I'm using a micro istance on amazon ec2 and today i received an email from amazon that my i/o usage for ebs disk is over the free tier usage so he charge me for 0.20$.
Cloudwatch say this:
http://awesomescreenshot.com/0c91rrs95e
What happened at 6:50 and how can i know which process give this problem?
Looks like at 06:40 you had 4gb read from the volume.
From the screenshot I can't tell why this happened. Could this be a backup or download of large file?
You don't state what your system is doing, or what uses it so we can only guess. If you could give more information we might be able to help.
All the best,
Will
Related
I have an application which hardly consumes 2-3% of CPU and Memory of the assigned Amazon RDS instance.
But periodically, when we do data processing, it requires a lot of CPU and we need to increase the instance size for that or else, it freezes.
Any idea how a problem of this kind can be tackled?
Thanks in advance
I think something like Aurora serverless would be what you need.
This way the scaling is handled for you.
My company is looking for a solution for file sharing via FTP - currently, we share one server for client/admin FTP file sharing and serving multiple sites, and are looking to split off our roles so that we have one server dedicated to FTP and one for serving websites.
I have tried to find a good solution with AWS, but cannot find any detailed information regarding EBS and EC2 servers, and whether an EC2 package will be able to handle FTP storage. For example, a T2.nano instance seems ideal with 1 cpu and minimal RAM, but I see no information regarding EBS storage limits.
We need around 500GiB at most, and will have transfers happening daily in the neighborhood of 1GiB in and out. We don't need to run a database or http server. We may run services for file cleanup in the background weekly.
EDIT:
I mis-worded the question, which was founded from a fundamental lack of understanding AWS EC2 and EBS which I now grasp. I know EC2 can run FTP services, the question was more of a cost-effective solution with dynamic storage. Thanks for the input!
As others here on SO will tell you: don't bother with EBS. It can be made to work but does not make much sense in the long run. It's also more expensive and trickier to operate (backups/disaster recovery/having multiple ftp server machines).
Go with S3 storing your files and use something that is able to leverage S3 for ftp (like s3fs)
See:
http://resources.intenseschool.com/amazon-aws-howto-configure-a-ftp-server-using-amazon-s3/
Setting up FTP on Amazon Cloud Server
http://cloudacademy.com/blog/s3-ftp-server/
If FTP is not a strong requirement you can also look at migrating people to using S3 directly (either initially or after you do the setup and give them the option of both FTP and S3 directly)
the question is among the most seen on SO for aws: You can install a FTP server on any EC2 instance type
There's no limit on EBS and you can always increase the storage if you need, so best rule is: start low and increase when needed
Only point to mention is the network performance comes with the instance type so if you care about the speed a t2.nano (low network performance) might not be sufficient
I always wonder why amazon has not provided cloud watch to monitor EC2 RAM , if they are able to do it for CPU? I understand that Amazon does not have visibility into the guest O/s, whatever is visible to hypervisor, only that could be monitored. Isn't CPU utilization also a part of guest O/S which is invisible to xen hypervisor? Then why is it that only RAM monitoring is excluded?
I think my understanding isn't clear here, could someone help?
It's possible to monitor EC2 RAM with CloudWatch.
This link shows how: http://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonCloudWatch/latest/DeveloperGuide/mon-scripts.html
i am newbie to use AWS system.
well, my freetier is just expired recently.
so far, i run an instance all day and use ssh to make code there.
but now, i realized it could charge me more than i expected. so i decided to terminate the instance.
then, how can i connect to instance easily? do i need to turn it on everytime i want to code?
And which is better? whether using DynamicDB(in AWS) or make a separated instance and install linux and mongodb(or something else).
Thanks =)
Best practices to save on cost is to stop (not terminate) your instance when you are not using it.
You will not pay for your instance in STOPped mode. You will just pay for the storage of your EBS volumes (boot drive).
When you Terminate your instance, you cannot restart it. If you Terminate you instance, be sure your data are saved on a secondary EBS volume or a snapshot or stored on S3.
Regarding your second question, it really depends on your application needs : at what scale do you expect to run ? How large will be your data store ? What type of query are you going to perform ?
For most cases, DynamoDB will be more cost effective than running a couple of EC2 instances with a Mongo DB cluster. And you will not need to maintain and to operate the infrastructure, AWS will do it for you.
You might have other point of view from this question : DynamoDB vs MongoDB NoSQL
Might be easier to just use MongoHQ: https://bridge.mongohq.com/signup
If you're interested in learning how to set up the servers, digitalocean is a good bet as they don't charge you for the IOPS and give you SSDs on the instance:
http://www.digitalocean.com
Enjoy!
I will install a website in the free EC2 from amazon but I read something not good: I have a simple website which uses a database. Users come inside my website and post information, send commetns... if for some reason the instance breaks or amazon shuts it down, will I lose all information posted in my website and database? All files users uploaded and information saved will be gone?
If so, why would someone use EC2 if you lose all your data if some problem happens, and because problems always happen, sometime I will certainly lose my data!
I know I can save an image of my current OS in AWS but do I need to save the image everytime a user posts something to my website? It's ridiculous. I know I am missing something here, but I looked into google and people all the time say I should use EBS but it's not in the free plan. So how is it good idea using AWS EC2 free plan if my data will always be at risk of being lost?
Typically you would want to use an EBS backed instance. Since the free tier does not support that, but does offer EBS storage, create your database on an EBS partition for data you cannot lose
30 GB of Amazon Elastic Block Storage, plus 2 million I/Os and 1 GB of snapshot storage*
http://aws.amazon.com/free/
You should have a means to quickly launch a new instance, and you should back up the data on your EBS partition because EBS volumes can and do fail from time to time.
UPDATE
It seems that Micro instances are in fact EBS backed.
It is still advisable to attach a separate EBS volume, because it makes it much more convenient to backup the database (you create a snapshot of the EBS volume... you can find scripts online to accomplish that, which vary a bit depending on your choice of database and file system).