Our Company has a Software Product consists of Web App, Android and iOS App.
we have more then 350 clients, that is we have more then 350 databases(MYSQL) of each client and one code file repository(PHP Codeigniter). When new client purchase our software we just copy the the old empty database and client is able to use the software. this is our architecture.
Now we are planing to shift to AWS but we do not know which AWS service we really need for this type of architecture
We have Codeigniter 3.1 version, PHP 7 and MYSQL.
You can implement this sort of system on a single EC2 instance, simply installing the same software as you have on your current server. However in this case you are likely better off to host it somewhere cheaper than AWS.
However, what I recommend is that you implement it using RDS, EC2, S3 and Cloudfront.
RDS
I recommend to run your database on RDS:
the database server competes over completely different resources than PHP, so if you run into performance problems, it is impossible to figure out what is happening when database and PHP are on the same instance. A lack of CPU can lead to a lack of memory and vice versa.
built-in point-in-time recovery for up to 35 days has saved my bacon many many times and is great when you have a bug that is hard to reproduce or when someone (you) has accidentally deleted a large amount of data
On top of this I recommend to also go for Aurora for MySQL instead of MySQL RDS, especially as I expect your database size on disk to be smaller than 50GB:
On MySQL RDS you need to commission at least 100GB of disk to get good enough performance for production. 100GB gives you 100x50kb per second on the EBS disks that are used.
By comparison, on AWS Aurora you get the read performance of 6 different storage locations without having to commit to any amount of disk space. This saves money and is more performant
Aurora is also much faster in restoring point in time as well as with "dumb" queries, ie. table scans.
EC2
I recommend to look at nothing older than the t3, c5 or m5 instances, as they have the new "nitro hypervisor" and are significantly faster, while being cheaper. From experience you can go down a notch from your existing CPU count with these instances
If you can use c6/m6/t4 instances
I also found c5a and equivalents to be just as performant
AWS recommends to always use auto-scaling, but if you are coming a single server somewhere else you are already winning because you can restore within minutes.
Once you hit $600 per month in EC2 charges, definitely look at autoscaling. Virtually every webapp can be written in a way that allows for a server to be replaced at any point in time. With auto scaling you can then use Spot instances at 50-90% discount for your 2nd/3rd etc instance and save serious money.
S3
Store all customer provided files on S3, DO NOT get into a shared file system.
This is much cheaper than any disk or file system and has numerous automation features, such as versioning, cross-region backup, archiving, event triggers etc.
do not ever make your bucket publicly accessible.
Cloudfront
The key benefit of storing all customer provided files on S3 is that you can serve them with Cloudfront without paying for CPU. Cloudfront only charges for traffic delivered. S3 only charges for space used. Every file delivered through Cloudfront does not use your server's CPU, sockets, network bandwidth. On top of this transfer from EC2 to S3 and from S3 to Cloudfront is free of charge. You are only charged for the traffic you already had to pay for anyway.
You need to secure your clients file properly with Signed Urls or Signed Cookies. For this you can either create separate S3 buckets for each client or one single bucket.
Bonus: SQS
Many things in web application do not need to be done right now. They can wait a bit, sometimes a couple of 100 milliseconds, sometimes minutes or hours.
Anything that can wait, I recommend start implementing a background process that reads from an SQS queue for it. Your web application will need minimal time to push the work required and its parameters into an SQS queue. Your background process can then work on it in (rough) order of entry into the queue. When you use your normal web servers to process the background queues you are already getting a better distribution of server load over time. This is because you cannot control the amount of web requests, but you can control the speed in how you process background items (to a degree of course).
Later, when you have a lot of background processing and a lot of traffic, you can consider using different servers for background processing.
There are also lots of ways of how you can hook other event driven code onto the items that go into your queue, including monitoring for limits exceeded for certain items etc.
Related
I need to make a cost model for AWS vs GCP. Currently, our organization is using AWS. Our biggest services used are:
EC2
RDS
Labda
AWS Gateway
S3
Elasticache
Cloudfront
Kinesis
I have very limited knowledge of cloud platforms. However, I have access to:
AWS Simple Monthly Calculator
Google Cloud Platform Pricing Calculator
MAP AWS services to GCP products
I also have access to CloudHealth so that I can get a breakdown of costs per services within our organization.
Of the 8 major services listed above are main usage and costs go to EC2, S3, and RDS.
Our director of engineering mentioned that I should be most concerned with vCPU and memory.
I would appreciate any insight (big or small) that people have into how I can go about creating this model, any other factors I should consider, which functionalities of the two providers for the services are considered historically "better" or cheaper, etc.
Thanks in advance, and any questions people may have, I am more than happy to answer.
-M
You should certainly cost-optimize your resources. It's so easy to create cloud resources that people don't always think about turning things off or right-sizing them.
