Re: Amazon High I/O instances - Mailing list pgsql-general
| From | Sébastien Lorion |
|---|---|
| Subject | Re: Amazon High I/O instances |
| Date | |
| Msg-id | CAGa5y0NK-9Lrrp_k9SM+n4mm7EDmS_75Eoig9qr5BWLoKxJ_SQ@mail.gmail.com Whole thread Raw |
| In response to | Re: Amazon High I/O instances (Vincent Veyron <vv.lists@wanadoo.fr>) |
| List | pgsql-general |
Oops sorry, I thought I did hit reply all.
I am not sure this mailing list is the right place to have this debate (assuming it is needed, there are plenty of articles stating the benefits of using the cloud), so I will simply answer that you pay the cost of the added layer up front (mostly scripting the Amazon API and batch configuration), but it saves you a ton of time even in the short term and even for a 2-3 machines setup. Besides, launching and shutting down 10's or 100's of new instances of a server to answer a burst of requests is hardly feasible on dedicated hardware, nor is it cheap to rent servers in different physical locations with some respectable SLA.
Sébastien
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 1:16 PM, Vincent Veyron <vv.lists@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
Le mardi 21 août 2012 à 09:36 -0500, Merlin Moncure a écrit :Hi Merlin,
> here's a datapoint, stock config:
> pgbench -i -s 500
> pgbench -c 16 -T 60
> number of transactions actually processed: 418012
> tps = 6962.607292 (including connections establishing)
> tps = 6973.154593 (excluding connections establishing)
>
> not too shabby. this was run by a friend who is evaluating high i/o
> instances for their high load db servers. we didn't have time to
> kick off a high scale read only test unfortunately.
>
> Regarding 'AWS vs bare metal', I think high i/o instances full a huge
> niche in their lineup. Dollar for dollar, I'm coming around to the
> point of view that dealing with aws is a cheaper/more effective
> solution than renting out space from a data center or (even worse)
> running your own data center unless you're very large or have other
> special requirements. Historically the problem with AWS is that you
> had no solution for highly transaction bound systems which forced you
> to split your environment which ruined most of the benefit, and they
> fixed that.
>
I am sure you can get good performance with these.
I simply focused on the part where seb said he was testing his app, and
since you can get some really high data throughput (by my very modest
standards anyway) with a good machine, I wondered why he did it.
Maybe seb is planning for an application that already has hundreds of
users after all, I did oversee that option.
To Sébastien : please use 'reply all' to send your reply to the list
Le mardi 21 août 2012 à 10:29 -0400, Sébastien Lorion a écrit :Could you elaborate on the complexity you mention ? Setting up a machineWell, it _has_ to be more complicated to use AWS than a bare machine,
on Amazon, even with a script, is quite simple. As for the pricing you
give, it can be matched on Amazon using Micro or small instances, which
would be adequate given your load average.
>
>
because of the added layer?
--
Vincent Veyron
http://vincentveyron.com/Gestion informatique des sinistres d'assurances et des dossiers contentieux pour le service juridique
pgsql-general by date: