windows host, managed. Storage as much as one can pay for business and home users...?
        • by maxume (22995) on Tuesday October 27, 2009 @09:24AM (#29882889)

          In the context you speak of, the new thing is the billing.

          (The ability to use automated systems to quickly add and remove virtual machines is also an advancement from traditional virtual hosting)

          • by jcnnghm (538570) on Tuesday October 27, 2009 @12:08PM (#29884899)

            Very true. Hourly billing and the ability to quickly provision systems is what makes these services. For our newest application, we only purchased enough equipment to handle the application base load. Our application then monitors the acceleration of system response times, load, and requests to automatically provision cloud servers. Essentially, we'll transfer messaging servers to the cloud, then internally re-provision to handle the new application loads, depending on what the actual load looks like. When the load falls, we'll transition back.

            The benefit of cloud computing is that for a few dollars a month, we can provision a few extra servers for the relatively few hours of peak load. This allows us to reduce our upfront cash outlay, while also allowing us to maximize our server usage.

        • by dingen (958134) on Tuesday October 27, 2009 @09:27AM (#29882921)

          well i am not IT pro or something, but what exactly is "new" on this cloud?

          The fact that you pay only for what you actually use and the services scales automatically to fit your needs.

          • by Rogerborg (306625)
            And that's different from Software As A Service how?
            • by dkf (304284)

              And that's different from Software As A Service how?

              It isn't different. SaaS is one of the ways of delivering things in a cloudy way (particularly when selling direct to end users) but there's also I(nfrastructure)aaS (where Amazon's strength has been for a good while now) and P(latform)aaS, which is where a good number of companies are getting excited (new ways to lock customers in, I suppose...)

              If you find it surprising that businesses and media are getting excited over a rebrand of what was there before, you've not been watching this industry for nearly l

            • by dingen (958134)

              I always though "software as a service" as a design principle for software development and "cloud computing" as a form of hosting.

              So you could, for example, create software as a service by using cloud computing. You could also choose another form of hosting for your SaaS. Or provide something else using cloud computing.

            • by snaz555 (903274)

              With cloud computing you lease virtual servers to host YOUR software. It doesn't have to be web services, you could run DNS or host NFS servers, or your own custom Unix daemons (or WIndows Services) to do whatever you want. If you're a developer you can use it to host svn, trac, and build server. Unlike a colo it's a virtual machine instance. In a cloud you install all your stuff on an instance, then take a snapshot. You can then automatically spin up additional instances in response to load, accordin

        • by slim (1652) <john@hartn u p .net> on Tuesday October 27, 2009 @09:32AM (#29882967) Homepage

          If you're buying a physical server from your ISP, that's not a cloud. If you're buying a virtual server, is it hosted dynamically across hundreds or thousands of physical machines? If not, that's not a cloud.

          Now, this probably doesn't matter to you. What you actually care about is price, performance, capacity, availability, resilience, flexibility etc.

          Many believe that running a cloud is the easiest, cheapest way to sell fast, reliable hosting services, which can be commissioned and decommissioned in a very flexible manner. You can buy a VM from Amazon in seconds, and have it running instantly. You can close it down and stop paying just as fast.

          One open question is, should the marketing use the buzzword? You don't actually care that it's in a cloud. You just care about its cost and features. But then again, being told it's in a cloud gives you clues about its features.

        • IT develops in a spiral, with old ideas being re-introduced in new and better ways every few years. Sure, remote hosting has existed a long time, and virtualization was invented more than 40 years ago.

          So what is new about cloud computing? The idea that a virtualized guest can run on any server, anywhere in the cloud. If you boot up an EC2 instance, you neither know nor care what the underlying hardware is, or whether it is in California or Timbuktu. In fact, one day your instance may be in one data center

    • by tcopeland (32225)

      > It's strange to me that most ISPs/hosting
      > companies still don't offer Postgres.

      Heroku [heroku.com] offers Rails application hosting on PostgreSQL only. 38K apps and growing... their setup is very slick.

      Then again, I'm a big fan of Rails on PostgreSQL [railsonpostgresql.com].

    • by Blakey Rat (99501)

      I'm sure this has been in the planning long before the Oracle business was announced. Amazon can't predict the future any better than anyone else.

  • Warning Bell (Score:5, Insightful)

    by slim (1652) <john@hartn u p .net> on Tuesday October 27, 2009 @09:16AM (#29882797) Homepage

    I guess the warning bell is, if your business model is to host something simple and obvious on EC2, then resell it, you can expect direct competition - in this case from Amazon themselves.