Looking at your Top 5...
Amazon EC2
The simplest way to save money with Amazon EC2 is to turn off unused resources. You can even stop instances overnight and on the weekend. If they are only used 8 hours per workday, then that is only 40 out of 168 hours, so you can save 75% by turning them off when unused! For example, Dev and Test instances. People have written various types of automated utilities to turn instances on and off based on tags. Try search the Internet for AWS Stopinator.
Another way to save money on Amazon EC2 is to use spot instances. They are a fraction of the price, but have a risk that they might be turned off when demand increases. They are great where it is okay for systems to be terminated sometimes, such as automated testing systems. They are also a great way to supplement existing capacity at a fraction of the price.
If you definitely need the Amazon EC2 instances to keep running all the time, purchase Amazon EC2 Reserved Instances, which also offer a price saving.
Chat with your AWS Account Manager for help with the above options.
Amazon Relational Database Service (RDS)
Again, Amazon RDS instances can be stopped overnight/on weekends and turned on again when needed. You only pay while the instance is running (plus storage costs).
Examine the CloudWatch metrics for your RDS instances and determine whether they can be downsized without impacting applications. You can even resize them when they are used less (eg over weekends). Everything can be scripted, so you could trigger such downsizing and upsizing on a schedule.
Also look at the Engine used with RDS. Commercial offerings such as Oracle and Microsoft SQL Server are more expensive than open-source offerings like MySQL and PostgreSQL. Yes, your applications might need some changes, but the cost savings can be significant.
AWS Lambda
It is most unusual that Lambda is #3 in your list. In fact, some customers never get a charge for Lambda because it falls in the monthly free usage tier. Having high charges means you're making good use of Lambda (which is saving you EC2 costs), but take a look at which applications are using it the most and see whether they are using it wisely.
When correctly used, a Lambda function should only ever run for a few seconds, so check whether any application seem to be using it outside this pattern.
AWS API Gateway
Once again, these costs tend to be low ($3.50/million calls) so again I'd recommend trying to figure out how this is being used. If you really need that many calls, it would also explain the high Lambda costs. It would probably be more expensive if you were providing such functionality via Amazon EC2.
Amazon S3
Consider using different Storage Classes to reduce your costs. Costs can be reduced by:
Moving infrequently-accessed data to a different storage class
Moving data to One-Zone (if you have a copy of the data elsewhere, so don't need the redundancy)
Archiving infrequently-accessed data to Amazon Glacier, which offers much cheaper storage but does not have instant access
With GCP, you can benefit by receiving discounts such as the Committed Use Discount and the Sustained Use Discount.
With a Committed Use Discount, you can receive a discount of up to 70% if your usage is predictable.
With the Sustained Use Discount, there is an incremental discount if you reach certain usage thresholds.
On your concern with vCPU and memory, you may use predefined machine types. They are cheaper than custom machine types.
Lastly, you can also test the charges by trying out the Google Cloud Platform Free Tier.
I'm building a web system where 100-150 users will keep uploading/downloading ~10 GB total worth of audio files everyday (average of 150 total uploads and 250 total downloads per day).
I'm still trying to read about the whole AWS ecosystem and I need help with the ff:
For file storage, should I use S3 or EBS volumes mounted to an EC2 instance? From what I read, S3 is much cheaper and more scalable than EBS, but it's also slower. Is the speed difference really that huge or noticable for my use case? What are the advantages of a mounted EBS volume vs. S3?
What would be the best EC2 instance type for my use case? (i.e. frequent uploads and downloads) Will the General Purpose ones (T2, M4 etc) be enough to handle that load? (see above)
I can provide more info on my requirements/use cases if needed. Thanks!
Start with S3. S3 is a web api for putting and retrieving huge amounts of data, whereas EBS would be an NFS-mounted device. S3 will be more scalable from a data warehousing perspective, and in terms of access from multiple concurrent instances (should you do that, in the future.) Only use EBS if you actually need a filesystem for some reason. It doesn't sound like you do.
From there, you can look into some data archiving if you end up having huge amounts of data that doesn't need to be regularly available, to save some money.
Yes, use a t2 to start. Though, you should design your system so that it doesn't really matter, and you can easily teardown/replace instances. Using S3 helps with that pattern. You still need to figure out how you will deploy and configure your application to newly launched instances, though. You should /assume/ that your instance will go down, disappear, etc. So, you should be able to failover to another one on demand.
The site I'm working on will potentially get 20,000 visitors per day. It's no guarantee, but it's supposed to be used everyday by each employee in an organisation.
In the past I've just used a single t2.micro EC2 instance with an attached EBS volume to host sites, which has always been enough because these sites don't get a lot of traffic. But with 20,000 visitors a day how could I improve my AWS architecture to scale?
The site is going to have a profile for each user, including a profile picture - so potentially 20,000 image files. Should I be writing these to an S3 bucket instead of to the EBS?
Would a t2.micro ec2 instance cope with the scale, or should I be using a t2.small, t2.medium or even t2.large?
My MySQL databases are currently on the EBS volume, but should I use RDS?
All the users are in the UK, so I'm assuming using CloudFront is overkill?
You're right to assume CloudFront is overkill since all your users are localized to UK.
Update: using a CDN will take a lot of stress off your servers by caching the files rather than processing them each time a call is made.
Look at it this way, if you get 100,000 hits a day, and 90% of those hits are cached and served by the CDN, then your server only has to process 10,000 hits a day. That could be the difference between needing a m4.xlarge versus just needing a t2.small.
#mark-b
Use the Ireland region (and soon you can copy over to the UK region)
If you want to keep your database on your instance I would highly recommend a bit bigger one. As for a quick and easy solution, start up the smallest T series instance with EBS, beta test with 1000-5000 users, see how that goes. Notify the select group all their crap will disappear so don't invest a bunch o' time.
Next, get your analytics on the system and see if that will work times 4-5 more users. For SQL DB stuff you'll eventually want a M series instance I believe.
Also, you could always create a load balanced fleet. You do this in EBS by hitting Load Balanced instead of Single Instance. Create an auto scaling group and boom sauce - check that off.
As for the images, yeah I would recommend S3. Don't really want to dump the whole amount in i/o cause DB, hits, i/o, all on one instance is a lot.
Lastly, if you do plan on going to the UK region (not positive if that's been rolled out yet) I would recommend sectioning all the pieces of your application. This is really good practice to use all the resources they provide.
For a very fault tolerant system:
EC2 fleet (m or c series) with an ELB
S3 the images
RDS the users
CloudWatch the stats
Tenecy the users with IAM groups
Authenticate with STS or AD or whatever (kinda been in the cognito only recently)
Store their session and authenticated crap in ElastiCache - Redis
Keep tabs on them with Kinesis (optional)
And let them search each other with CloudSearch (also optional)
Boss system right there!
And that's if you want to spend a bunch o' cash but have a sweet sweet system. If you want to spend next to nothing, make it serverless. A broad question asked with hundreds of combinations so this is up to interpretation.
Hope this helps!
First of all, I am pretty new to AWS, so my question might seem very amateur.
I am a developing a web application which needs to available globally and currently am hosting it on amazon. Since the application is still under development, i have set it up in the Singapore region. However, when i test the application, i get good response times from locations on the the east side of the globe(~50ms). However, when i test the response times from the US, it's ~550ms. So we decided to have 2 instances one in Singapore and one in the US. But i'm not able to figure out a way to handle data replication and load balancing across regions. Elastic Beanstalk only allows me to do this in a particular region. Can somebody please explain how i can achieve global availability for my web app. The following are the services i currently use.
1. Amazon EC2
2. Amazon S3
I need both database replication and S3 file replication. Also it would be great if there was a way where i just need to deploy my application on one place and the changes are reflected across all the instances we would have on the globe.
Before you spend a lot of time and money setting up redundant servers in different regions, you may want to make sure that you can't get the performance improvement you need simply by implementing AWS Cloudfront:
Amazon CloudFront employs a network of edge locations that cache
copies of popular files close to your viewers. Amazon CloudFront
ensures that end-user requests are served by the closest edge
location. As a result, requests travel shorter distances to request
objects, improving performance. For files not cached at the edge
locations, Amazon CloudFront keeps persistent connections with your
origin servers so that those files can be fetched from the origin
servers as quickly as possible. Finally, Amazon CloudFront uses
additional optimizations – e.g. wider TCP initial congestion window –
to provide higher performance while delivering your content to
viewers.
http://aws.amazon.com/cloudfront/faqs/
The nice thing is, you can set this up and test it out in very little time and for very little money. Obviously this won't solve all performance problems, especially if you app is performance bound at the database, but this is a good way of taking care of that 'low hanging fruit' when trying to speed up your website in diverse locations around the world.
every once in a while i read/hear about AWS and now i tried reading the docs.
But such docs seem to be written for people who already know which AWS they need to use and only search for how it can be used.
So, for myself, to understand AWS better i try to sketch a hypothetical Webapplication with a few questions.
