Considering you're a startup with no funds for own server farm. Which existing solution can give you a peace of mind that any sudden increase in traffic won't bring everything down.
I know it's not just up to hardware, so we plan to have at least a load balancer, memcache and few db servers.
Is it possible to have a setup on AWS that would automatically add instances and bandwidth if the traffic increases?
What other advice you could give to deployment noobs? Thanks.
ps: I apologize in advance if a question is too broad or reflects inexperience on mentioned topics, but that's why I ask.
Heroku. Because you're a start-up, keep things lean and it doesn't get leaner than almost free (with 1 dyno + small shared DB). Spend time building your product, not on the infrastructure. You don't want to be installing patches when you should be talking to customers. Heroku is also flexible and allows you to scale up 'dynos' as your traffic increases so no worries about growing there. Heroku won't scale automatically for you, though, so do your own server monitoring. Heroku add-ons are also nice.
Recently we have done a very good comparison between AWS and Heroku and we decided to move to Heroku, here is the detail of this http://www.confiz.com/blog/tech-session/selecting-the-right-cloud-platform/
If you're on Python, you can try Google App Engine.
Migrating the Python app from one platform to another isn't too difficult once you get the past the learning curve as to what features is (not) available. GAE offers datastore, memcache, blobstore plus a few other goodies like dJango and Jinja (templating). Worth checking the Python start page and it didn't take me long to integrate it into Facebook and Dropbox too.
Stay away from Heroku. You can get EC2 for free for a year from Amazon. Scaling up heroku is extremely costly. Their pricing tends to be unclear and their customer service in general sucks.
BitNami for Amazon EC2 includes ready-to-run versions of Apache, MySQL, PostgreSQL, SQLite, Python, Django, Git, their required dependencies, and much more. It can be deployed via all-in-one free native installers, virtual machines and Cloud Images. maybe worth checking out.
My personal experience is that you should generally start with Heroku. Get your app out in the wild and find that product/market-fit or some type of traction. You will know you are going somewhere because customers will cause scaling issues. In this case, Heroku will allow you to scale with very little overhead. And for some time, this scaling will not hit you in the wallet.
Jump to AWS when you are ready. When will you be ready? When you have enough pain, in the wallet, where you need more control over the stack. You can hire a AWS devops type or learn about it, yourself.
Both Heroku and AWS have auto-scaling solutions, but whereas Heroku has a fairly flat learning curve -- that is what you are paying for -- AWS can get broad and steep fairly quickly. A Udemy AWS course or any of the hundred other online resources will get your started down building a robust AWS architecture.
Lastly, while performance should not be your primary concern, make sure that you are using best practices in your code. Your first user should not bring your system to a crawl. And AWS will not help if she does.
Hope this helps in some way.
This has been my experience. My saas start kits are built to deploy to Heroku out of the box for this reason. However, the start kits are also containerized. I know that you spoke of AWS explicitly, but with containers you can be infrastructure agnostic. This is worth considering!
Ted [at] https://stacksimple.io
Check out this blog series I'm starting because I found Heroku to not be scalable at all from a financial perspective compared to EC2 and Digital Ocean. Going to be showing how to put a Ruby application on Digital Ocean using Docker, which allows you the same flexibility and ability to scale up and down very quickly https://medium.com/#karimbutt/weaning-off-heroku-part-1-b7f123ae855f
It greatly depeneds whether you're looking for a PaaS, IaaS or SaaS, and what is the language you using.
AWS is a IAAS/PAAS with multiple components and layers.
Heroku is a PAAS supporting multiple languages, most notably Java, Ruby and Node.js
Other platforms come into play depending on your needs, you might want to take a look at this comparison as well: https://dictativ.com/compare/paas
Related
I´m new on development and found Heroku easy for deploying my app.
I was happy until I got to problems:
Heroku does not provide an IP adress which I need for a white IP list to access an API. I fixed this with a Heroku add-on proxy called Fixie. That is free if under 500 request per month.
The Heroku free plan sleeps after 30 min of inactivity. My app needs to makes API requests at midnight and this is getting difficult because the app is sleeping.
