Kids today don't remember needing a purchase order to buy hardware that had to be shipped, racked and configured. Adding scale went from 6 weeks to 6 seconds.
One company I worked for it would take literally 6 months for the internal IT organization to provision a VM and configure it to the state that it was actually usable, and they would chargeback hundreds of dollars a month for it. Physical/dedicated hardware you would need to set the wheels in motion 12-18 months in advance of when you needed it.
That IT department, I still know people there, is currently flailing desperately for a solution to the problem of the business having discovered how quick it is to provision on AWS and what it costs there, even tho' it "looks" expensive it is still a massive saving compared to the fully loaded cost of many large company's IT departments. And even if it takes an hour to spin up an instance, that is still an unbelievable miracle to people who were used to the old way. Questions are being asked for which there are no easy answers...
The guys in IT couldn't understand why the devs and the rest of the business were rapidly moving to Azure...
You're paying 30-40% more to provision in 6 seconds in AWS (and let's be real, it's low 5 minutes at least for most resources like instances), but if you've got the cash to waste, go for it.
As always, marketing is key.
Absolutely all of that _could_ be done in a traditional IT environment but it's rare to see it done at the level of usability that AWS (or Azure, Google, etc.) offers and that leads to cost both in staff time, technical debt, and time-to-recover after failures. You definitely can beat AWS on pricing but it requires both sufficient scale and ongoing commitment to spend staff time developing and supporting infrastructure, which is usually an area where organizations choose to skimp.
And if you're using a lot of outgoing traffic, AWS gets even worse in comparison.
Our largest problem has been the realization that "the cloud" is not in fact infinite despite what the the commercials will have you believe. We quite frequently are told to cool our jets.
I should add, bursty workloads like batch processing can be a cost play simply because a once-a-month even that is time sensitive can benefit greatly from instant* CPU that you don't have to pay for the rest of the month. Those workloads tend to be very niche and one-off for most businesses though.
Internal IT in enterprise is so unbelievably terrible in the Fortune 500 that even the worst mass shared hosting provider probably offers more compelling value. Amazon didn't have much of a bar to cross in technicals as much as in value proposition to encourage a transition worth future benefits.
That does vary by cloud vendor though.
If you've got a pre-baked application AMI, are using EBS-backed instances, and are starting them with auto-scaling or health-checks rather than manually using the console, then no, you really can have new instances up in a couple of seconds.
Mind you, the key (to getting a high ROI from AWS) isn't scaling up on a dime. It's scaling down on a dime, whenever your load decreases for even a minute or two, knowing you can just scale right back up. Being able to run with literally no paid compute-hours spent sitting around doing nothing waiting for a task can save you a rather large amount of money, usually quite easily compensating for that 30-40% AWS surcharge.
If you start and stop one instance 60 time in an hour, you will be charged 60 hours.
So scaling down on a dime and scalling right back up is more expensive than doing nothing.
Instance hours are just rounded up.
Source: I auto scale my companies entire stack.
"Pricing is per instance-hour consumed for each instance, from the time an instance is launched until it is terminated or stopped. Each partial instance-hour consumed will be billed as a full hour."
https://aws.amazon.com/ec2/pricing/
"You are billed for an EC2 instance-hour for each hour or partial hour (rounded up) that your instance is in the “running” state. Instances that are in any other state (“stopped”, “pending”, etc.) are not billed."
https://aws.amazon.com/premiumsupport/knowledge-center/ec2-i...
Here's a company that got hit hard by that behavior :
"A little-discussed fact about AWS EC2 pricing is that users are billed for each server that runs for any partial hour it runs. That means if a user starts a server and then kills it within five minutes, he is still billed for the full hour. That seems acceptable, but if a user kills a server and replaces it with a new server of the exact same type and location, this move doubles the bill."
http://searchaws.techtarget.com/tip/Paying-the-price-when-an...
You should probably take a look at this, you are probably costing your company a lot of money.
This is not restricted to a specific instance type, nor a specific region.
There is literally no way you are performing compute in seconds from when an EC2 instance is instaniated.
I've bookmarked this to come back to benchmark this.
Doesn't AWS still charge by the hour ... so if you were spinning instances up and down based on minute-to-minute load you would be overpaying for vs just maintaining a steady baseline.
If you turn an instance off you need to be pretty confident it will stay off for at least an hour.
As of this evening, in eu-west-1 it's about 70 seconds.
Vendors will say all manner of things regarding how HIPAA compliance requires you to buy their most expensive services, but the HIPAA legislation and related rules are almost silent with regards to implementation requirements that map to actual technologies you could actually use. "Quote me the subsection of the Security Rule you are referring to; it will look like 164.308(a)(5)(ii)(D)." is dispositive of this sort of thing.
That's a real thing, by the way. The requirement, in its entirety: "Do you have procedures for creating, changing, and safeguarding passwords?" Did you see the point where it requires hashing the passwords? No, you didn't, because HIPAA doesn't require hashing passwords. It requires you to have some method of "safeguarding" passwords written down somewhere.
[Edit: Parent has clarified that they're dealing with standard paperwork at clients rather than the legislation itself, which makes sense (and, also, oww).]
If your computer is hacked, then attacker would be able to extract information from that Outlook database.
I know that both HIPAA and CLIA have issues with things like the spot market but you can still be approved via cloud.