The apps purpose is to modify content like videos or images. So a user has some kind of webinterface where he can upload his files, do some settings and a server grabs the file and modifies it (e.g. reencoding). The Service also extracts the audio track of a video and trys to index the spoken words so the customer can search within his videos. (well its just hypothetical)
So my questions:
given my own domain 'oneofmydomains.com' is it possible to host the complete webinterface on AWS? i thought about using GWT to create the interface and just deliver the JS/images via AWS, but which one, simple storage? what about some kind of index.html, is there an EC2 instance needed to host a webserver which has to run 24/7 causing costs?
now the user has the interface with a login form, is it possible to manage logins with an AWS? here i also think about an EC2 instance hosting a database, but it would also cause costs and im not sure if there is a better way?
the user has logged in and uploads a file. which storage solution could be used to save the customers original and modified content?
now the user wants to browse the status of his uploads, this means i need some kind of ACL, so that the customer only sees his own files. do i need to use a database (e.g. EC2) for this, or does amazon provide some kind of ACL, so the GWT webinterface will be secure without any EC2?
the customers files are reencoded and the audio track is indexed. so he wants to search for a video. Which service could be used to create and maintain the index for each customer?
hope someone can give a few answers so i understand AWS better on how one could use it
thx!
Amazon AWS offers a whole ecosystem of services which should cover all aspects of a given architecture, from hosting to data storage, or messaging, etc. Whether they're the best fit for purpose will have to be decided on a case by case basis. Seeing as your question is quite broad I'll just cover some of the basics of what AWS has to offer and what the different types of services are for:
EC2 (Elastic Cloud Computing)
Amazon's cloud solution, which is basically the same as older virtual machine technology but the 'cloud' offers additional knots and bots such as automated provisioning, scaling, billing etc.
you pay for what your use (by hour), for the basic (single CPU, 1.7GB ram) would prob cost you just under $3 a day if you run it 24/7 (on a windows instance that is)
there's a number of different OS to choose from including linux and windows, linux instances are cheaper to run without the license cost associated with windows
once you're set up the server to be the way you want, including any server updates/patches, you can create your own AMI (Amazon machine image) which you can then use to bring up another identical instance
however, if all your html are baked into the image it'll make updates difficult, so normal approach is to include a service (windows service for instance) which will pull the latest deployment package from a storage (see S3 later) service and update the site at start up and at intervals
there's the Elastic Load Balancer (which has its own cost but only one is needed in most cases) which you can put in front of all your web servers
there's also the Cloud Watch (again, extra cost) service which you can enable on a per instance basis to help you monitor the CPU, network in/out, etc. of your running instance
you can set up AutoScalers which can automatically bring up or terminate instances based on some metric, e.g. terminate 1 instance at a time if average CPU utilization is less than 50% for 5 mins, bring up 1 instance at a time if average CPU goes beyond 70% for 5 mins
you can use the instances as web servers, use them to run a DB, or a Memcache cluster, etc. choice is yours
typically, I wouldn't recommend having Amazon instances talk to a DB outside of Amazon because of the round trip is much longer, the usual approach is to use SimpleDB (see below) as the database
the AmazonSDK contains enough classes to help you write some custom monitor/scaling service if you ever need to, but the AWS console allows you to do most of your configuration anyway
SimpleDB
Amazon's non-relational, key-value data store, compared to a traditional database you tend to pay a penalty on per query performance but get high scalability without having to do any extra work.
you pay for usage, i.e. how much work it takes to execute your query
extremely scalable by default, Amazon scales up SimpleDB instances based on traffic without you having to do anything, AND any control for that matter
data are partitioned in to 'domains' (equivalent to a table in normal SQL DB)
data are non-relational, if you need a relational model then check out Amazon RDB, I don't have any experience with it so not the best person to comment on it..
you can execute SQL like query against the database still, usually through some plugin or tool, Amazon doesn't provide a front end for this at the moment
be aware of 'eventual consistency', data are duplicated on multiple instances after Amazon scales up your database, and synchronization is not guaranteed when you do an update so it's possible (though highly unlikely) to update some data then read it back straight away and get the old data back
there's 'Consistent Read' and 'Conditional Update' mechanisms available to guard against the eventual consistency problem, if you're developing in .Net, I suggest using SimpleSavant client to talk to SimpleDB
S3 (Simple Storage Service)
Amazon's storage service, again, extremely scalable, and safe too - when you save a file on S3 it's replicated across multiple nodes so you get some DR ability straight away.
you only pay for data transfer
files are stored against a key
you create 'buckets' to hold your files, and each bucket has a unique url (unique across all of Amazon, and therefore S3 accounts)
CloudBerry S3 Explorer is the best UI client I've used in Windows
using the AmazonSDK you can write your own repository layer which utilizes S3
Sorry if this is a bit long winded, but that's the 3 most popular web services that Amazon provides and should cover all the requirements you've mentioned. We've been using Amazon AWS for some time now and there's still some kinks and bugs there but it's generally moving forward and pretty stable.
One downside to using something like aws is being vendor locked-in, whilst you could run your services outside of amazon and in your own datacenter or moving files out of S3 (at a cost though), getting out of SimpleDB will likely to represent the bulk of the work during migration.