I was thinking to pay the nearest cheap plan on Heroku which make that the app does not sleep. But then I though why not use another platfrom than Heroku.
Does anyone have some sugestions? Any other platform that give an IP so I don´t worry about crossing the 500 request per month?
I was thinking of AWS Elastic Beanstalk. But as I said I´m new at this.
You can use DigitalOcean: the cheapest plan is 5$ a month and you get a Droplet with its own IP address. The Droplet is always running (no inactivity timeout like Heroku).
The main difference is Heroku provides an abstraction layer on top of the underlying infrastructure (you only deal with the application deployment and management) while DigitalOcean delivers a virtual box (ie Ubuntu), however the documentation is great and you can easily find what you need (ie install Docker, etc..)
Couldn’t agree more.
I have been running many applications on Heroku for years now and have faced the 1st problem that you’ve mentioned multiple times.
I tried using Engine Yard instead of Heroku as far as I can remember I never faced the IP issue that you are referring to. AWS is good, but again it’s not without its limitations because its really hard to use. It’s these shortcomings that drive users crazy, isn't it? All I can say is that when I shifted to Engine Yard the set problems I faced considerably dropped. It appears to be a much more usable platform. Check it out.
Here’s a link to Engine Yard, which I hope will help you.
In an answer to another question, it's noted that "Apps deployed to the hosted servers with 'meteor deploy' do not yet have any guarantees or SLAs about scaling." So that rules out the possibility of using their hosted servers if I want to be sure I can fully scale, now.
The answer further notes that "A server bundle generated with 'meteor bundle' is basically a single process app. It is up to you wire it up to multiple instances, or however you want to implement auto-scaling."
After reading that, I'm still very unclear on the question of scaling. On Heroku, I assume I can run "meteor bundle" single process apps in dynos. But if I use many dynos, each running a Meteor server bundle, is Meteor designed so that they can be wired up so that they are all synchronized with the same data (even if there's a lag)?
Answering my own question, the Meteor team has announced a roadmap which includes the scalability plans, for inclusion in Meteor 1.0.
Meteor is still very young platform. Before scalability,personally i would put question of security, as Meteor right now is having no security model in public release. Also no mention of security in Meteor docs, but Meteor team has confirmed that they are working on it, and future release will have it. Have a look here: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/10100813/when-can-we-expect-data-validation-and-security-in-meteor
So I think you and I (for security implementation) have to wait for more releases and perhaps before 1.0 scalability will be handled internally, or atlease they should have documentation explaining how to do that.
To get some idea about, how scalability will be handled and to get better picture on it, I think someone from meteor team should answer about scalability.
You can deploy meteor apps into Heroku but you need to stick with 1 dyno. Because Heroku does not support WebSockets or Sticky Sessions.
So you need to find another PAAS provider. Nodejitsu is a good option.If you wan't to scale into multiple instances, you need to find a way to sync write operations between instances.
Then You'll need Meteor Cluster - http://goo.gl/2aHJ2
I recently asked a similar question (Which PaaS would be best for a Meteor JS app that needs to be scalable?), and one of the answers explained the Heroku situation very well (I thought) - see https://stackoverflow.com/a/16468418/2311632 . It is also pointed out (https://stackoverflow.com/a/16468609/2311632) that one could deploy on meteor.com. While scaling is still on the roadmap, presumably they have or are addressing some scaling issues 'in-house', or can otherwise keep their service at the cutting edge of what's possible in scaling for Meteor Apps. Otherwise, you could go with EC2 and scale vertically (boost the power of a single instance) until Meteor hits the mark with official scaling solutions. Getting set up with EC2 is new to me, but this answer (https://stackoverflow.com/a/16468826/2311632) looks like a good starting point. I haven't tried it yet, but likely will soon.
I just started learning Ruby on rails and I was wondering what Heroku really is? I know that its a cloud that helps us to avoid using servers? When do we actually use it?
Heroku is a cloud platform as a service. That means you do not have to worry about infrastructure; you just focus on your application.
In addition to what Jonny said, there are a few features of Heroku:
Instant Deployment with Git push - build of your application is performed by Heroku using your build scripts
Plenty of Add-on resources (applications, databases etc.)
