Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
We don’t allow questions seeking recommendations for books, tools, software libraries, and more. You can edit the question so it can be answered with facts and citations.
Closed 5 days ago.
Improve this question
I have a customer who already has a Production workload running in AWS, and they are exploring DR options. They have a bit of on-prem infrastructure available and were wondering if they could use their on-prem data center as their DR environment for AWS. In searching through the docs, or Googling a solution, everything that is returned is the more typical use case of running production on-prem and DR in AWS. Has anyone seen this reverse setup, and if so, what was the approach?
I would recommend against this approach.
Due to the elastic nature of cloud compute, it is possible to deploy Disaster Recovery systems in the cloud when required, without having them running all the time. This is a different approach to traditional on-premises DR where equipment is sitting unused "just in case" it is required.
This also means that a DR system can be deployed in the cloud that is identical to Production, whereas attempting to deploy on "a bit of on-prem infrastructure" would be quite complex because it would not be identical to Production.
If your customer deployed to AWS using "Infrastructure as a Service" (eg using CloudFormation or Terraform), then deploying the DR system would be as simple as running a script.
An alternative approach to Disaster Recovery is not to fail-over, but instead always run systems in parallel. For example, instead of two web servers running in one Availability Zone, run one web server in each of two different Availability Zones. A Load Balancer would be able to direct traffic to both web servers. If one Availability Zone was to experience a disaster, the web server and load balancer running in the other Availability Zone would continue to operate. This approach is "High Availability" as opposed to Disaster Recovery. Under such an architecture, the system can keep operating even when suffering failures, as opposed to having to "fail-over" to an alternative site. Plus, it avoids having to "fail-back" to the original site, which is typically the hardest part of it all.
An analogy: High Availability is a bit like having two small trucks instead of one large truck -- work can continue even if one truck fails, and another truck can be 'launched' relatively quickly. In contrast, Disaster Recovery would react to a broken truck by pulling a horse out of the stable.
For more information, see: Disaster recovery options in the cloud - Disaster Recovery of Workloads on AWS: Recovery in the Cloud
Related
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 2 days ago.
Improve this question
I have a small mobile application which is based on microservice architecture. Two of the microservices are in java, one is in node. My application uses a MySQL database.
Presently I am using a VPS to host my services, all software (MySQL, tomcat and pm2) are installed in the same VPS.
Now I am planning to move to AWS and (as I have no prior AWS experience) I am overwhelmed by the services provided by AWS.
Can anyone please help me decide on this?
Since the usage is going to be very low at this point, I have to get this setup with the least monthly costs to be incurred.
For that I am thinking to get 1 EC2 instance and install all software in different docker containers (including the DB). Will this approach work? Or will I have to get another RDS instance? Is docker required? Or can I directly install all the software?
Such question is opinion based and community discourage such question but there is few things that are very clear to explain.
Will I have to get another RDS instance
I will not recommend to go with the container for DB, it will be hard to scale and maintain backup etc in container also there is a risk to lost data if no proper mounting were set in the container configuration.
I will recommend going with RDS free tier which is free for one year ( Term and condition apply)
It will be easy in future to upgrade, scale and maintain backup with RDS.
AWS Free Tier with Amazon RDS
750 hours of Amazon RDS Single-AZ db.t2.micro Instance usage running
MySQL, MariaDB, PostgreSQL, Oracle BYOL or SQL Server (running SQL
Server Express Edition) – enough hours to run a DB Instance
continuously each month
rds-free-tier
I am thinking to get 1 ec2 install and install all softwares in
different docker containers (including the DB),
At the initial level, it's fine to go with 1 instance. but here is the flow
Create ECS cluster
Create ECR registry and push your image to ECR
Create Task definition against each docker iamge
Create service for each task definition
As mentioned in the comment you can explore EKS, but in AWS I will prefer ECs.
You can explore this to start with gentle-introduction-to-how-aws-ecs-works-with-example
High-level look will be
It's been a while since I asked this question - and though I agree this is more of an opinion-based question - I still think this answer is something that would be a good start into cloud deployments.
