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.
Related
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
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 am very new to technology world. I want to host a website on AWS free tier as I dont have budget right now but I am not getting what their free tier is offering since they are using a bit more technical terms for their components.
Can anybody help me here.
My website will be running on java, postgres, spring etc
The AWS Free Usage Tier is designed to allow people to evaluate AWS services. It is not intended for running free websites.
If you want a low-cost means of running a website, take a look at Amazon Lightsail. It has low-priced options with various components combined in the price.
I will just extend John's answer
I want to host a website on AWS free tier
Free tier is intended to evaluate services and easy/low cost startup. For many services (lambda, iot,..) the free tear is pretty much generous, however for EC2 (virtual server) it's limited in terms of resources and time (aws free tear includes a single t2.micro instance for a year)
Be aware the big cloud providers (AWS, Google, Azure, IBM) are not really the cheapest, however you got a lot of values around provided (feature services, resources, geological availability, reliability, security, etc)
You can start small, but not really free in long run.
My website will be running on java, postgres, spring etc
In theory you could try to fit it all into a free tear t2.micro instance, but then don't expect much of performance. Java needs som RAM space and DB as well.
Although this is not answering your question on AWS free tier, if you want a service which is a bit generous on free tier till you get funds to run the website, use Google Cloud. It give $300, with limits to 8 vCPUs you can spin up per region. AWS will give only 1 vCPU for 750 hours for a year.
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 programming within the scope defined in the help center.
Closed 2 years ago.
Improve this question
I need a place to host a small basic static web site made up of a bunch of file and folders (html, css, images, etc.) for a non-profit. I've looked at Amazon AWS a bit and it looks like it could be done for a very small cost.
Is it really possible to host a web site At Amazon AWS for under a $1.00/month?
Is there any way to use the free AWS and then determine what the cost would have been if one used the paid option?
Is it really possible to host a web site At Amazon AWS for under a
$1.00/month?
If you just have static files, then you can definitely host the site on S3 for a very low price. If you have a dynamic website (PHP, Ruby, Python, Java, etc.) then you will need an actual server to run that on, and it will be more like $5 a month minimum.
Note that you will pay for data transfer, so if your site gets very popular the price could start to go up.
Is there any way to use the free AWS and then determine what the cost
would have been if one used the paid option?
You can enable detailed billing on the AWS account. Then you could punch those numbers into the AWS cost calculator to see what the charges would have been if you were not in your free tier period.
Is it really possible to host a web site At Amazon AWS for under a
$1.00/month?
It is possible for 1$/Month in AWS but your usage and traffic has to be less. Free tier is available but it is available for one year only and following are the resources available in free tier https://aws.amazon.com/free/.
You can also refer this which gives approximation. http://www.hostingadvice.com/how-to/aws-s3-pricing/
Is there any way to use the free AWS and then determine what the cost
would have been if one used the paid option?
You can calculate this cost at https://calculator.s3.amazonaws.com/index.html
Also you stated in your question it is non-profit. So AWS provides $2000 credits for non-profits.
https://aws.amazon.com/government-education/nonprofits/
Closed. This question is off-topic. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it's on-topic for Stack Overflow.
Closed 10 years ago.
Improve this question
I currently have a Linux, Apache, MySQL, PHP, Postfix web server that I setup on a spare computer at home that I am exploring transferring to Amazon Web Services. It's about as simple of a personal web server as it gets, I mainly use it for personal experimentation for PHP development, I have a blog, it hosts my e-mail, plus I do some C++ development on the server and run some small executable and networked personal applications.
The only traffic the server really sees is me (on a daily basis), plus some web crawlers, and the occasional hit from a Google search.
Is it reasonable to transfer my server to Amazon Web Services? Or is Amazon Web Services specifically targeted to larger scale servers? What's about the cheapest cost I can expect to pay for this hosting?
I tried using the AWS Simple Monthly Calculator but had a hard time estimating the numbers. Perhaps someone is doing something similar to my plans, and can inform me of what they are paying.
One of the reasons I am interested in AWS, is I am contemplating using my website as cloud storage for a mobile application I am working on, and if that application takes off quickly, I would like to be able to quickly scale to the traffic.
If you need a simple setup, it is sufficient to use a t1.micro instance. The monthly price for such an instance (depending on the location of the server) is about 15 US$. 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.