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.
Related
I many articles where writers show how to deploy a Laravel app/website on shared hosting they discourage doing that. In some other quora questions where the answers state that it is possible but has some security risks. So what security risks does this practice implies.
The honest answer depends on the type of project and-or customer (agency vs interprise).
If you are working for a smaller project and there is no on-going development (extra possible invoicing) to it I will recommend using a shared hosting.
But if your budget is pretty high and that application needs to grow, handles sensitive user data, automated deployments, unit testing together with Docker and Vagrant for local development. I would recommend using AWS or digital ocean.
The biggest problem using AWS is that it pushes the responsibility to you in keeping the operating system and PHP-version up-to-date.
With interprise customers, I would recommend using services like:
Use a security scan (https://detectify.com/)
Use a Firewall (https://www.cloudflare.com/en-gb/)
Basically it all depends on the type of customer you are dealing with.
But for a really small / tiny projects, just use a shared hosting and basically never forget to use CSRF, ReCaptcha, throttling requests, ... Be smart about it.
Does anyone know if there are any competing hosting alternatives I can explore other than Amazon Web Services for running very small instances of Windows virtual machines? I have used AWS for years but am thinking that it might be worth-while to see if there are better alternatives.
In particular, the scenario I have is this: I have created a Windows virtual machine image with the applications and configuration I want and then spin up VMs based on that image as I need from on the AWS spot market. I can go weeks at a time without needing any virtual machines but then will spin up 20 VMs for a few hours to do a particular job. I typically pay around .61 cents an hour per micro Windows VM running on AWS (keep in mind that the AWS spot market is way cheaper than reserved instances).
Does Microsoft Azure or any other service support a similar scenario? I don't mind paying a little more if the performance and such is better. However, it is absolutely critical that I can set things up so I only have to pay for VMs when I actually need them rather than keep paying for VMs that aren't in use.
Microsoft Azure has the capability you are looking for. You can upload your own images and then quickly deploy extra-small machines based on it. On Azure you can turf off the VM's through the Azure portal after you are finished with them and you will not be charged. Make sure that you do it through the portal and not the windows session or you will continue to be billed.
Check out this link for pricing information:
http://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/pricing/details/virtual-machines/
You can follow these steps to upload your image to your azure account:
http://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/documentation/articles/virtual-machines-create-upload-vhd-windows-server/
Also, you can scale up very easy in the azure portal so this might help reduce your need for spinning up multiple machines.
I have no experience with VPS's. Over the past year or two I've been getting more and more into web development, as a hobby and for work. I'm currently managing one wordpress site, a codeigniter app, a node.js/mongodb app, and various other personal projects. They are currently all hosted seperately (misc LAMP hosting, heroku, etc.).
I'm looking for a solution that will enable me to do the following:
Host Static/PHP Sites/Apps (so a LAMP stack)
Node.js/MongoDB/Redis
capable of other stacks (django/yesod/RoR/etc.)
Would a Linode VPS be capable of handling all of this? None of these sites get large amounts of traffic. The web apps are private, business management apps, used by 2-10 people at a time. The public sites are small business websites and my portfolio. I would like to be able to host future work on the same VPS as well (same types of small sites/apps).
I have no experience managing multiple domains on the same server. Is this easily done (or possible) with a single Linode VPS?
EDIT
I'm looking at the Linode 512MB/1GB VPS's, $20/$40 respectively.
Of course.
Especially after the massive Linode NextGen upgrades, a Linode VPS can easily handle this kind of workload. Since it's a VPS and not merely shared hosting, you get root access and therefore full control over the system.
In addition, Linode includes features such as advanced disk image management that allows you to clone and resize disk images as required and quickly boot into different images, as well as an out-of-band shell that allows direct access to the server's console in the event you cannot access it via SSH. A Linode 1024 (1GB) plan is more than enough for this sort of workload.
There are lots of different VPS providers out there. Rackspace is very expensive but probably has the highest level of reliability (100% uptime SLA with 5% refund per 30 minutes downtime) and outstanding "Fanatical Support". For less critical needs, there are loads of smaller VPS providers that offer cheap rates, but often with only minimal resources and fewer features. Some provide super-fast SSD storage for disk-intensive applications. You should shop around and do your research so that you find a VPS provider that meets your requirements.
I suggest that you may look into a shared hoisting plan on a reputed hosting companies like hostgator since there isn't much traffic.I also suggest you also buy a cpanel for managing tools.Cpanel has a web interface with which you can control every tool using your mouse & keyboard.
On the other hand linode has a CLI interface and their support expects you to have some descent knowledge about managing VPS servers.
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
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/