I have several web-based projects or apps and their server side programs are currently running on a VPS. I found out the AWS EC2 service recently and I'm quite curious about whether it's better for my situation. I've searched up on Google for some nice and simple explanations of the pros and cons of EC2, but some of the articles are a little complicated and confusing and I didn't really understand. I did, however, understand they're saying two big things of EC2 are flexibility and scalability. But these two don't seem to apply to my situation. All my projects or apps are nonprofit highly customized private services. Normally they're invite only and I don't really expect a lot of people to use them. So I don't really worry about what if they grow so fast and crash my server. As for the cost, EC2 is not necessarily better either. I pay a little below $200 each year for the VPS service and it runs great. I had little trouble with it. EC2 service actually costs a little more than that and I didn't find my apps have better performance running on it. Some people say with EC2 you pay only for what you use but the thing is I can't shutdown my apps just because I think nobody would be using it at the moment.
IN your case, sounds like no. If you are paying only $200/year, and everything works to your satisfaction, why mess with it.
Related
I've been trying to wrap my head around the best solution for hosting development sites for our company lately.
To be completely frank I'm new to AWS and it's architecture, so more then anything I just want to know if I should keep learning about it, or find another more suitable solution.
Right now we have a dedicated server which hosts our own website, our intranet, and a lot of websites we've developed for clients.
Our own web and the intranet isn't an issue, however I'm not quite sure about the websites we produced for our clients.
There are about 100 of them right now, these sites are only used pre-launch so our clients can populate the sites with content. As soon as the content is done we host the website somewhere else. And the site that is still on our developer server is no longer used at all, but we keep them there if the client wants a new template/function so we can show it there before sending it to production.
This means the development sites have almost zero traffic, with perhaps at most 5 or so people adding content to them at any given time (5 people for all 100 sites, not 5 per site).
These sites needs to be available at all times, and should always feel snappy.
These are not static sites, they all require a database connection.
Is AWS (ES2, or any other kind of instance, lightsail?) a valid solution for hosting these sites. Or should I just downgrade our current dedicated server to a VPS, and just worry about hosting our main site on AWS?
I'll put this in an answer because it's too long, but it's just advice.
If you move those sites to AWS you're likely to end up paying (significantly) more than you do now. You can use the Simple Monthly Calculator to get an idea.
To clarify, AWS is cost-effective for certain workloads. It is cost effective because it can scale automatically when needed so you don't have to provision for peak traffic all the time. And because it's easy to work with, so it takes fewer people and you don't have to pay a big ops team. It is cost effective for small teams that want to run production workloads with little operational overhead, up to big teams that are not yet big enough to build their own cloud.
Your sites are development sites that just sit there and see very little activity. Which means those sites are probably under the threshold of cost effective.
You should clarify why you want to move. If the reason is that you want as close to 100% uptime as possible, then AWS is a good choice. But it will cost you, both in terms of bill paid to Amazon and price of learning to set up such infrastructure. If cost is a primary concern, you might want to think it over.
That said, if your requirements for the next year or more are predictable enough and you have someone who knows what they are doing in AWS, there are ways to lower the cost, so it might be worth it. But without further detail it's hard for anyone to give you a definitive answer.
However. You also asked if you should keep learning AWS. Yes. Yes, you should. If not AWS, one of the other major clouds. Cloud and serverless[1] are the future of much of this industry. For some that is very much the present. Up to you if you start with those dev sites or something else.
[1] "Serverless" is as misleading a name as NoSQL. It doesn't mean no servers.
Edit:
You can find a list of EC2 (Elastic Cloud Compute) instance types here. That's CPU and RAM. Realistically, the cheapest instance is about $8 per month. You also need storage, which is called EBS (Elastic Block Store). There are multiple types of that too, you probably want GP2 (General Purpose SSD).
I assume you also have one or more databases behind those sites. You can either set up the database(s) on EC2 instance(s), or use RDS (Relational Database Service). Again, multiple choices there. You probably don't want Multi-AZ there for dev. In short, Multi-AZ means two RDS instances so that if one crashes the other one takes over, but it's also double the price. You also pay for storage there, too.
And, depending on how you set things up you might pay for traffic. You pay for traffic between zones, but if you put everything in the same zone traffic is free.
Storage and traffic are pretty cheap though.
This is only the most basic of the basics. As I said, it can get complicated. It's probably worth it, but if you don't know AWS you might end up paying more than you should. Take it slow and keep reading.
I have a web app running on php, mysql, apache on a virtual windows server. I want to redesign it so it is scalable (for fun so I can learn new things) on AWS.
I can see how to setup an EC2 and dump it all in there but I want to make it scalable and take advantage of all the cool features on AWS.
I've tried googling but just can't find a simple guide (note - I have no command line experience of Linux)
Can anyone direct me to detailed resources that can lead me through the steps and teach me? Or alternatively, summarise the steps in an answer so I can research based on what you say.
Thanks
AWS is growing and changing all the time, so there aren't a lot of books to help. Amazon offers training that's excellent. I took their three day class on Architecting with AWS that seems to be just what you're looking for.
Of course, not everyone can afford to spend the travel time and money to attend a class. The AWS re:Invent conference in November 2012 had a lot of sessions related to what you want, and most (maybe all) of the sessions have videos available online for free. Building Web Scale Applications With AWS is probably relevant (slides and video available), as is Dissecting an Internet-Scale Application (slides and video available).
A great way to understand these options better is by fiddling with your existing application on AWS. It will be easy to just move it to an EC2 instance in AWS, then start taking more advantage of what's available. The first thing I'd do is get rid of the MySql server on your own machine and use one offered with RDS. Once that's stable, create one or more read replicas in RDS, and change your application to read from them for most operations, reading from the main (writable) database only when you need completely current results.
Does your application keep any data on the web server, other than in the database? If so, get rid of all local storage by moving that data off the EC2 instance. Some of it might go to the database, some (like big files) might be suitable for S3. DynamoDB is a good place for things like session data.
All of the above reduces the load on the web server to just your application code, which helps with scalability. And now that you keep no state on the web server, you can use ELB and Auto-scaling to automatically run multiple web servers (and even automatically launch more as needed) to handle greater load.
Does the application have any long running, intensive operations that you now perform on demand from a web request? Consider not performing the operation when asked, but instead queueing the request using SQS, and just telling the user you'll get to it. Now have long running processes (or cron jobs or scheduled tasks) check the queue regularly, run the requested operation, and email the result (using SES) back to the user. To really scale up, you can move those jobs off your web server to dedicated machines, and again use auto-scaling if needed.
Do you need bigger machines, or perhaps can live with smaller ones? CloudWatch metrics can show you how much IO, memory, and CPU are used over time. You can use provisioned IOPS with EC2 or RDS instances to improve performance (at a cost) as needed, and use difference size instances for more memory or CPU.
All this AWS setup and configuration can be done with the AWS web console, or command-line tools, or SDKs available in many languages (Python's boto library is great). After learning the basics, look into CloudFormation to automate it better (I've written a couple of posts about that so far).
That's a bit of the 10,000 foot high view of one approach. You'll need to discover the details of each AWS service when you try to use them. AWS has good documentation about all of them.
Depending on how you look at it, this is more of a comment than it is an answer, but it was too long to write as a comment.
What you're asking for really can't be answered on SO--it's a huge, complex question. You're basically asking is "How to I design a highly-scalable, durable application that can be deployed on a cloud-based platform?" The answer depends largely on:
The specifics of your application--what does it do and how does it work?
Your tolerance for downtime balanced against your budget
Your present development and deployment workflow
The resources/skill sets you have on-staff to support the application
What your launch time frame looks like.
I run a software consulting company that specializes in consulting on Amazon Web Services architecture. About 80% of our business is investigating and answering these questions for our clients. It's a multi-week long project each time.
However, to get you pointed in the right direction, I'd recommend that you look at Elastic Beanstalk. It's a PaaS-like service that abstracts away the underlying AWS resources, making AWS easier to use for developers who don't have a lot of sysadmin experience. Think of it as "training wheels" for designing an autoscaling application on AWS.
Right now the website is running locally and I'm still working on it.
While doing this I also have to make it visible to a specific group of users as I need their feedback in order to add/change features, etc.
I've tried to find a free web hosting without any luck (see dependencies).
I was thinking to create a VPN but then I will have to use my PC as a host for a virtual machine which is by far not what I'm looking for.
Therefore, my questions are:
1. Which is the best way to achieve this (website visibility for TESTING) fast and easy?
2. If a dedicated web host is the best solution, please point me to an easy-to-use and cheap one. What I've tried so far: elastichosts, alwasydata, stackable, 1FreeHosting and probably others I don't remember right now. For a reason or another I couldn't use none of the above.
Another aspect to be considered: I want this only for simple testing and I don't need a lot of server resources. Also the traffic will be very low as there are only 5 testers. That's why I wouldn't pay too much for it. I will probably need this temporary web hosting for 2-3 months.
Dependencies:
- as the website uses mezzanine, for the moment I only need mezzanine's dependencies.
Thanks in advance!
You can always just setup port forwarding on your router. This would allow your testers direct access to your app. Though this might give your PC more exposure than you want.
Heroku has a free tier.
In your non free options, an instance at linode costs $20/month, but requires some setup. Rackspace has similar options in their cloud servers line. Both are no contract servers.