Application hosting
For startups and small projects like these, the best approach would be to go with serverless lambda functions - and though it would add an overhead of lambda functions in code its worth the effort as it keeps the cost to almost zero until you start to get some tangible traffic.
Another approach for the application microservices could be docker - but docker containers are more for containerized deployment - to make sure code runs the same in the prod environment as it does in the dev- rather than this one should go with a small EC2 instance and deploy the microservices as separate processes (PM2 for node js). Though differential scaling would be tough at this point it doesn't matter - as soon as you start seeing CPU metrics touch the roof you can start decoupling the more used Microservices to another machine - and have a load balancer in front of it.
K8s is overkill at this point as again with one worker node even though the control plane is free to use - its just no point - until you have a sizable number of worker nodes
Database Deployment
Stateful deployments are trickier comparatively as there is a chance of data loss. Easier would be to go with managed DB hosting at this point such as AWS aurora/RDS or if you plan to use NoSQL then mongoDB atlas. Managing DB along with backups would be a painful task especially when you are saving every penny in infra costs.
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 4 years ago.
Improve this question
I have a web application that has very fluctuating traffic. I'm talking about 30 to 40 users daily to thousands of people simultaneously. It's a ticketing app so this kind of behavior is here to stay so I want to make a strategic choice I don't want to by a host with a high configuration because it's just going to be sitting around for most of the time. We're running a Node.js server so we usually run low on RAM. My question is this: what are my options and how difficult is it to go from a normal VPS to something like Microsoft Azure, Google Cloud, or AWS.
It's difficult to be specific without knowing more about your application architecture but both AWS Lambda and Google App Engine offer 'serverless architecture' and support Node.js. Serverless architectures allow you to host code directly rather than running servers and associated infrastructure. Scaling is given to you by the services, costs are based on consumption and you can configure constraints and alerts to prevent racking up huge unexpected bills. In both instances you would need to front the services with additional Google or AWS services to make them accessible to customers, but these offer a great way to scale and pay only for what you need.
A first step is to offload static content to Amazon S3 (or similar service). Those services will handle any load and will lessen the load on your web server.
If the load goes up/down gradually (eg over the course of 30 minutes), you can use Auto Scaling to add/remove Amazon EC2 servers based upon load metrics. For example, you probably don't need many servers at night.
However, for handling of spiky traffic, rewriting an application as Serverless will make it highly resilient, highly scalable and most likely a lot cheaper too!
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
This question does not appear to be about a specific programming problem, a software algorithm, or software tools primarily used by programmers. If you believe the question would be on-topic on another Stack Exchange site, you can leave a comment to explain where the question may be able to be answered.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
I have been learning aws for quite sometime. I would like to confirm the overall picture of what I have learned so far : I take a normal PC as an analogy to this :
**EC2 similar to arithmetic and logical unit of PC
EMR similar to the OS of PC
S3 similar to the hard-disk of PC**
Please correct me if am wrong and explain me the AWS EC2,EMR,S3 with comparison to another system/service etc.
(Please dont direct to amazon doc links/tutorials as I have crossed all those and I want to confirm my understanding)
Thanks in advance
I think your analogies are reasonable from a 10,000 foot view. However, I wouldn't say they are correct since there are a lot of subtleties involved. Let me list a few.
EC2 does handle compute side of your application hence it does have a similar role to an ALU has in a microprocessor. However, two major differences.
a) EC2 is not like the ALU because EC2 consists of the ability to launch/terminate new compute resources. An ALU by definition is a fixed compute entity while EC2 by definition is a system for provisioning compute resources. Very different.
b) EC2 is not stateless but an ALU is. EC2-provided instances have disk, memory, etc. Thus they can carry the entire state of application. S3 is not a required component. In a computer, ALU by itself isn't useful you additional memory is required.
EMR to OS. EMR is really just Hadoop. Hadoop is a task distribution platform. EMR is like an OS in that it does task scheduling. However, a major part of an OS is doing arbitration between different app threads. Whereas, Hadoop is about taking a big data problem and running it in a distributed fashion across many computers. It does no resource arbitration and works on one problem at a time. Thus, its not really like an OS. Apache Yarn to me is closer to an OS btw.
