6641399
story
Comments: 173 +- Developers: Amazon Cloud Adds Hosted MySQL on Tuesday October 27, @08:02AM
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicdatabases.gif); width:108px; height:63px;
database
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicstorage.gif); width:48px; height:51px;
storage
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicinternet.gif); width:70px; height:73px;
internet
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."
Related Stories
It is Mr. Mellon's credo that $200,000,000 can do no wrong. Our
offense consists in doubting it.
-- Justice Robert H. Jackson
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.
Showing their cards at last (Score:4, Funny)
Turns out "the cloud" is just another name for "datacenter". Who knew?
Re:Showing their cards at last (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:Showing their cards at last (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:Showing their cards at last (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Showing their cards at last (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Showing their cards at last (Score:4, Insightful)
There is a pretty big difference however.
In your companies case, you are not paying for what you use, you are paying for everything, in a lot of cases up front instead of over time.
You need to buy servers, their resources (memory, storage, backup media, interconnect system, etc), as well as the datacenter itself (power, cooling, arrangement, management, staff maintenance, bandwidth, etc), and then once everything is up and running functionally, you still have paid for all of those things like servers storage bandwidth and power, no matter if you are using 100% or 1% of your system.
In amazons case, you don't. You pay for what you use, as you use it, no more no less.
You don't need to pay upfront costs for servers, the infrastructure to support them, and the people to run them. You DO pay for those things, but only a very tiny percentage of, which happens to be the percentage of their resources or skills you use.
At least for the moment, it is much cheaper to buy these resources from amazon, than to pay to build up a datacenter to start with 1 or 2 machines, but be able to scale up to millions. That would have such a huge up front cost that it is not even an option for most small businesses.
There will always be situations where the obvious answer is doing it yourself. This will never change.
That does not exclude the fact there are other situations where using cloud time sharing is the better answer.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
What you don't mention is that you pay a premium for using only what you need instead of building out your own infrastructure. In some cases, the premium is upwards of 100% (have had to run the numbers for several clients, for some it works out well, for some it's grossly more expensive).
I think that's fair. It would be pretty amazing if it worked out cheaper in all cases, and everyone should run the numbers and evaluate the benefits before going into it.
I know Smugmug.com believe they're $500K by using S3 instead of their own storage servers. http://blogs.smugmug.com/don/2006/11/10/amazon-s3-show-me-the-money/ [smugmug.com]
But, there are plenty of scenarios where due to predictable loads (or simply low loads), or simple requirements Amazon's pricing model is a bad fit.
I would be most tempted by Amazon's
Re:Showing their cards at last (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Parent
A Little Disappointed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
Re:A Little Disappointed (Score:4, Insightful)
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)
Parent
Re:A Little Disappointed (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Parent
Re:A Little Disappointed (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:A Little Disappointed (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
what does that tell me about the likely functional differences in their offerings?
Probably very little. It will give you clues about what price/performance/reliability to expect.
If you were buying a business-critical web hosting service, you'd likely be asking the company questions about their setup. Do you have RAID? What's your disaster recovery procedure? How do you achieve high-availability on the database server? How long can you run on UPS? What's your SLA?
"Cloud" is a shorthand answer to many of these questions. The fine details are there for the reading, too.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'll try again then.
If one provider offers me "cloud computing" and the other offers "software as a service", what does that tell me about the likely functional differences in their offerings?
Firstly, the provider that offers you "software as a service" has not told you that his SaaS offering isn't cloud hosted. That's an implementation detail.
The provider that offers you "cloud computing" has given you a bit of extra information, about the infrastructure they plan to use to offer you your service.
Your end users needn't know or care whether they're interacting with a physical server, a virtual server in a cloud, or a man in a box.
But being told it's a cloud implementation giv
Re:A Little Disappointed (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I was talking about generalities - what "cloud computing" means.
In the case of Amazon EC2, you get a virtual Linux server, on which you can run whatever services you like - VPN, SSH, WWW, whatever. It's simple, in so far as it gives you pretty much total flexibility.
I'm not sure about sending them DVD uploads. If they don't, a third party with lots of bandwidth could offer that service.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> 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].
Re: (Score:2)
My question for you is, why don't you just give up and use what the entire world is using
Mr Ballmer? Is that you?
Warning Bell (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Quadruple Extra Large (Score:4, Funny)
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.
Not competitive enough (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Not competitive enough (Score:4, Informative)
What?
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsazure/pricing/ [microsoft.com]
http://aws.amazon.com/rds/ [amazon.com]
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
Parent
Cost (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
It's a screaming deal (Score:4, Informative)
"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
Parent
Optimization (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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
I'm not sure what's so compelling (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Why the confusion? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you run your site on a single server then it's much smaller than slashdot, no matter how many cores or ram you have. Also, it means that your site is down much more often than it should. If you want a serious infrastructure with redundancy, EC2 is a quite cheap solution, with many advantages in terms of maintenance and scaling.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This surprises me. Even if you go for "Extra Large" at 80c/hour that would only account for $584/month. And it's much cheaper if you go for a reserved instance.
So you must be using $1000/month worth of bandwidth and storage: wow.
If you've done your sums right, though, I'd take it as a sign that you've got a fairly unique set of requirements, that are a bad fit for the Amazon billing model.
What happens when your Xeam server with 16GB of RAM develops a hardware fault, incidentally?