What's missing from that model is burstability; we run on just one Apache and Varnish server (versus four) at night. So I'm inclined to think that our solution is cheaper. Actually, what attracted us to EC2 was that it allows us to run without a contract.
We run about a dozen leased servers that are all at least dual core with 8 gigs. Honestly, that cluster just runs itself; we never have to intervene like with do with EC2. So I'm inclined to agree with you--all other things being equal, I'd rather have a gaggle of powerful physical servers.
But not all technical decisions are made for purely technical reasons. But that's another thread.
No, we're not abusing a free DNS service; *I personally* use EveryDNS for my own simple personal sites. And if we switch to it, we'll pay for it.
Of course we're not using DNS as a node list, and we're not using Dynamic DNS; we use Amazon EIP and keep records of servers (with a script, by using instance groups) independent of DNS.
And how is using Pound and Varnish perverse? We're stuck with an extraordinarily memory intensive application that mostly just serves static content, so we need a page cache, and one caching server won't suffice when we make it to the front page of Digg or on the Drudge Report, so we need a load balancer for multiple page caches. I *know* I need this setup; if there's a better way to serve millions of page views a month off a slow-loading, memory-eating, crash-prone application... please, let me know. I'd love to be able to rewrite the application, but we don't have time for that until mid next year.
And as for using EC2 in the first place, we kind of have to because we need the best computing value per dollar with no contracts and just-in-time expansion--these are all business decisions, not technical decisions. That said, in more than a year of running EC2 heavily, I've never been disappointed.
Fact is, Amazon has built in many very nice considerations for conventional web sites, and there are many sites that use it in this way. The flexibility and value we get out of EC2 greatly outweigh the risk.
I think you might be right about the master DNS server though; we have a couple of utility (continuous build, SVN, Trac, miscellany) servers that could do the trick nicely.
I actually met you in college at one point; you were a senior, I was a [self involved] freshman, and you gave me some very good advice then too. FWIW.
Thanks to everyone for all the great advice. I'm going to probably roll with EveryDNS one way or the other out of loyalty to their service which has never let me down.
And we'll donate our savings from DNSPark.
We use and love OpenDNS too. If you're ever in New York, I owe you a beer.
Slashdot Mirror
What's missing from that model is burstability; we run on just one Apache and Varnish server (versus four) at night. So I'm inclined to think that our solution is cheaper. Actually, what attracted us to EC2 was that it allows us to run without a contract.
We run about a dozen leased servers that are all at least dual core with 8 gigs. Honestly, that cluster just runs itself; we never have to intervene like with do with EC2. So I'm inclined to agree with you--all other things being equal, I'd rather have a gaggle of powerful physical servers.
But not all technical decisions are made for purely technical reasons. But that's another thread.
No, we're not abusing a free DNS service; *I personally* use EveryDNS for my own simple personal sites. And if we switch to it, we'll pay for it.
Of course we're not using DNS as a node list, and we're not using Dynamic DNS; we use Amazon EIP and keep records of servers (with a script, by using instance groups) independent of DNS.
And how is using Pound and Varnish perverse? We're stuck with an extraordinarily memory intensive application that mostly just serves static content, so we need a page cache, and one caching server won't suffice when we make it to the front page of Digg or on the Drudge Report, so we need a load balancer for multiple page caches. I *know* I need this setup; if there's a better way to serve millions of page views a month off a slow-loading, memory-eating, crash-prone application... please, let me know. I'd love to be able to rewrite the application, but we don't have time for that until mid next year.
And as for using EC2 in the first place, we kind of have to because we need the best computing value per dollar with no contracts and just-in-time expansion--these are all business decisions, not technical decisions. That said, in more than a year of running EC2 heavily, I've never been disappointed.
Fact is, Amazon has built in many very nice considerations for conventional web sites, and there are many sites that use it in this way. The flexibility and value we get out of EC2 greatly outweigh the risk.
I think you might be right about the master DNS server though; we have a couple of utility (continuous build, SVN, Trac, miscellany) servers that could do the trick nicely.
davidu,
I actually met you in college at one point; you were a senior, I was a [self involved] freshman, and you gave me some very good advice then too. FWIW.
Thanks to everyone for all the great advice. I'm going to probably roll with EveryDNS one way or the other out of loyalty to their service which has never let me down.
And we'll donate our savings from DNSPark.
We use and love OpenDNS too. If you're ever in New York, I owe you a beer.
-netaustin