AWS AMAZON - how you optimize resources
Good day!
I have been using AWS AMAZON for a long time when it is necessary to increase the rated power. Satisfied, well, in general, everything. In short, both permanent and spot servers were launched for tasks. Various types of instances and auto start / stop schedules were used.
In general, all this is very comfortably regulated, to a first approximation, with up to a dozen servers and with my direct understanding of the whole kitchen. And of course, accounting, export / archiving / disposal of stored data.
I wonder what is your “gentleman's set” for optimizing resources and, ultimately, costs?
Thank you for your comments, recommendations!
...
The question is, for managers who manage more than a hundred servers *, of which at the same time, for example, the same dozen can be launched, but each server has its own “ballast” from snapshot images, etc. paraphernalia. Elastic IPs that migrate / can be “bound” as permanent. And all this needs to be known (to know where to look).
All the same, size matters, and if at “10” the launch of the servers during the user's working hours (up to ~ 60%) brings significant savings / data replication to a more powerful spot for fast data processing and subsequent termination into nonexistence. That is for “100+” this is a more capacious question.
Perhaps you implemented AMI / Snapshot storage in Glacier, or are there tricky schemes? The question, by the way, is very interesting - if I am not mistaken in Glacier, you can store archives / data located outside the "AWS console", and the idea to feed for 0.01 in Glacier AMI is very good.
I would like to think about the prospect of expansion, but division of labor is also possible, it was not without reason that IAM was implemented. And if you were given (planned) a certain “100+” server pool with its own ballast?
... Or "Elasticfox", scripts and tables + drill, in terms of receiving information from customers, what would then dock the tails?
Or maybe, in general, it makes cardinal sense to move to competitors for permanent residence, to minimize costs, and this is already a transfer task and should be justified significantly, can anyone have experience?
A pair of tables, only RAM and CPU were compared, attracting AMAZONA prices by the ears.
Clouds overseas
Clouds domestic:
Data is sorted by type and price.
As you can see from the tables, only the “Windows” servers were compared, since they make up 99% in my park.
PS:
I apologize in advance for the multi-letter, but the question, “What is your“ gentleman's set ”” in AWS, somehow looks like a heap.
* Of course, all useful opinions are interesting, “100+” is a kind of figurative value.
I have been using AWS AMAZON for a long time when it is necessary to increase the rated power. Satisfied, well, in general, everything. In short, both permanent and spot servers were launched for tasks. Various types of instances and auto start / stop schedules were used.
In general, all this is very comfortably regulated, to a first approximation, with up to a dozen servers and with my direct understanding of the whole kitchen. And of course, accounting, export / archiving / disposal of stored data.
I wonder what is your “gentleman's set” for optimizing resources and, ultimately, costs?
Thank you for your comments, recommendations!
...
The question is, for managers who manage more than a hundred servers *, of which at the same time, for example, the same dozen can be launched, but each server has its own “ballast” from snapshot images, etc. paraphernalia. Elastic IPs that migrate / can be “bound” as permanent. And all this needs to be known (to know where to look).
All the same, size matters, and if at “10” the launch of the servers during the user's working hours (up to ~ 60%) brings significant savings / data replication to a more powerful spot for fast data processing and subsequent termination into nonexistence. That is for “100+” this is a more capacious question.
Perhaps you implemented AMI / Snapshot storage in Glacier, or are there tricky schemes? The question, by the way, is very interesting - if I am not mistaken in Glacier, you can store archives / data located outside the "AWS console", and the idea to feed for 0.01 in Glacier AMI is very good.
I would like to think about the prospect of expansion, but division of labor is also possible, it was not without reason that IAM was implemented. And if you were given (planned) a certain “100+” server pool with its own ballast?
... Or "Elasticfox", scripts and tables + drill, in terms of receiving information from customers, what would then dock the tails?
Or maybe, in general, it makes cardinal sense to move to competitors for permanent residence, to minimize costs, and this is already a transfer task and should be justified significantly, can anyone have experience?
A pair of tables, only RAM and CPU were compared, attracting AMAZONA prices by the ears.
Clouds overseas
Type | Cloud | name (instance-types) | RAM GiB | CPU | Windows Usage (per Hour) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
S | win azure | Small (A1) | 1.70 | 1 | $ 0,090 |
S | Aws | Small instance | 1.70 | 1 | $ 0,091 |
S | hpcloud | Small | 2.00 | 2 | $ 0.120 |
S | rackspace | 2 GB | 2.00 | 2 | $ 0.120 |
S | softlayer | 2 Core + 2GB RAM | 2.00 | 2 | $ 0.250 |
M | win azure | Medium (A2) | 3,50 | 2 | $ 0.180 |
M | Aws | Medium instance | 3.75 | 2 | $ 0.182 |
M | hpcloud | Medium | 4.00 | 2 | $ 0.240 |
M | rackspace | 4 GB | 4.00 | 2 | $ 0.240 |
M | softlayer | 4 Core + 4GB RAM | 4.00 | 4 | $ 0.390 |
L | win azure | Large (A3) | 7 | 4 | $ 0.360 |
L | Aws | Large instance | 7.50 | 4 | $ 0.364 |
L | softlayer | 4 Core + 8GB RAM | 8.00 | 4 | $ 0.440 |
L | hpcloud | Large | 8.00 | 4 | $ 0.480 |
L | rackspace | 8 GB | 8.00 | 4 | $ 0.480 |
Clouds domestic:
Type | Cloud | name (instance-types) | RAM GiB | CPU | Windows Usage (per Hour) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
S | selectel.ru | Small | 1.70 | 1 | $ 0,063 |
S | oversun.ru | Small | 2.00 | 2.6 | $ 0,070 |
S | Aws | Small instance | 1.70 | 1 | $ 0,091 |
S | scalaxy.ru | Small | 1,50 | 41 | $ 0.155 |
M | selectel.ru | Medium | 3.75 | 2 | $ 0.132 |
M | oversun.ru | Medium | 4 | 2.6 | $ 0.180 |
M | Aws | Medium instance | 3.75 | 2 | $ 0.182 |
M | scalaxy.ru | Medium | 4.00 | 41 | $ 0.321 |
L | selectel.ru | Large | 7.50 | 4 | $ 0.264 |
L | oversun.ru | Large | 8 | 5.2 | $ 0.323 |
L | Aws | Large instance | 7.50 | 4 | $ 0.364 |
L | scalaxy.ru | Large | 8.00 | 41 | $ 0.588 |
Data is sorted by type and price.
As you can see from the tables, only the “Windows” servers were compared, since they make up 99% in my park.
PS:
I apologize in advance for the multi-letter, but the question, “What is your“ gentleman's set ”” in AWS, somehow looks like a heap.
* Of course, all useful opinions are interesting, “100+” is a kind of figurative value.