Processes scaling - independent scaling for each component of your app without affecting functionality and performance
Isolation - each process (aka dyno) is completely isolated from each other
Full Logging and Visibility - easy access to all logging output from every component of your app and each process (dyno)
Heroku provides very well written tutorial which allows you to start in minutes. Also they provide first 750 computation hours free of charge which means you can have one processes (aka Dyno) at no cost. Also performance is very good e.g. simple web application written in node.js can handle around 60 - 70 requests per second.
Heroku competitors are:
OpenShift by Red Hat
Windows Azure
Amazon Web Services
Google App Engine
VMware
HP Cloud Services
Force.com
It's a cloud-based, scalable server solution that allows you to easily manage the deployment of your Rails (or other) applications provided you subscribe to a number of conventions (e.g. Postgres as the database, no writing to the filesystem).
Thus you can easily scale as your application grows by bettering your database and increasing the number of dynos (Rails instances) and workers.
It doesn't help you avoid using servers, you will need some understanding of server management to effectively debug problems with your platform/app combination. However, while it is comparatively expensive (i.e. per instance when compared to renting a slice on Slicehost or something), there is a free account and it's a rough trade off between whether it's more cost effective to pay someone to build your own solution or take the extra expense.
Heroku Basically provides with webspace to upload your app
If you are uploading a Rails app then you can follow this tutorial
https://github.com/mrkushjain/herokuapp
As I see it, it is a scalable administrated web hosting service, ready to grow in any sense so you don't have to worry about it.
It's not useful for a normal PHP web application, because there are plenty of web hosting services with ftp over there for a simple web without scalability needs, but if you need something bigger Heroku or something similar is what you need.
It is exposed as a service via a command line tool so you can write scripts to automate your deployments. Anyway it is pretty similar to other web hosting services with Git enabled, but Heroku makes it simpler.
That's its thing, to make the administration stuff simpler to you, so it saves you time. But I'm not sure, as I'm just starting with it!
A nice introduction of how it works in the official documentation is:
https://devcenter.heroku.com/articles/how-heroku-works
Per DZone: https://dzone.com/articles/heroku-or-amazon-web-services-which-is-best-for-your-startup
Heroku is a Platform as a Service (PaaS) product based on AWS, and is vastly different from Elastic Compute Cloud. It’s very important to differentiate ‘Infrastructure as a Service’ and ‘Platform as a Service’ solutions as we consider deploying and supporting our application using these two solutions.
Heroku is way simpler to use than AWS Elastic Compute Cloud. Perhaps it’s even too simple. But there’s a good reason for this simplicity. The Heroku platform equips us with a ready runtime environment and application servers. Plus, we benefit from seamless integration with various development instruments, a pre-installed operating system, and redundant servers.
Therefore, with Heroku, we don’t need to think about infrastructure management, unlike with AWS EC2. We only need to choose a subscription plan and change our plan when necessary.
That article does a good job explaining the differences between Heroku and AWS but it looks like you can choose other iaas (infrastructure) providers other than AWS. So ultimately Heroku seems to just simplify the process of using a cloud provider but at a cost.
I have been making Desktop applications for last few years. but now i have quite that job and thinking about doing working for myself. I have gone through many ideas. finally i decided to develop Online billing application . Since i am new in web application i know very little about web technologies.
I am thinking about developing that application in php or asp.net with mysql database. I don't know which one is better.(you can guide me here). I don't know whether its good idea or not.but i don't want to do job and work for myself that's for sure.
its going to be a big project so I was making budget for this whole project but i don't know what kind of hosting i will need for this app because database load will be very high because its billing application. i don't know how much it will cost me.I will give user free trial for 30 days to use application and if they like they can upgrade their accounts.
So i need your help to decide what kind of hosting will be appropriate.is this ok if i use webhosting that we use to host website which will cost me $10 to $15 a month or i will have to use cloud hosting which will cost me a lot?