    To be sustainable, you need to add something difficult, or non-obvious, or that fills a niche, or stands out in some other way.

    Cloud Avenue could still do OK, if they can make their offering better than Amazon's, by whatever means - a nicer UI, better management tools, better customer support, etc.

    • Re:Warning Bell (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Attila Dimedici (1036002) on Tuesday October 27, 2009 @09:56AM (#29883229)

      I guess the warning bell is, if your business model is to host something simple and obvious on EC2, then resell it, you can expect direct competition - in this case from Amazon themselves.

      To be sustainable, you need to add something difficult, or non-obvious, or that fills a niche, or stands out in some other way.

      Cloud Avenue could still do OK, if they can make their offering better than Amazon's, by whatever means - a nicer UI, better management tools, better customer support, etc.

      If you base your business model on using the services of a bigger company to offer services to your customers, it is just a matter of time until that bigger company decides that they would rather get the money you are making than the money you are paying them. The only exception to that is if the service you are providing is a lot of work on a day to day basis (as opposed to being very difficult to develop, but then it basically runs itself), and is only of interest to a small niche market.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by slim (1652)

        If you base your business model on using the services of a bigger company to offer services to your customers, it is just a matter of time until that bigger company decides that they would rather get the money you are making than the money you are paying them.

        There's quite a lot of precedent for smaller companies reselling services from larger companies.

        IBM used to offer EDI interchange services. A lot of the sales were through industry specific resellers. So company X knows about, say, the insurance industry, and sells EDI services to insurers. Company X has its own helpdesk, and only refers the harder questions to IBM. IBM is very happy with this arrangement. The subs roll in month after month. IBM doesn't need to train anyone in the foibles of the insurance i

      • by CastrTroy (595695)
        Same goes for all those people who develop plugins for VS.Net. Eventually all those plugins, if remotely popular, will become core features of VS.Net, putting you completely out of business. I still don't understand why MS hasn't built a PDF converter into MS Word. If they did, they would probable wipe out half of acrobats user base.
        • by samkass (174571)

          I still don't understand why MS hasn't built a PDF converter into MS Word. If they did, they would probable wipe out half of acrobats user base.

          I don't understand why they don't have print-to-PDF as a core part of the Windows OS like MacOS. It's awfully nice to be able to print anything and everything from any app directly out to a PDF as a basic feature of the OS.

          • Because that would encourage people to share PDFs, rather than proprietary format documents, and would make it much easier for people using other software stacks to interoperate with those people. Print to XPS will probably be a standard Windows feature soon enough though...
    • It really depends what kind of service(s) you're launching on the cloud. If you're building generic infrastructure to cover some area of the market that AWS doesn't cover well or at all, then you may be in for a rude awakening in the future. This doesn't mean that such a service should not be built, it's just that one should realize what kind of risks are involved when developing something like that.

      There are plenty of services that build on top of AWS that will probably be safe from competition well into t

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      So, would Cloud Avenue's business model not be threatened if they hosted the databases on their own physical servers?

      • by slim (1652)

        Excellent point. And by hosting on EC2, at least they haven't spent a fortune on hardware, should Amazon drive them out of the market.

  • by vagabond_gr (762469) on Tuesday October 27, 2009 @09:48AM (#29883145)

    With the two new types, their instance list [amazon.com] looks like the McDonalds menu.

    I'd like a Quadruple Extra Large with cheese please.

  • by Richard_at_work (517087) <richardprice@@@gmail...com> on Tuesday October 27, 2009 @10:26AM (#29883561)
    While not directly comparable, the Azure platform being launched next month by Microsoft includes two relational database options:

    1. Small database (1GB)- $9.99/month
    2. Large database (10GB) - $99.99/month

    Each SQL Azure database is triple redundant automatically, and you do not pay for storage or load balancing. The Amazon model has you paying for the instance ($81 per 31 days for the small instance) plus storage charges and other costs.

    Not too impressed at the moment.
    • by raylu (914970) on Tuesday October 27, 2009 @11:22AM (#29884291) Homepage Journal

      What?

      http://www.microsoft.com/windowsazure/pricing/ [microsoft.com]

      # Web Edition: Up to 1 GB relational database = $9.99 / month
      # Business Edition: Up to 10 GB relational database = $99.99 / month
      # Bandwidth = $0.10 in / $0.15 out / GB

      Web Edition Relational Database includes:

      * Up to 1 GB of T-SQL based relational database
      * Self-managed DB, auto high availability
      * Best suited for Web application, Departmental custom apps.

