Hi

Instead of setting up my own cluster of servers, to handle databases etc, am I right in saying that I could just setup MySQL+Apache on a cloud server and continue throwing websites on it and expanding my resources as required without ever needing to have a second system?!

For example, could I just put websites onto a system with VPS.net and then keep epxanding resources as required until I reach their limit? (unless they allow you to go above the limits on their website if you contact them ;), at which point I could just keep expanding resources without ever needing to configure a second system)

or.. have I got it all terribly wrong? Would the Operating System on a system (say, CentOs) even support *huge* resources?

I wouldn't mind setting up Apache+MySQL on one system in a cloud, then using a CDN service for serving static content. This would mean, if it's possible, I only ever have to look after one system which grows in resources as our websites grow in traffic.

Mike

am I right in saying that I could just setup MySQL+Apache on a cloud server and continue throwing websites on it and expanding my resources as required without ever needing to have a second system?!

Not with most clouds - each "cloud" instance will be limited to the maximum size of a host node. This differs between providers, but typically you'll find the limit for most virtual "cloud" instances is around 8GB RAM/4 processor cores...

Whilst you can scale your virtual instance just like you would any other virtual machine, you won't be able to scale past a single physical machine without some form of software involved - you'll need multiple instances to get in to database clustering, load balancing of web servers etc.

You've got it wrong. "Cloud" is a cute marketing term that refers to the provisioning schemes of various providers. At this point virtualization hasn't abstracted hardware to the point where you can indefinitely expand resources, overflowing a single OS instance onto multiple physical nodes. Instead, cloud providers like vps.net simply allow you to add additional virtual nodes to your account.

All that aside, it's never a good idea to rely on a single system, be that virtual or otherwise, if you don't have to. What if your uber-vps kernel panics, gets hacked, is upgraded incorrectly, etc. Even if it has a trillion gigs of ram and ten million virtual cores, your entire online presence is down because you put all your eggs in one basket.

Ah right ok.. well basically I'm looking at , if possible, removing the headache of scaling MySQL (and apache, though that's less complicated) for a large-but-not-huge website.

In that case, can somebody tell me what *are* the benefits of a service such as that at VPS.net in comparison to a "traditional" VPS provider who can also scale your resources?

They have a feature which says this: "Covering two major industrial time zones, our clouds deliver your content simultaneously from both the United Kingdom and United States." -- that seems to be misleading because surely they cannot servce a dynamic website from the UK and USA at the same time (MySQL would have a fit with the connection?)

.. I'm confused ! Thanks for your replies up to now.

I read in the VPS.net forums that if a physical server goes down , your virtual system will automatically move and reboot. Now cloud hosting is seeming more like just a replacement to dedicated servers to me, and a good one! Do you think it's worth it?

They have a feature which says this: "Covering two major industrial time zones, our clouds deliver your content simultaneously from both the United Kingdom and United States." -- that seems to be misleading because surely they cannot servce a dynamic website from the UK and USA at the same time (MySQL would have a fit with the connection?)

I'm also interested in knowing the answer to this. Are they really able to serve a dynamic site from multiple locations? It doesn't seem possible. I would have thought that the best they could do is to have a replicated db in the 2nd location as a failover in case the 1st goes down.

In that case, can somebody tell me what *are* the benefits of a service such as that at VPS.net in comparison to a "traditional" VPS provider who can also scale your resources?


Advantages of a "cloud" VPS provider typically include:-
* Instant/near instant VPS creation
* Instant scaling
* Flexible billing (hourly, daily, monthly etc)

From an administrative or development perspective, these are some very cool features - you can play with some software for a few hours or a day and only pay a dollar or two for the privilege.

The one thing you do have to consider is that on its own, a VPS provisioned on a "cloud" isn't necessarily any more reliable than a VPS provisioned elsewhere. It is still a single point of failure - you can still have Apache issues, kernel panics, network issues and similar.

The one thing you do have to consider is that on its own, a VPS provisioned on a "cloud" isn't necessarily any more reliable than a VPS provisioned elsewhere. It is still a single point of failure - you can still have Apache issues, kernel panics, network issues and similar.


Thats the thing that gets so confusing, you read the website, send emails to the sale staff and they say, that in the event of a failure your site is automatically in seconds tranfered to another available node, giving 100% uptime and true failover.

But read the forums and they have complaints of downtime.

So what is the truth?

If I get a cloud from VPS.net or yourselfs, do I guarantee 100% uptime or is it all salestalk.