I hope this link will give you idea. I want to make application like this : http://www.rapid-billing.com .
pls help me out. it might me small things for you but to me it matters a lot. Thanks
Initially, you won't have very high traffic, so using a cheap, shared server should be fine. If you outgrow it, then you must have some money coming in, so the added expense of cloud hosting will be more tolerable. There's no need to go all-in before you even get going.
That said, many cloud hosts offer some amount of hosting free, which would probably suit you just as well during initial development. An added plus of starting in the cloud is that you won't have to migrate later. Off the top of my head, Google App Engine and Heroku come to mind as well-known cloud hosts with a free tier. Microsoft Azure also provides a free 3 month trial, and I imagine they'd be a good host if you choose to go with ASP.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
I have thought a lot recently about the different hosting types that are available out there. We can get pretty decent latency (average) from an EC2 instance in Europe (we're situated in Sweden) and the cost is pretty good. Obviously, the possibility of scaling up and down instances is amazing for us that's in a really expansive phase right now.
From a logical perspective, I also believe that Amazon probably can provide better availability and stability than most hosting companies on the market. Probably it will also outweigh the need of having a phone number to dial when we wonder anything and force us to google the things by ourselves :)
So, what should we be concerned about if we were about to run our web server on EC2? What are the pro's and cons?
To clarify, we will run a pretty standard LAMP configuration with memcached added probably.
Thanks
So, what should we be concerned about if we were about to run our web server on EC2? What are the pro's and cons?
The pros and cons of EC2 are somewhat dependent on your business. Below is a list of issues that I believe affect large organizations:
Separation of duties Your existing company probably has separate networking and server operations teams. With EC2 it may be difficult to separate these concerns. ie. The guy defining your Security Groups (firewall) is probably the same person who can spin up servers.
Home access to your servers Corporate environments are usually administered on-premise or through a Virtual Private Network (VPN) with two-factor authentication. Administrators with access to your EC2 control panel can likely make changes to your environment from home. Note further that your EC2 access keys/accounts may remain available to people who leave or get fired from your company, making home access an even bigger problem...
Difficulty in validating security Some security controls may inadvertently become weak. Within your premises you can be 99% certain that all servers are behind a firewall that restricts any admin access from outside your premises. When you're in the cloud it's a lot more difficult to ensure such controls are in place for all your systems.
Appliances and specialized tools do not go in the cloud Specialized tools cannot go into the cloud. This may impact your security posture. For example, you may have some sort of network intrusion detection appliances sitting in front of on-premise servers, and you will not be able to move these into the cloud.
Legislation and Regulations I am not sure about regulations in your country, but you should be aware of cross-border issues. For example, running European systems on American EC2 soil may open your up to Patriot Act regulations. If you're dealing with credit card numbers or personally identifiable information then you may also have various issues to deal with if infrastructure is outside of your organization.
Organizational processes Who has access to EC2 and what can they do? Can someone spin up an Extra Large machine and install their own software? (Side note: Our company http://LabSlice.com actually adds policies to stop this from happening). How do you backup and restore data? Will you start replicating processes within your company simply because you've got a separate cloud infrastructure?
Auditing challenges Any auditing activities that you normally undertake may be complicated if data is in the cloud. A good example is PCI -- Can you actually always prove data is within your control if it's hosted outside of your environment somewhere in the ether?
Public/private connectivity is a challenge Do you ever need to mix data between your public and private environments? It can become a challenge to send data between these two environments, and to do so securely.
Monitoring and logging You will likely have central systems monitoring your internal environment and collecting logs from your servers. Will you be able to achieve the monitoring and log collection activities if you run servers off-premise?
Penetration testing Some companies run periodic penetration testing activities directly on public infrastructure. I may be mistaken, but I think that running pen testing against Amazon infrastructure is against their contract (which make sense, as they would only see public hacking activity against infrastructure they own).
I believe that EC2 is definitely a good idea for small/medium businesses. They are rarely encumbered by the above issues, and usually Amazon can offer better services than an SMB could achieve themselves. For large organizations EC2 can obviously raise some concerns and issues that are not easily dealt with.
Simon # http://blog.LabSlice.com
The main negative is that you are fully responsible for ALL server administration. Such as : Security patches, Firewall, Backup, server configuration and optimization.