Your S3 analogy is also partially correct. AWS has many types of storage. There is Ephermal storage which is like memory and goes away when an instance dies. There is EBS volumes that are permanent disks attached to instances (or sitting idle) with data on them. S3 is the third type of storage which is like having a web storage. You can upload files to S3 and access them. S3 is very much like a remote disk. To complete, AWS also has Glacier which is archival storage which is even more distant than S3.
Hope this helps.
Closed. This question is off-topic. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it's on-topic for Stack Overflow.
Closed 10 years ago.
Improve this question
I'm planning to move my Website which is using multiple wordpress to Amazon Services. However, my daily vistors are about 22,000 and sometimes goes to over 90k and the web crashes! However, the hosting company charge me nearly $100 including support without support it would cost $50. the average bandwidth is about 400GB.
Can I ask please how much will it cost me? and how I can start with Amazon Services?
Kind regards
Start out by looking at the different types of hosting that Amazon offers and which one will be the correct fit for your site. Amazon's EC2 (Elastic Cloud Computing) is the servers that you can get hosted in the cloud.
Depending on how much storage space and bandwidth, the costs differ. They have a helpful cost guide on their EC2 page. They offer different pricing for the different types of servers you need. They have on demand spot instances which can be brought up and down on the fly. If you need a server to be running constantly you can put a down payment and have a reserved instance to provide the server.
You can calculate your fees depending on your current usage from the tools AWS provides. http://calculator.s3.amazonaws.com/calc5.html
This is also a good article for getting started with using WordPress under AWS.
http://wp.tutsplus.com/tutorials/scaling-caching/deploy-your-wordpress-blog-to-the-cloud/
AWS also provides a Free Tier of services provided you stay under a certain amount of usage. That is detailed at http://aws.amazon.com/free/ . I also found this YouTube video on setting up EC2 instances very helpful. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPFoDnjR8e8 . From what I understand, unless your WordPress install gets a crazy number of hits you will probably fall under the Free Tier.
Closed. This question is off-topic. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it's on-topic for Stack Overflow.
Closed 10 years ago.
Improve this question
I currently have a Linux, Apache, MySQL, PHP, Postfix web server that I setup on a spare computer at home that I am exploring transferring to Amazon Web Services. It's about as simple of a personal web server as it gets, I mainly use it for personal experimentation for PHP development, I have a blog, it hosts my e-mail, plus I do some C++ development on the server and run some small executable and networked personal applications.
The only traffic the server really sees is me (on a daily basis), plus some web crawlers, and the occasional hit from a Google search.
Is it reasonable to transfer my server to Amazon Web Services? Or is Amazon Web Services specifically targeted to larger scale servers? What's about the cheapest cost I can expect to pay for this hosting?
I tried using the AWS Simple Monthly Calculator but had a hard time estimating the numbers. Perhaps someone is doing something similar to my plans, and can inform me of what they are paying.
One of the reasons I am interested in AWS, is I am contemplating using my website as cloud storage for a mobile application I am working on, and if that application takes off quickly, I would like to be able to quickly scale to the traffic.
If you need a simple setup, it is sufficient to use a t1.micro instance. The monthly price for such an instance (depending on the location of the server) is about 15 US$. If you plan to run your server for a longer time, consider using reserved instances. You pay a one-time fee and get reduced hourly prices afterwards. If you run your server all the time, you should use a "High Utilization" instance. I think you won't get a lot of traffic and EBS requests, so I would focus on the main part regarding costs which is the EC2 instance hours.
Here is a basic example calculation with the above setup as a start. This calculation does not include a 1-year-free trial that Amazon offers.
If you need to scale, then you have a lot of options available. You can launch bigger instances if you need it. Have a look at the instance types page to get an overview (also includes details on the Micro instance). If scaling and possible upgrades are a main factor in your decision, then you should consider AWS.
Is it reasonable to transfer my server to Amazon Web Services
I think yes. Amazon has list of Linux versions where you can fetch free server with no payment. Bear in mind that, for example, for free server DB you can't connect to your DB from external IP (aka from external DB tool). But port redirection will work.
Usually I use Amazon for demo versions ( < 10k users). But its work great.