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 05A711381F3 for ; Fri, 14 Dec 2012 18:17:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 57B4C21C13E; Fri, 14 Dec 2012 18:16:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ia0-f181.google.com (mail-ia0-f181.google.com [209.85.210.181]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E1F0AE0205 for ; Fri, 14 Dec 2012 18:15:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ia0-f181.google.com with SMTP id s32so3312624iak.40 for ; Fri, 14 Dec 2012 10:15:32 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=Ix73IgsxxZYPVvMSmKRbZpMt5R0DpCQ1TcKxDV4K4zE=; b=t1nQ7ThKOPebFES5o6rCFAUIb55gwyWOwUFrvIOpmuoL4mOr56+hSP8f/Sq2gS6wna G4NONH5lTOX6yNrxE+6dpLuYU/+TlGJAjuiAhH2aHf1K9XNfZRsV8LwLifx1M4zA3gzS fkLcyiKlaMacjRHCekakmS5zRs8d9l2iYZcVvO5ovKwb+Ebe8PvxHSbb4yf1+pJOkrkp +//sAQdyEUZ+nxr3unFUVW47wP4s1FXhEjcFPxysbkMk3ZMujYEqlqzFVQouHwUXbW7/ 0s5iye0l9gxZZi1j4jG5qf6V7cd/TLrjE/K8bRijEbOPCzRxMsrgwEbfZHUrICV9Ju7N TnUQ== 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 Received: by 10.42.44.196 with SMTP id c4mr5275984icf.45.1355508925986; Fri, 14 Dec 2012 10:15:25 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.64.87.230 with HTTP; Fri, 14 Dec 2012 10:15:25 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <50CB54F8.1090205@binarywings.net> References: <50CAE9D4.4000402@binarywings.net> <50CB54F8.1090205@binarywings.net> Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 10:15:25 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] {OT} dedicated server or cloud server? From: Kevin Brandstatter To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec518223405f8d604d0d4043c X-Archives-Salt: 7b491da3-adef-43f5-bb23-ffafcb4075e9 X-Archives-Hash: 6dde88362f7f19424a3d1628eb5ac762 --bcaec518223405f8d604d0d4043c Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cloud services are often far more expensive, I work with someone who did a fair amount of research of the various costs of clouds. They are good for dynamic scaling of resources but if your concentrating on one server or another its likely your server load isn't highly intensive and a single dedicated server could handle it. Also, there are the options of cheaper webhosting, or a VPS, as a true dedicated server can be quite expensive due to the cost of rackspace. In terms of availability, it simply depends on replication and the reliability of the data site. with a standard cloud server there is likely not replication across sites and so the availability is determined by availability of the data center. Dedicated servers dont have multi site replication (unless you do it yourself), however many provide far better uptime SLAs than a cloud provider. For example, Amazon EC2 SLA guaruntees 99.95% uptime. whereas dedicated servers or VPSs can generally offer between 99,99% and 99.9999% (depending on who it is). -Kevin Brandstatter On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 8:34 AM, Florian Philipp wrote: > Am 14.12.2012 11:00, schrieb Grant: > >> > 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? > > > > - Grant > > I'd be grateful if anyone can point me at a well conducted study on that > topic. Until then I just say that my anecdotal evidence shows the > opposite: My cheap-ass virtual server has an uptime of 492 days with > only minor, previously announced network outages. During the same time, > Amazon EC2 had what, 3 or 4 major outages? > > Regards, > Florian Philipp > > --bcaec518223405f8d604d0d4043c Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cloud services are often far more expensive, I work with someone who did a = fair amount of research of the various costs of clouds. They are good for d= ynamic scaling of resources but if your concentrating on one server or anot= her its likely your server load isn't highly intensive and a single ded= icated server could handle it. Also, there are the options of cheaper webho= sting, or a VPS, as a true dedicated server can be quite expensive due to t= he cost of rackspace.

In terms of availability, it simply depends on replication a= nd the reliability of the data site. with a standard cloud server there is = likely not replication across sites and so the availability is determined b= y availability of the data center. Dedicated servers dont have multi site r= eplication (unless you do it yourself), however many provide far better upt= ime SLAs than a cloud provider.=A0
For example, Amazon EC2 SLA guaruntees 99.95% uptime. whereas dedicate= d servers or VPSs can generally offer between 99,99% and 99.9999% (dependin= g on who it is).

-Kevin Brandstatter



On = Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 8:34 AM, Florian Philipp <lists@binarywings.net> wrote:
Am 14.12.2012 11:00, schrieb Grant:
>> > Would everyone here be in favor of a d= edicated server over a cloud
>> > server from a host with good cloud infrastructure? =A0The clo= ud 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 accura= tely
>> 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 l= ot of
>> new users very fast or is only really active for short time spans.=
>
> Doesn't a good cloud server also have potentially higher availabil= ity
> compared to dedicated?
>
> - Grant

I'd be grateful if anyone can point me at a well conducted = study on that
topic. Until then I just say that my anecdotal evidence shows the
opposite: My cheap-ass virtual server has an uptime of 492 days with
only minor, previously announced network outages. During the same time,
Amazon EC2 had what, 3 or 4 major outages?

Regards,
Florian Philipp


--bcaec518223405f8d604d0d4043c--