It will work, but it still needs quite heavy development before it's ready, since stability isn't exactly it's strong point. It is good because if you know your stuff you can make it scale to multiple instances, and depending on what you're doing that might be useful for you, however have a read around the AWS EC2 and S3 forums, you'll see there are several problems, related to crashes, network being slow, and so on.
High Bandwidth Servers
Custom Hosting Solutions
Are the amazon's EC2/S3 solutions a viable alternative to dedicated hosting? The thought of capacity/bandwidth/computing power on demand sounds great in theory. Could it host a basic LAMP setup?
If you've done any research in this area i'd love to hear your thoughts. Are they apples and oranges? Thanks.
I have been using Amazon EC2 and S3 from last couple of weeks and so far it's been good and no problems whatsoever.
You can use any Linux Distro of your choice (You may need to build image if it is not available already but most of them are available)...well workarounds for windows is also available.
You can customize the image and build an image for future use. Which means, to set up new server with similar config it takes ZERO time.
Floating IP (Elastic IP, can be attached to any of your instances(servers))
Computing(CPU+RAM) on demand. (Like you can move from 1 proc(small-10cents/hr) to 4 proc(large-40 cents/hr) to 8 proc (xtralarge-80 cents/h) within minutes and you will be charged only for what you use..billing on hourly usage...so if you use small instance for 24hrs and large for 24hrs ur bill will be = 2.4+9.6 USD)
Storage on demand (Well some problems here at the moment, will go away soon as soon as persistent storage becomes available to everyone)
Bandwidth on demand.
Command Line utilites and FireFox/Mozilla plugins to start/stop/restart servers, assign IP's, move IP's.
Temporary workarounds to resolve persistent storage problems like mounting usinge Fuse etc.,
Persistent Storage(Still in beta stages and available to few customers only and believe me this gonna be the +ve point in future when it is available to everyone....as good as LUN on SAN storage which can be moved to any server). Without persistent storage, if you shutdown the server, there is no way you can get that data back or start that instance..its gone forever. So what I do is create image(AMI) after installing all necessary packages(apache, python, php,mysql) so that even if server goes down, when I start I'm sure I've my configuration files in place and I need to copy only the files and databases. which I sync to S3 on hourly basis anyways.
Only one IP per server. (Means you have to use named virtual hosts .... kinda sucks)
Amazon EC2 Instances are Xen instances and not real server,you may call it virtual server...but the instance is as good as Dedicated server.
No Load balancing services. (You can alway use multiple IP's for DNS or use a small instance for software based load balancer )
They don't offer any DNS services nor pretty interface like CPANEL etc.,...you can install but why the hell you wanna waste your server resources and money...use command line....unless you are a hosting provider(Amazon is not yet ready for hosting services).
thanks for all your replies. Who is Amazon's target market? Looking at the cost per Ghz/MB/Mb, costs seem like they can ramp up pretty quickly. Is this for the folks who pay $1000/mo and up for dedicated?