Web Hosting Talk : Web Hosting Main Forums : Specialty Hosting and Markets : Amazon S3 & Amazon EC2

[Clone]

Hi I am looking to launch a site that incorporates social networking features, content management like iGoogle and search engine caching of sites.

Is Amazon S3 and Amazon EC2 a viable option for a small startup? How much setup and operational management is required? Or do they do most of the heavy lifting and setup?

[zoticaic]

I think so, since it's pay only for what you use model. Both services provides a calculator for services you anticipate to be using for a month. Analyze your initial requirements thoroughly and calculate based on them.

It wouldn't need big muscles to start with Amazon service, a well aware programmer or systems administrator can get you up and running easily.

[Clone]

Thanks. The pay a you go model sounds great on Amazon. Is there an easy and inexpensive way to get the databases up? Do they have licenses and pre-installed services?

I am looking at what the ScriptCloneWarehouse recommends for a linux system. They host at InAFlash.com Any thoughts?

•Linux servers, dual Xeon or Pentinum IV, 99.5% uptime guarantee
•FREE setup, pay monthly, quarterly, yearly; it is up to you
•ticket system support, AIM support and email support
•control Panel (CPanel X) for each domain
•php, mysql, perl, phpmyadmin
•raw access logs,Awstats
•webmail, POP3, smtp
•php-nuke, phpbb2, invisionboard...
•unlimited subdomains, unlimited mysql dbs
•unlimited mail accounts
•MySQL 5
•PHP 5.2.6 + 4.4.8
•FFmpeg
•FFmpeg-PHP
•Mplayer + Mencoder
•flv2tool + GD Library
•Libogg + Libvorbis
•LAME MP3 Encoder
•GD+ Image Library

•Recommend compatible hosting for Scriptclonewarehouse

[zoticaic]

Based on their site, it is a shared hosting enabled for video sharing sites. I believe asking about a CDN service like Amazon means you are expecting something with heavy traffic and medium scale processing power, therefore inaflashhosting might not fit your bill.

[UNIXy]

Amazon's services are only good if you need scaling, where scaling is not possible elsewhere. A dedicated "server" from Amazon costs more than a dedicated server you'd get from any provider.

Best

[Clone]

Ok Thanks.
I'm not really expecting to scale up, but if it doesn't cost any more or require more setup then it's just an extra unused benefit which someday may be important.

However, it sounds like you are saying that it will be more expensive and more work to setup and maintain on Amazon.

[UNIXy]

Originally Posted by Clone

Ok Thanks.
I'm not really expecting to scale up, but if it doesn't cost any more or require more setup then it's just an extra unused benefit which someday may be important.

However, it sounds like you are saying that it will be more expensive and more work to setup and maintain on Amazon.

That's right. Not only will it cost you in terms of upkeep but also CPU, memory, and bandwidth costs are higher than the industry in general. For example, signing up for a decent managed server at a provider will cost you less than an instance on AWS. Plus, the 1:1 NAT on those instances can break some apps. There's workarounds but it's painful upkeep.

Best

[JoeB]

I agree with many of the posts here. For a start-up, unless very well funded, should be ok building and launching the initial application or service on a good dedicated platform (single or cluster). The cost difference can be anywhere from 30%-80% more with the Cloud for comparable specs.

When you need to scale up or if you get a big mention on Oprah and the hits start flying in. If you have built your application/service well and have a plan on how you would migrate it to a new system. Switching to a cloud or cloud cluster of nodes will always be an option.

** Note that right now comparing specs between a cloud service and a piece of dedicated server hardware do not always match when it comes to performance so shop and ask actual users how their systems are performing.

My 2c.

[kellogg9]

It's mostly good for scaling purposes but yes they do offer all those services u are looking for.

<snipped>