From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E1AE1381F3 for ; Fri, 14 Dec 2012 13:30:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C89BC21C0A5; Fri, 14 Dec 2012 13:30:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-bk0-f53.google.com (mail-bk0-f53.google.com [209.85.214.53]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1D8BD21C083 for ; Fri, 14 Dec 2012 13:27:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-bk0-f53.google.com with SMTP id j5so1696043bkw.40 for ; Fri, 14 Dec 2012 05:27:32 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=date:from:to:subject:message-id:in-reply-to:references:organization :x-mailer:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=rv46T14oN/zTfR+PZFJH6IIJauzxJW8oU4IknV8JWRI=; b=bVtW1qesL4NnuE5IpPtnksh6zAVcoTV+JGO6/dfjlKFUDtquDnDposH+p5GV3s6KK0 8hLXjn11uJDfXzMRl+CTf3hQHNSbaFgODCN3tS20DeaXEAvbUAgfH6XGzVtKlThNIrqy WBmUejjPyWLb6F/BkWnAVVP8zPuHOJEOJNmjLjC/XnzBbijb/DQ94oWNTY7hs0d/ck3X SkfdCZKVCpQjM4X617OzqKX0HJxqMsxb+9GGsm+AKyzaiefJWe+Ww4krpATyujR3nSNP 3D6DkpTJ8oJCuMDo1EXiM0DEtFGwSRsMb7r2xfEWqIMbpkgv2fmOBMLIMeCdqbrxiV/J z54A== Received: by 10.204.146.92 with SMTP id g28mr2735556bkv.127.1355491652634; Fri, 14 Dec 2012 05:27:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from khamul.example.com (dustpuppy.is.co.za. [196.14.169.11]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id q22sm4518315bkv.16.2012.12.14.05.27.30 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 14 Dec 2012 05:27:31 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 15:24:03 +0200 From: Alan McKinnon To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] {OT} dedicated server or cloud server? Message-ID: <20121214152403.6ad0160c@khamul.example.com> In-Reply-To: References: <50CAE9D4.4000402@binarywings.net> Organization: Internet Solutions X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.8.1 (GTK+ 2.24.14; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 8db73366-96bc-44f4-9238-17ef09756b8c X-Archives-Hash: 4e4105e53c7e5c69b9d7ecb884fda478 On Fri, 14 Dec 2012 02:00:54 -0800 Grant wrote: > > > Would everyone here be in favor of a dedicated server over a cloud > > > server from a host with good cloud infrastructure? The cloud > > > server concept is amazing but from what I'm reading a dedicated > > > server at the same price point far outperforms it. > > > > > > - Grant > > > > Last time I did the calculation, a dedicated or normal virtualized > > infrastructure was more cost effective as long as you could > > accurately predict the performance you need. > > > > Cloud services only really help if you need a high dynamic range > > regarding scale and performance, e.g. a service that could get a > > lot of new users very fast or is only really active for short time > > spans. > > Doesn't a good cloud server also have potentially higher availability > compared to dedicated? Potentially? Yes. In reality? No. It's not the virtualization that breaks, it's all the surrounding infrastructure, especially Layer 2. You will not believe how fragile that stuff can get. In the old days, a small slip up could isolate a small part of the network. These days, a small slip-up easily ripples though the entire network and takes down all of it, and sadly this is not rare. The networking needs of VMs are radically different from the traditional, and this is the side-effect: fragility. -- Alan McKinnon alan.mckinnon@gmail.com