All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
Comparison between reputable LEB/LET Provider VPS's vs Amazon EC2
Sorry, im not sure if im not allowed to ask this.
But im wanting to know what peoples opinion is about Amazon EC2 instances. Sure, there is a pretty decent price gap between LEB offers vs Amazon EC2. But recently i have been looking at some of the LEB/LET reputable providers with ddos protection etc, and realised that the cost of those services (say 2gb ram with SSD and ddos protection comes to roughly $20-30/mth). And at the same time, you can get an instance of ec2 (m3.medium) for ~30/mth (if you prepay for a year), which claims to have ddos protection built in.
So essentially, are reputable lowend providers better than amazon for a production server (performance, reliability and support)? or is an amazon server m3.medium actually not even remotely comparable to say Ramnode's 2048MB SKVM (or another providers similar spec VPS) in performance?
Sorry, this may be a dumb question, i havent really used amazon services, and i have not done any testing etc to compare performance, and im hoping some of you have?
Cheers.
Comments
The expensive thing in EC2 and Azure is the bandwidth. Insanely expensive, make sure to add it to your calculations.
Ah I see. That I completely missed.
Their pricing is so confusing. If I'm reading this right, its $9 for 100gb bandwidth? Crazy.
Let's for a moment assume that that bandwidth is not an issue (I somehow have a coupon for enough bandwidth for free, I dont but let's just say that).
Is the said ec2 instance still better or worse?
My understanding is that neither EC2 nor Azure have their specs public. Depending on the type of the server you provision, they probably use different hardware. For example, if you start with an A0 on Azure, you can't (or at least couldn't) upgrade on much higher packages. If you start on a high end instance, you can downgrade it and upgrade it without such a restriction.
In other words, get the instance that meets your requirements for a few hours and test it - costs peanuts. Hosters here can probably also give you a test account for low cost.
Somehow means "BizSpark"?
Amazon and big cloud providers are pretty reliable and dependable, but it's not only about that but all the additional features and services they offer.
RamNode and the likes are very nice options for personal use and even not so personal, but they are geared towards different markets and needs.
Yes its around that range but incoming bandwidth is completely free.
You can read about the bandwidth prices here - https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/aws/aws-lowers-its-pricing-again-free-inbound-data-transfer-and-lower-outbound-data-transfer-for-all-ser/
Most other people offer free incoming for cloud, so that is not what makes the difference either.
I am not trying to imply that "free incoming" was making it "different". Rather, I was just pointing out that the only bandwidth that was expensive is the outgoing bandwidth. If you were just hosting a website where traffic is coming in, it won't make AWS expensive.
Also, their nodes are mostly E5-something (forgotten about it), so applications like Source game servers or NodeJS webserver won't run very well since its single threaded.
The thing about Amazon AWS is that they have pretty huge pipes so it will take a really really huge DDoS to saturate their pipes with useless traffic. I'm not sure if RamNode have network pipes comparable to Amazon AWS.
Perhaps not, but other have comparable pipes and sell much cheaper, such as OVH, for example.
This thread is about comparisons, meaning highlight what is different. The truth is the traffic in many "top" clouds is expensive and counted separately, while others include some traffic and the "overage" is not "punishment" like in some parts which advertise cheap stuff but keep hidden the expensive, so the customer needs to run through a lot of obscure billing practices to try to guess how big his bill will be.
EC2 bandwidth is expensive, as already noted. Plus you also need to worry about storage. S3? EBS? There's even a 3-part "EC2 pricing for dummies" guide:
https://4sysops.com/archives/amazon-ec2-pricing-for-dummies-part-1-only-pay-for-what-you-use/
That said, EC2 does offer some awesome tech resources and computing power that is simply not available elsewhere. At least if you're not a scientist or govt agent. I have used their g2.2xlarge, cg1.4xlarge and c4.4xlarge before, and there are no competitors at their price range if you can snag those at Spot pricing. Heck, no one else even offers anything like g2.2xlarge/ cg1.4xlarge (The ones with CUDA) to civilians and regular users.
Does EC2 offer DDoS protection at all? I don't see it advertised anywhere.
Aside from the extremely expensive bandwidth, EC2 do have advanced features and is "true cloud" with High Availability (HA). However there are calculations on the web showing that for price/performance ratio EC2 is much worse than other providers. Don't prepay for a year, because in the end it will cost more in case you change your mind.
You don't need Amazon EC2.
The strong points of Amazon EC2 is the API, ability to create/freeze instances and to integrate with other Amazon services. Do you need any of this?
If not, do you need hourly billing? Then a cheaper cloud provider (like Vultr, DigitalOcean, iwStack) will be a better choice.
If you need "HA" but your VM will run permanently, you can also check Wable, CloudNet, Dediserver, AtlanticNet and QuadraNet.
Finally, you may just need a good "traditional" VPS with DDoS protection. There is plenty of good providers here that are 3-4 times cheaper than Amazon.
Minecraft uses(used?) Amazon and it's down more often than any of my VPS's or dedicated servers.
You lost me thee, unless you wanted to write "you DON'T need".
Amazon sucks.
Uhm, no it does not? At OVH's RunAbove you get all of the above for $2.50/mo. And for $20-30 you can easily get a whole dedicated server all to yourself.
I would go with Amazon, if I were you.
I don't think there's any provider here that's HIPAA/FERPA compliant, has GPU instances, etc. There are some services that only Amazon (and the other big companies) can provide, services that many corporations require.
You shouldn't only consider performance and price when looking for hosting providers.
Not many corporations are mining, and those which need it on a regular basis for real scientific calculations have other methods to harness that sheer mathematical power.
Nobody denied the advantage big clouds providers have in the corporate market, we were comparing here for the regular fox, small and medium enterprises, hobbists and even individuals in need to host their hulu proxy and cat pictures.
In those areas you need at most a redundant setup across a few providers which will cost less and have much more resources and uptime than any individual big provider for less money if done right. People whhich don't know how to do it right, can still get a managed service and still have it at a predictable and reasonable price, still lower than an unmanaged service from the biguns.
Wait, you mean I don't need AWS Lamda for my cat gifs?