My blogpost covers gracefully deploying a Mezzanine site. The monthly hosting cost is nothing compared to the cost of a slow, painful deployment process.
An EC2 micro-instance right now costs as little as ~US$3.50/month. I create and destroy staging servers on EC2 servers for testing and sharing with others.
is there someone who has expirience in hosting django applications on ep.io?
Waht are the pros/cons on it?
I'm currently using ep.io, I'm still in development with my app but I have an app deployed and running.
When you use a service like this you go into it knowing that it isn't going to be the perfect solution for every case. Knowing the pros and cons before hand will help set your expectations so that you aren't disappointed later on.
ep.io is still very young and I believe still in beta, and isn't available to the general public. To be totally fair to them, it is still a work in progress and some of these pros and cons may change as they roll out new features. I will try and come back and update this post as the new versions become available, and my experience with the service continues.
So far I am really pleased with what they have, they took the most annoying part of developing an application and made it better. If you have a simple blog app, it should be a breeze to deploy it, and probably not cost that much to host.
Pros:
Server Management: You don't have to worry about your server setup at all, it handles everything for you. With a VPS, you would need to worry about making sure the server is up to date with security patches, and all that fun stuff, with this, you don't worry about anything, they take care of all that for you.
deployment: It makes deploying an app and having it up and running really quickly. deploying a new version of an app is a piece of cake, I just need to run one maybe two commands, and it handles everything for me.
Pricing: you are only charged for what you use, so if you have a very low traffic website, it might not cost you anything at all.
Scaling: They handle scaling and load balancing for you out of the box, no need for you to worry about that. You still need to write your application so that it can scale efficiently, but if you do, they will handle the rest.
Background tasks: They have support for cronjobs as well as background workers using celery.
Customer support: I had a few questions, sent them an email, and had an answer really fast, they have been great, so much better then I would have expected. If you run your own VPS, you really don't have anyone to talk to, so this is a major plus.
Cons:
DB access: You don't have direct access to the database, you can get to the psql shell, but you can't connect an external client gui. This makes doing somethings a little more difficult or slow. But you can still use the django admin or fixtures to do a lot of things.
Limited services available: It currently only supports Postgresql and redis, so if you want to use MySQL, memcached, mongodb,etc you are out of luck.
low level c libs: You can't install any dependencies that you want, similar to google app engine, they have some of the common c libs installed already, and if you want something different that isn't already installed you will need to contact them to get it added. http://www.ep.io/docs/runtime/#python-libraries
email: You can't send or recieve email, which means you will need to depend on a 3rd party for that, which is probably good practice anyway, but it just means more money.
file system: You have a more limited file system available to you, and because of the distributed nature of the system you will need to be very careful when working from files. You can't (unless i missed it) connect to your account via (s)ftp to upload files, you will need to connect via the ep.io command line tool and either do an rsync or a push of a repo to get files up there.
Update: for more info see my blog post on my experiences with ep.io : http://kencochrane.net/blog/2011/04/my-experiences-with-epio/
Update: Epio closed down on May 31st 2012
I'm creating an application that will be hosted on amazon EC2 and a lot of the data that'll be saved is more document oriented (as well as saving tweets and such related to those documents).
Right now I'm at a crossroads... should I use simpleDB or couchDB? Whats the pros/cons of using either? Should I just try both for a month and decide then?
You may find the the article Amazon SimpleDB and CouchDB Compared to be useful.
I've also found that MongoDB gives excellent performance.
Keep in mind that if your code lives in EC2, SimpleDB will be presumably hosted in the same data center that your code is, which would give SimpleDB a lower latency than CouchDB for requests from an EC2 server. Also, Amazon doesn't charge you bandwidth costs between EC2 and SimpleDB.
I would expect SimpleDB to be both faster and cheaper for code running in EC2, for those reasons.
SimpleDB is hosted and maintained by Amazon for you, CouchDB is all up to you. That's the big difference.
I would absolutely do some benchmark of the two solutions with your own use-case, if that's possible, i.e. if you can build a reasonable subset of your application to run on either databases (they have quite different APIs so this might not be easy).
If you develop in .Net environment there's an excellent lib for SimpleDB called Simple Savant which really eases the integration..
I've built some live solutions using SimpleDB and it works very well, especially with a caching layer in front of it (cf memcached et al). However I've recently started scoping out a new project and have decided to move to CouchDB for the primary reason of having control over the data.
As your commitment to SimpleDB grows, it gets harder and harder to migrate away to anything else (ah the joys of vendor lock in) and, frankly, that just isn't great for our business.
I remain a strong evangelist of cloud tech, and Amazon in particular, but I feel a lot better running couchdb on EC2 than I do with SimpleDB.
Roger