So I'm busy setting up instance on AWS (EC2), but i'm trying to get the best performance for my buck. Most of the audience of my website will be located in South Africa, my domain. ARM64 is not yet available in the Cape Town region but is available in America. i would prefer the VM to be linux. This would mainly be for hosting my website.
So What would be the better instance?
N.Virgina (a1.medium,1 vCPU,2gb memory,10 Gigabit,0.0255 USD per Hour,Linux) or a,
Cape Town (t3.micro,x86-64bit,2 vCPU's,1gb memory,5 Gigabit,0.0136 USD per Hour, Linux)
does the distance of the region impact the performance cause most of the traffic will be coming from South Africa?
Thank You
Related
I am trying to create a Google Compute VM Instance which will host my website, the traffic to this website will be coming mostly from asia, so which region should I select for my compute VM Instance.
How selecting of region will effect on the pricing and performance?
Have a look at the Best practices for Compute Engine regions selection section Factors to consider when selecting regions:
Latency
The main factor to consider is the latency your user experiences.
However, this is a complex problem because user latency is affected by
multiple aspects, such as caching and load-balancing mechanisms.
In enterprise use cases, latency to on-premises systems or latency for
a certain subset of users or partners is more critical. For example,
choosing the closest region to your developers or on-premises database
services interconnected with Google Cloud might be the deciding
factor.
For example you can serf some sites located and Asia and then compare your experience to sites located in US - you'll notice significant difference in response caused by latency. The same with your site - it'll be less responsive. You should set up your VM instance as close to your customers as possible.
To estimate pricing check resources below:
Pricing
Google Cloud resource costs differ by region. The following resources
are available to estimate the price:
Compute Engine pricing
Pricing calculator
Google Cloud SKUs
Billing API
If you decide to deploy in multiple regions, be aware that there are
network egress charges for data synced between regions.
In addition, you can find monthly estimate cost in Create a new instance wizard as well - try to set different regions and you'll get the numbers.
If your customers located in different regions you can try Google Cloud CDN:
Cloud CDN (Content Delivery Network) uses Google's globally
distributed edge points of presence to cache HTTP(S) load balanced
content close to your users. Caching content at the edges of Google's
network provides faster delivery of content to your users while
reducing serving costs.
I'm from Canada. I'm building a web app with node js and mongoDB. I am very interested by AWS for 2 reasons: the scalable feature and the s3 service. The users of my app will upload a lot of photos and s3 look perfect for my project.
At this time, the cloud server regions available on AWS Marketplace are:
They don't have any cloud server in Canada. You can see where I live (green) on the image. Do you think my physical location will cause some performance issue for my users?
AWS are talking about 'availability zone'...if I'm living outside an availability zone (no availability zone in Canada) can I choose my zone for hosting my app?
Do you think my physical location will cause some performance issue for my users?
Not at all. The company I work for has a website dedicated for Canadian users that is run out of the us-east-1 region. We have never had any reports of issues from Canadian users of the site.
AWS are talking about 'availability zone'...if I'm living outside an availability zone (no availability zone in Canada) can I choose my zone for hosting my app?
Availability zones have nothing (directly) to do with your geographic location. Each of Amazons different regions have multiple availability zones. In a nutshell, each availability zone is a physically and electrically isolated datacenter. For example, in the eu-west-1 region there are currently 5 availability zones. What this essentially means is that the eu-west-1 region, which is physically located in Northern Virginia, consists of 5 independent datacenters. A power failure, network issue, etc. that impacts one of those 5 datacenters should have no impact on the other 4 datacenters.
If you were to design a highly fault-tolerant website then Amazon would recommend that you distribute each component of your site across multiple availability zones within the same region, and to ensure that the site can function if all the services in one availability zone were to fail. This is why they provide multiple availability zones in each region.
To answer your specific question, however, you can choose both the region and the availability zone within a region when you launch a server instance. When you launch an instance through the AWS web interface it will default to choosing a random availability zone for you, but you can also pick a specific availability zone if you so desire.
The region you choose will dictate the geographic area where your instance resides (Northern Virginia for us-east-1, Oregon for us-west-2, etc). Depending on the region you choose there will be between 2 and 5 availability zones to choose from.
What are the pros and cons of using dedicated servers versus Aamzon EC2 for hosting a high traffic website - that has about 2 million visitors and 5 million page views a month. The content is mostly dynamic and served from a database. Does anyone has any experience of the costs and performance for such a setup.
Amazon EC2 is going to be much more cost-effective versus dedicated servers from my experience. Should you experience a sudden rise in the volume of traffic to your site all you need to do is shell out some extra $$ to Amazon and voila your site can handle the traffic (assuming there are no coding bottlenecks). Unless you have a truly massive website (ie: Facebook) the benefits of hosting on Amazon EC2 far outweigh the risks.
One of the only risks that you take with hosting on EC2 was showcased a few months ago when the whole cloud went down, taking Foursquare, Quorra, Reddit, and other multi-million user base sites down along with it.
From a user experience I believe interaction with the cloud hosting provider is pretty much the same as interacting with a dedicated server, so the only real concern to take into account would be cost-effectiveness.
My own experience tells me that at least in this part of the world, New Zealand, where we don't yet have a local amazon server farm, Amazon provides poor performance and is one of the most expensive options for hosting busy websites. I placed some background on my blog that goes through my own experiences. http://www.printnet.co.nz/category/hosting/
If I have a website, hosted with a standard hosting company, and I would like to move it to a Dedicated machine, maybe EC2, is there a way to compare my current traffic to usage of a cloud machine?
Hosting companies gives you plan measured in Bandwith/Space while EC2 in usage time.
So I'm looking for a way to predict machine usage time based on my current traffic data for costs evaluation.
Thanx!
I'm not sure you're understanding usage time correctly. For your website to exist on EC2, you'll need to create one or more instances depending on the architecture you use. This is the same as a dedicated hosting setup elsewhere except with cloud instances.
The difference lies with billing. Where a traditional hosting company will charge you monthly, EC2 charges you per instance hour, or every hour you have an instance running. Therefore, for hosting a website, you'll have the server running 24/7 which will equate to roughly 720 hrs a month charged at a few cents per hour.
The key thing to work out is how many/what size instances you'll need to run your site at the equivalent performance you're seeing now, and that's only something you'll figure out with testing.
I just found out about amazon EC2. I am wondering what it actually offers. I use to go with VPS servers and now I want to learn if EC2 give me the same options as a VPS with some host company.
Are there any limitations on what I can install?
Thanks
Cristian
Probably the main difference between EC2 and a conventional VPS hosting service is the pricing model. EC2 charges for CPU time (and other resources) by the hour, whereas many conventional services charge by the month (or greater). The best way to learn about EC2 would be to jump into the documentation, and then sign up for the free usage tier.
Within reason, there are no limitations on what you can install.