Is Amazon EC2 recommended for a permanent public site?

My company is going to write a new public website in SharePoint (that's why Windows Server 2008 RC2, SQL Server 2008 RC2, etc.), and we are considering using Amazon EC2 to host it. I read and said that instances can disappear (often through user error, but also in batches), so I am skeptical that EC2 is the best idea for us.

I did research on the Amazon AWS website, but I must admit that most of the terminology used is confusing, and Googling often brought me here, so I thought I would ask my questions here and see if people could advise me.

1) It is imperative that our website is as accessible as possible to the public (99.9% of cases are usually applied). Consent to a Amazon EC2 SLA is 99.95%, which is good, but what happens if we reach this 0.05% scenario? Will our E2 instance be lost? Can they be restored? If so, what do we need to do to get us back to the not too old version of our site?

2) I read about the Amazon Elastic Block Store (EBS) and how it is stored regardless of the lifetime of the instance. If I understand correctly, EBS looks like a hard drive, so if an instance is lost, we can start a new instance using our EBS to restore the latest version, while the "local instance store" will be lost if the instance is lost as well. Is it correct?

3) Are "reserved instances" more stable? that is, they are less likely to disappear? If they still disappear, what recovery benefits do they offer, if any?

I know that these questions are a little vague, but I hope you can offer a beginner from basic information - enough to point me in the right direction for further, more in-depth research, at least.

Thank you very much.

Kevin

+4
source share
4 answers

We rely on AWS for our web servers. I will not use anything else. They are highly scalable, easy to configure, and have absurd uptime. I have never experienced any downtime with them. We have been with them for two years.

Reserved copies are cheaper. Get them if you plan to use this instance for a while. This is just a cost / budget issue.

I have never heard of people who have lost an instance of EC2.

Not very knowledgeable about EBS, but S3 is a good way to back up data.

NTN

EDIT:

There have been several links that may be helpful. Greetings.

http://techblog.netflix.com/2010/12/four-reasons-we-choose-amazons-cloud-as.html

http://techblog.netflix.com/2010/12/5-lessons-weve-learned-using-aws.html

http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2011/04/working-with-the-chaos-monkey.html

+5
source

One of AWS’s design goals is to provide fault-tolerant services — services that can recover from disruptions. That is, they design all their services with the assumption that at some point something at some point will not work, but that there are redundant capabilities and another mechanism for recovering from these inevitable failures.

In the case of storage services, such as S3 and SimpleDB, this is achieved primarily by replicating your data on several nodes (machines) in several data centers. Therefore, when one node is experiencing a hardware failure or one data center is experiencing power outages, there is no real downtime because the replicas can serve requests. As a consumer, you don’t even know about downstream nodes or data centers.

EC2 is designed to work in a similar way, but it is not completely encapsulated like S3 and SimpleDB, so you will need to schedule a little work yourself. For example, if you need a web service with guaranteed uptime and availability, you need to look at the AWS ELB service (elastic load balancing). Thus, if the instance does not work, requests will be automatically redirected to other healthy instances. For your data, you can store it in other AWS services (for example, S3 and SimpleDB and EBS) that have built-in redundancy, or you can create your own solution using similar backup methods.

0
source

SLA does not matter when we find out that:

  • EBS DID instances and volumes are lost

  • It takes Amazon more than 2 days to recover from the disaster, and even this is not fully

We were lucky to be able to get back on their feet in less than 2 days. Other companies are stuck without the possibility of recovery.

And what does Amazon recommend? "Do not trust our reliability. Pay for 2 or 3 copies of your system in different regions, and then you will be safe."

More detailed information can be found here:

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/saas/lightning-strike-zaps-ec2-ireland/1382

0
source

TL; DR: AWS is very reliable if you know what you are doing, a bad idea if you do not.

As you are not familiar with the conditions here is a very quick glossary: ​​AZ is the accessibility zone, there are several accessibility zones for the region (for example, 3 in Ireland). They are physically isolated data centers with various networks, floodplains, etc. But with internal network qualities. Perhaps, even in some cases, AZ may become inaccessible, I do not think that all AZs in the region have ever been down.

EBS / Instance Store are the two main types of storage available to an instance. The best way to describe them is that the Store instance is equivalent to the hard drive that you connected via sata to the motherboard - very quickly. But what happens if you turn off your copy (or if the motherboard does not work) and want to immediately start working on another board? (Amazon completely hides the physical configuration of the equipment), it is obvious that you are not going to wait until the engineer disconnects the drive from one server to another, so they do not even offer this. The instance store is fast but temporary and tied to a physical machine. DO NOT store anything important in it. EBS is then an alternative, it is a very low latent network drive, to which any server can connect, as if it were local. You close the server, change the size and restart on a completely different server on the other side of the data center (again, the physical material is hidden), it doesn’t matter that your eb hasn’t gone anywhere (by default theyre also on several physical disks).

Cloud hardware - my interpretation of all "cloud hardware doesn't work all the time - its really dangerous and unreliable" is that aws hardware is not as reliable as enterprise-level components in a managed data center. This does not mean that it is unreliable, it just means that you should create a failure as an option in your design.

First of all, it is very important to note that when talking about SLA, this is what amazon says very clearly that SLA is ONLY applied if one or more AZs go down. Therefore, if you do not understand how their service works, and only one server in one AZ, and the generator or router fail with your own error.

As for recovery, it depends on whether all your application state is stored on one server - if so, don’t worry about the cloud. If you can group your state on several servers, save it in RDS or some other permanent database. OR, if your content changes so rarely, you can use periodic copies in the s3 repository, everything will be fine. Failure strategy (in order of preference) can be grouped, fault tolerant or auto repair. For the first, you have clustered servers sharing state - it doesn’t matter if you lose the server or AZ. For the second, you only have one live server, but if it goes down, you have a switch to another resource with the same content. Finally, during automatic repair, two situations are possible: if your data is located on only one EBS disk, you can start another instance with the same disk and continue. But if the EBS or AZ drive fails, you need to be prepared with some snapshot in s3 that can copy and start a completely new instance.

Reserved instances are no more reliable - they are the same equipment, you just sign a contract to say that I will have x cars over the years. Which allows aws to plan better, which is cheaper for you.

0
source

All Articles