      Business Edition DB includes:

      * Up to 10 GB of T-SQL based relational database
      * Self-managed DB, auto high availability
      * Additional features in the future like auto-partition, CLR, fanouts etc.
      * Best suited for ISVs packaged LOB apps, Department custom apps

      http://aws.amazon.com/rds/ [amazon.com]

      # Small DB Instance: 1.7 GB memory, 1 ECU (1 virtual core with 1 ECU), 64-bit platform.
      # Large DB Instance: 7.5 GB memory, 4 ECUs (2 virtual cores with 2 ECUs each), 64-bit platform
      # Extra Large DB Instance: 15 GB of memory, 8 ECUs (4 virtual cores with 2 ECUs each), 64-bit platform
      # Double Extra Large DB Instance: 34 GB of memory, 13 ECUs (4 virtual cores with 3,25 ECUs each), 64-bit platform
      # Quadruple Extra Large DB Instance: 68 GB of memory, 26 ECUs (8 virtual cores with 3.25 ECUs each), 64-bit platform

      (Price per hour)
      Small DB Instance $0.11
      Large DB Instance $0.44
      Extra Large DB Instance $0.88
      Double Extra Large DB Instance $1.55
      Quadruple Extra Large DB Instance $3.10

      Provisioned Database Storage

      For each DB Instance class, Amazon RDS provides you the ability to select from 5 GB to 1 TB of associated storage capacity for your primary data set.

      * $0.10 per GB-month of provisioned storage
      * $0.10 per 1 million I/O requests

      Data Transfer In

      * All Data Transfer $0.10 per GB

      Data Transfer Out

      * First 10 TB per Month $0.17 per GB
      * Next 40 TB per Month $0.13 per GB
      * Next 100TB per Month $0.11 per GB
      * Over 150 TB per Month $0.10 per GB

      Data transferred between two Amazon Web Services within the same region (e.g. between Amazon RDS US and Amazon EC2 US) is free of charge.

      The minimum on Amazon is 5GB, so let's compare 10GB. For Amazon at 1 month, you're paying $0.10 * 10 = $1 for storage and your $81.84 is about right. Note that this $82.84 is not comparable to the "Web Edition" offering from Microsoft, as that's for 1GB of storage. The "Small DB Instance" offering from Amazon is for an instance, not for storage, which you pay for completely separately.

      So this $82.84 figure is really only comparable to Microsoft's "Business Edition" offering at $99.99, both before bandwidth costs. Bandwidth costs apply to Azure too under a different pricing model. The data in cost is exactly the same and the data out cost is $0.02/GB more expensive for Amazon for the first 10 TB and cheaper after that. You do have to pay Amazon an additional $0.10 per 1 million I/O requests, though.

      On the other hand, Amazon allows you to buy way more than 10GB of storage, different instances, and

      • You entirely miss the point that the Azure offering is fully redundant and highly available (each database has two redundant hot copies, and you don't care about managing that or handling the load balancing), while the Amazon offering is .... not, so you triple the costs for the same redundancy.
  • Cost (Score:3, Insightful)

    by tibman (623933) on Tuesday October 27, 2009 @10:27AM (#29883577) Homepage

    The smallest instance is 11 cents an hour or ~$80 a month. That just seems like a lot to me, atleast for a personal DB. That $80 only gets you a virtual box with "1.7 GB memory, 1 ECU (1 virtual core with 1 ECU), 64-bit platform." with a max of 1 TB storage (also an additional cost). It just doesn't seem worth it, tbh.

    I guess if a company is counting hardware costs, payroll, electricity, and stuff like that.. $80 might be a good deal. But i think most people would rather have a normal server hosted for $10-20 a month.

    • by dingen (958134)

      The smallest instance is 11 cents an hour or ~$80 a month.

      That's assuming the database is used every hour of every day. For a website that is only accessed occassionally, you pay a lot less of course.

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by JPDeckers (559434)

        No, you don't.

        You pay on run-time, not CPU time consumed, so pay 0.11*24*31 for a month, regardless of usage.

        Unless ofcourse you have a script that fires up an instance on the moment your website is accessed, and shuts it down afterward, but that might be sub-optimal in responsetime :)

        • It all depends on what sort of site you're talking about.

          I have several apps at work that are only used maybe 3 or 4 days a month.

          They could be cloud based and called from an internal portal as needed.

          That would make it 0.11*8*6 for me.

          $5.28 per month.

          To get an annoying app up out of my way.

          Gotta think about that

      • Nope, thats the instance cost - the instance is up all the time. The storage and transfer costs depend on traffic.
        • by dingen (958134)
          Well... that's just stupid. What's the benefit of running your database in a cloud if you don't pay for just how much you use it? Isn't that the whole point to begin with?
          • No, the point of running it in the cloud is to remove the question of the infrastructure. Amazons offering isn't really 'cloud' imho, its more hosted infrastructure but you still care about the infrastructure. Note how you still need to build in redundancy and availability yourself with the Amazon offering, which means multiple instances and other systems to handle the load balancing/clustering/whatever - a true cloud option will 'just be' fully redundant and highly available.
    • by slim (1652)

      If it's a personal DB, you'd probably not want to run it 24/7. Remember Amazon VMs are trivial to bring up and down, and you only pay while they're up.

      If you're thinking about the backend for a personal Wordpress page (etc) this probably isn't the right platform.

    • by Wee (17189) on Tuesday October 27, 2009 @12:49PM (#29885439)
      I guess if a company is counting hardware costs, payroll, electricity, and stuff like that.. $80 might be a good deal. But i think most people would rather have a normal server hosted for $10-20 a month.

      "Might be a good deal"? Are you kidding? It's a raging deal! You get patching, sysadmin, hosting, etc for that $80. You likely even get more in terms of resources than you would on your "normal" $20/month hosted server (which is probably going to be some pokey virtualized instance on a grossly overloaded server some place).

      You also get backups and redundancy for that eighty bucks. The PSU blows in that hosted server and you're looking at downtime. You lose a disk and then you're looking at paying one of your employees to re-install everything, reload the DB, test it, etc.

      You can do a hell of a lot with what they're giving you. I wouldn't use it for a personal web site or anything, but for a small business who needs a basic DB-backed web site/service, it's quite a deal (especially if they are short on internal IT resources). Given MySQL's popularity in its nice, I'd say the DB choice was appropriate as well.

      -B
  • Optimization (Score:5, Interesting)

    by dingen (958134) on Tuesday October 27, 2009 @10:28AM (#29883593)

    I wonder if programming for cloud services will bring back the need for code that is optimized for speed (or using as little resources as possible), since you pay for the actual usage of these resources.

    • by slim (1652)

      I wonder if programming for cloud services will bring back the need for code that is optimized for speed (or using as little resources as possible), since you pay for the actual usage of these resources.

      In server land, if you've got lots of clients, you were always paying for those resources. You max out a server, you have to buy another, or code something more efficient.

      Usually, the cost of more computer resource is vastly lower than the cost of a programmer doing optimisation. Jeff Atwood has written frequently on the subject.

      • by dingen (958134)

        Is that still true for cloud computing? Because you don't just "get a new server" when your code is a bit bloated. Instead, you pay too much every single day your service is online. This could really add up over time.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by slim (1652)

          For non-cloud computing, you pay too much every single day, until you reach optimum usage level. Then you exceed the optimum usage level, and have to buy another server, and pay too much again. So it's a series of server-sized steps, approximating a curve.

          If you were paying by the timeslice, the cloud equivalent would show a smooth curve, matching the growth in usage.

          OTOH with EC2 you pay by the hour of uptime, rather than by processor usage, so CPU usage isn't of the essence for many applications.

          You might

          • by dingen (958134)

            OTOH with EC2 you pay by the hour of uptime, rather than by processor usage, so CPU usage isn't of the essence for many applications.

            Ah, right. It seems I understood incorrectly how Amazon's service works.

  • by HangingChad (677530) on Tuesday October 27, 2009 @10:47AM (#29883835) Homepage

    It rids the customers of any need for time consuming database administration tasks.

    I'm sorry but administering a db just isn't that difficult or time-consuming. It takes a certain level of technical knowledge to write good SQL. If you can do that, usually you have enough skill to handle the little bit of maintenance MySQL requires. This isn't like running an Exchange or SQL Server with a ton of overhead, licensing fees, and required add-ons. You can scale MySQL for the cost of hardware. I'm not seeing a compelling reason to let Amazon run my databases.

    And then there's no question of who owns the data, who has access to it, and what happens to your data if you can't pay the hosting bill? If your application or web site is so wildly successful that you have to manage failover and load balancing, then you can afford to hire people to solve those happy problems.

    • by Blakey Rat (99501)

      You could just not use it, you realize. Or is an Amazon rep in your office with a gun to your head?

