Discussion in 'Business & Enterprise Computing' started by SuperPotion, Feb 2, 2016.
It's been a little while since I looked into AWS and they are constantly improving/changing things, but here's what I recall:
Probably not - many websites you already use are probably hosted overseas. If you do become big enough to support/require it, you can always use AWS's CloudFront (I think it's called) to provide a local mirror for local users.
Amazon have Glacier or you could just set up an S3 bucket somewhere else in AWS and dump to that.
This caught my eye - EC2 instances are NOT managed servers. So you have to do the security/updates yourself. AWS don't have your root password so they couldn't patch your server even if they wanted to. The box spins up with the image you select and then it's yours to maintain. Having said that, I believe they are pretty quick with updates so you could probably just have a cron job taking care of that.
With AWS you have to setup firewall rules to allow traffic through their networking stack but it's dead simple.
We use it for our website and ticketing system and it runs fine but our traffic isn't much at all.
If you need more disk space you can snapshot the instance then create a new larger volume and restore the snapshot to it. Then just power down the instance, detach the old disk and attach the new one and boot it up.
go sign up for a free AWS account and play with it. Running extra EBS and various things will give you a bill in the order of a few dollars. Try before you buy so to speak.
Running on AWS is like rolling a dice when it comes to the size of your bill. I know a few people who got caught out with massive bills...
If you say yourself a 'VPS was so simple' cause you knew what you paid for, what is the actual reason you don't just use that again instead of moving to AWS?
ALERT: WARNING! ALERT: WARNING!
Judging by your lack of understanding of AWS services, I must warn you - unlike managed VPS services which are plentiful, you won't be getting support out of the box. Start talking elastic IP's and Static Routes, and you can very quickly fuck things up.
If the perception of integrity is your goal, I can only assume you are selling to an oblivious market. In which case the AWS badge won't mean shit.
might as well take out some crazy domains hosting and save yourself $95%. Atleast you can submit a ticket despite the flakeyness. Speaking of flakes.. frankfurt?
Once you deploy, Amazon doesn't take care of shit. You DA boss!
Unsure what your business model is, however I'd try hard to find it in the budget to find something locally with 24/7 support. 9-5 aust phone support and guaranteed backups. At least this way you will have peace of mind with your customers "sensitive data" and you can focus on selling the pyramid scheme.
Tell your friends to set up billing alerts, then.
Good feature but usually by then people have worked out that unless you need a whole suite of features from AWS (and not just EC2 like the OP probably does) you can get far more bang for your buck with a standard VPS provider.
Few suggestions/options if you are feeling your way around .
- get the aws free tier, that will give you free resources to play/learn with. aws.amazon.com/free which includes free ec2/s3/db amongst other things. If you have had your aws account for a while but never used it, you can request it be reinstated on your account. They're normally pretty reasonable.
some options (ranging in difficulty from least work to most)
- get some cheap fully managed hosting (cpanel type stuff) and throw cloudfront in front of it.
- get cloudways or alternative which provide managed VPS at major providers (digital ocean etc) . They take care of most of the baseline security and give you some management automation (updates etc) and optimization.
- get flat rate unmanaged VPS from digital ocean for $5-$10 a month. You will generally get more baseline performance from one of these than aws equivalent and they're fine for a lot of traffic anyway.
All those options you can use as a source for cloudfront, hell, you can use a home based webserver as a source if you really want to. s3 static sites serving up https by cloudfront are a thing of beauty, more so now with the free certs.
AWS is amazing but for small things it can be a little overwhelming and may not be cost/performance effective. You can still use parts of it as needed eg route53 + digital ocean + cloudflare (3 different providers) in a really cost effective and scalable manner.
a $5-10 do droplet would probably be fine for you in the short term anyway. You can get a month for free just by signing up i believe but maybe google that to confirm, you might need a coupon code.
edit: also cloudflare (another cdn) is very good too, and they have a free tier which works well.
By more basic do you mean worse? Because I think if you benchmark what you get for $10 from AWS vs $10 from most VPS providers you will not look at AWS favourably at all.
sorry that wasn't very clear of me. Basic should have been baseline, ill edit it..
to clarify, a $10 do vps will give you more disk io and more cpu capability by far than the aws price equivalent and can serve up millions of hits a month without issue.
aws isn't very cost effective for doing a simple web hosting vps. AWS does however give you some cool functionality 'if you want to use it'.
Yes I agree.
If you want a VPS, you shouldn't use amazon IMO, especially for a small website.
Regarding perception, considering all the fluff in the EU about safe harbour https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Safe_Harbor_Privacy_Principles you're better off keeping it in Aus if it's for australian data. Pay a bit more for an aussie VPS / host and then put a kangaroo 'hosted in Australia sticker' on it. Done
Get a Zuver account or something, disgustingly cheap, kinda average service. But cheap
Haha, well, at least you now know even if it was the hard way. Like my programmer always says. "Experience is what you gain after you need it"
depending on the nature of your content (ie. if its static) then you might consider running it out of an s3 bucket instead of a server. Saves you that OS management over head. eg here http://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonS3/latest/dev/website-hosting-custom-domain-walkthrough.html
Personally I feel learning AWS won't do you any harm. It will prob take a few hours of reading/stuffing it up but the flexibility and control is worth it.
Be aware that if Amazon detects a fault in underlying hardware, they'll send you an email notifying you that you'll lose your instance in 14 days. This doesn't happen all that often - we have around 1200 instances in EC2 and get one of these sorts of emails every few months. But it's worth considering. My experience with VPS providers is that they might have some downtime if hardware fails, but will migrate your instance automatically without you having to do anything.
Look into Cloudfront to host your assets. It's really cheap, and quite easy to setup. There are also other CDNs around; Cloudfront is probably a good place to start though if you're keen to use AWS though.
No. You're completely locked in with a reserved instance. I do not recommend this option for you, from what you've described as your use-case.
It looks right, but you might be able to store your assets on S3. This would give you the advantage of redundancy and speed, while also being cheaper than EBS.
Do you have a database? If you do, I'd encourage you to investigate RDS if you're set on using AWS.
This depends on your site. If your code is in git and you can store your assets on S3 (and your DB in RDS if you have one), then snapshotting your EBS volume periodically should be enough. Ask your developer.
As others have said, you're completely on your own here.
Personally, I don't think AWS is the right choice for your use case. Amazon excels at rapid provisioning of short-lived servers. Turn them on, turn them off, treat them like cattle, not pets.
What you've described the very opposite; a long running instance with persistent data. AWS's best feature is that everything is automatable behind an API, and that's what you pay the big bucks for. You don't seem to need this.
AWS, relative to using a VPS, is going to be a slow and expensive endeavor. Respectfully, I disagree with some of the other posts saying AWS is "dead simple". By using AWS, you are taking on the responsibility of becoming a server administrator. It's completely up to you to manage security and backups for example.
The exception to this is if you have a static (ie no PHP / Ruby / Python etc) website and can run it out of an S3 bucket with Cloudfront as chewbucca suggested. In this case none of the negative points I have raised apply, and you should totally do it! But from what you've described, I think going for a VPS and a CDN (you could still use Cloudfront here) is going to be a better choice.