News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Comparing Bandwidth Costs of Amazon, Google and Microsoft Cloud Computing. Parent comment

Re:Comparing Bandwidth Costs of Amazon, Google and Microsoft... by Johnny555 on Monday June 05, 2017 @08:10PM (#14493571)
You're comparing apples to oranges -- if you want a couple TB of locally attached storage, you'd get an i3.2xlarge for $450/month with 1.9TB of NVMe SSD (plus 8 cores CPU + 60GB RAM).

Using EBS volumes with provisioned IOPS give you some advantages that you don't get with a bare SSD -- like snapshot support and the ability to easily detach it and move it to another server.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Comparing Bandwidth Costs of Amazon, Google and Microsoft... by gfody on Monday June 05, 2017 @08:24PM (#14493664)
you're right, the performance of the local storage on i3 instances is a lot better than normal EBS but still nothing close to what you would get from just buying an Intel P4500 or similar though.

http://www.aerospike.com/benchmarks/amazon-ec2-i3-performanc...

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Comparing Bandwidth Costs of Amazon, Google and Microsoft... by user5994461 on Monday June 05, 2017 @08:32PM (#14493711)
Double the P4500. The raid is not gonna store data out of thin air.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Comparing Bandwidth Costs of Amazon, Google and Microsoft... by user5994461 on Monday June 05, 2017 @08:33PM (#14493718)
And add a third one while you're at it.

Given the price of the server and the data you have on it, it's important enough to warrant a hot spare.

[ Parent | on HN ]