      I'm sorry but administering a db just isn't that difficult or time-consuming. It takes a certain level of technical knowledge to write good SQL. If you can do that, usually you have enough skill to handle the little bit of maintenance MySQL requires.

      Then...

      This isn't like running an Exchange or SQL Server with a ton of overhead, licensing fees, and required add-ons.

      WTF, man? Administering MS SQL Server is tons

    • by slim (1652)

      I'm sorry but administering a db just isn't that difficult or time-consuming.

      It's quite a lot more difficult and time-consuming than not administering a DB.

      • Not monitoring security patch announcements
      • Not feeding and watering a backup system
      • Not needing to procure storage hardware in advance of requirements

      ... and so on.

  • Why the confusion? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Maudib (223520) on Tuesday October 27, 2009 @11:24AM (#29884315)

    I am not sure why people are so confused about what cloud computing means in this context. It is pretty straightforward-

    (1) Yes, the underlying technology is "just" a data-center that you could provision through standard channels.
    (2) Yes, it is "just" a normal MySQL server that you could manage and scale through normal means.

    Now take those above functions, and put them behind an API that we can call into from our software. Could you manage the same things directly? Of course! However there are use cases where being able to control these functions through is very desirable.

    Now take a bunch of other infrastructure resources and put control of them all behind APIs too. One ends up with a very different thing then traditional hosting. You can't provision 100x servers/databases/hadoop nodes for a single hour or night at a traditional host based on some event your software manages, and then pay less then $100. Sure the underlying tools are the same, and there are many traditional use cases where AWS is actually more expensive. However there are an equal number of situations where the reverse is also true.

    As for who owns the data, thats just FUD resulting from an unfortunate overlap in terms with things like Facebook. The AWS TOS and contract is quite clear on who owns the data. Just like any other data center, if you don't secure/encrypt your stuff it is possible for the host to look into it, but this is no more likely in AWS then at Rack Space or Data Pipe.

    • You can't provision 100x servers/databases/hadoop nodes for a single hour or night at a traditional host based on some event your software manages, and then pay less then $100.

      You can't do this with the cloud either. Show me what a 100 CPU instance costs for an hour, each with 2GB of RAM and a 5 GB disk.(bare bones) Come back when I can get a single instance with 1024 CPUs and 50 TB of addressable RAM. I want my one instance to scale automatically - because that's what the cloud promises: automatic scalability.

      • by Maudib (223520)

        Sure you can. I have applications online that scale up and down automatically multiple times a day. Some scaling is scheduled, some is based on load.

        Though your terminology is a little wrong. Its not a single "instance", it is N instances. Scaling up and down is based on adding or removing an instance. It can be done automatically right now using things like Scalr, Cloud watch or right scale. Or it can be implemented from scratch pretty easily too.

        100x small ec2 instances will cost you a total of $10/hour.

        • by slim (1652)

          I think the GP wants to be able to write an application targeted at a single system, and have it magically scale by adding resource.

          Sorry, nobody's achieved that. You have to program with clusters in mind. As long as you do that, however, EC2 lets you add and remove machines from the cluster on demand, via API calls.

          Google AppEngine loses you some flexibility, but gives you access to an API that takes full advantage of their massive distributed resources.

  • I wonder how many sites are accepting and or storing credit card data on the Amazon cloud without knowing they're breaking the terms of their merchant account contracts.

    Until Amazon, or any other "cloud" provider can guarantee PCI-Compliance, we can't even consider them. Our current data center guarantees Level-I compliance and we have it in writing.

    • by slim (1652)

      Until Amazon, or any other "cloud" provider can guarantee PCI-Compliance, we can't even consider them. Our current data center guarantees Level-I compliance and we have it in writing.

      It's a valid observation.

      If I was to launch a retail web site -- say, hypothetically, ThinkGeek hadn't been invented yet, and I got there first today -- then I'd expect (once I got a Slashvertisment out there) huge numbers of moochers looking at the T-shirt designs but not buying, along with a much smaller number of buyers.

      So I would consider hosting images and perhaps the catalogue site on EC2/S3/RDS or some other cloud service - where I can dynamically scale to a slashdotting - and pass buyers to a secure

  • They are just one announcement away from complete destruction.

    That statement sums up the whole "cloud" debate for me.

    yes I know it was referring to the start-ups offering services on top of the amazon services. But my point stands.

Machines certainly can solve problems, store information, correlate, and play games -- but not with pleasure. -- Leo Rosten

Working...