Amazon will not provide you with any OS or higher level support.
If you would be FULLY comfortable running your own hardware then it can be a great cost savings.
i work in a company and we are hosting with amazon ec2, we are running one high cpu instance and two small instances.
i won't say amazon ec2 is good or bad but just will give you a list of experiences of time
reliability: bad. they have a lot of outages. only segments mostly but yeah...
cost: expensive. its cloud computing and not server hosting! a friend works in a company and they do complex calculations that every day have to be finished at a certain time sharp and the calculation time depends on the amount of data they get... they run some servers themselves and if it gets scarce, they kick in a bunch of ec2's.
thats the perfect use case but if you run a server 24/7 anways, you are better of with a dedicated rootserver
a dedicated root server will give you as well better performance. e.g. disk reads will be faster as it has a local disk!
traffic is expensive too
support: good and fast and flexible, thats definately very ok.
we had a big launch of a product and had a lot of press stuff going on and there were problems with the reverse dns for email sending. the amazon guys got them set up all ripe conform and nice in not time.
amazon s3 hosting service is nice too, if you need it
in europe i would suggest going for a german hosting provider, they have very good connectivity as well.
for example here:
http://www.hetzner.de/de/hosting/produkte_rootserver/eq4/
http://www.ovh.de/produkte/superplan_mini.xml
http://www.server4you.de/root-server/server-details.php?products=0
http://www.hosteurope.de/produkt/Dedicated-Server-Linux-L
http://www.klein-edv.de/rootserver.php
i have hosted with all of them and made good experiences. the best was definately hosteurope, but they are a bit more expensive.
i ran a CDN and had like 40 servers for two years there and never experienced ANY outage on ANY of them.
amazon had 3 outages in the last two months on our segments.
One minus that forced me to move away from Amazon EC2:
spamhaus.org lists whole Amazon EC2 block on the Policy Block List (PBL)
This means that all mail servers using spamhaus.org will report "blocked using zen.dnsbl" in your /var/log/mail.info when sending email.
The server I run uses email to register and reset passwords for users; this does not work any more.
Read more about it at Spamhaus: http://www.spamhaus.org/pbl/query/PBL361340
Summary: Need to send email? Do not use Amazon EC2.
The other con no one has mentioned:
With a stock EC2 server, if an instance goes down, it "goes away." Any information on the local disk is gone, and gone forever. You have the added responsibility of ensuring that any information you want to survive a server restart is persisted off of the EC2 instance (into S3, RDS, EBS, or some other off-server service).
I haven't tried Amazon EC2 in production, but I understand the appeal of it. My main issue with EC2 is that while it does provide a great and affordable way to move all the blinking lights in your server room to the cloud, they don't provide you with a higher level architecture to scale your application as demand increases. That is all left to you to figure out on your own.
This is not an issue for more experienced shops that can maintain all the needed infrastructure by themselves, but I think smaller shops are better served by something more along the lines of Microsoft's Azure or Google's AppEngine: Platforms that enforce constraints on your architecture in return for one-click scalability when you need it.
And I think the importance of quality support cannot be underestimated. Look at the BitBucket blog. It seems that for a while there every other post was about the downtime they had and the long hours it took for Amazon to get back to them with a resolution to their issues.
Compare that to Github, which uses the Rackspace cloud hosting service. I don't use Github, but I understand that they also have their share of downtime. Yet it doesn't seem that any of that downtime is attributed to Rackspace's slow customer support.
Two big pluses come to mind:
1) Cost - With Amazon EC2 you only pay for what you use and the prices are hard to beat. Being able to scale up quickly to meet demands and then later scale down and "return" the unneeded capacity is a huge win depending on your needs / use case.
2) Integration with other Amazon web services - this advantage is often overlooked. Having integration with Amazon SimpleDB or Amazon Relational Data Store means that your data can live separate from the computing power that EC2 provides. This is a huge win that sets EC2 apart from others.
Amazon cloud monitoring service and support is charged extra - the first one is quite useful and you should consider that and the second one too if your app is mission critical.