New Medium Instance, 64-bit bit Ubiquity, SSH Client
aws.typepad.com
aws.typepad.com
The medium instances are also very welcome, since previously the gap between small and large was quite big (4x the memory for 4x the price).
I would have to say, Amazon is at least receptive to suggestions. You can always email or chat with Jeff Barr and make suggestions.
Underperforming: I don't get why the bigger Rackspace Cloud Servers don't get more CPU cores, just a bigger share of the original 4 cores on the host server. This might look fine but at the end I just want more processes (PHP threads) running at the same time.
Overpriced: The pricing is really high for Cloud Servers. I'm paying around £460 a month for a 16GB RAM Cloud Server (4 cores, 620GB (!) disk). For around €448 I have a Rackspace dedicated server with 48GB RAM, 2 x 6 (modern) cores and a 480GB RAID10 array.
I'm actually switching most of our workload to dedicated hardware, it's less cool but it's just cheaper and faster, in this case.
NB: We tried AWS but the MySQL IO performance, either in EC2+EBS or RDS, was not enough for us.
- DELL PowerEdge R710
- 2 x Six Core Intel Xeon E5645 2.4GHz, 12M cache
- 4 x 300GB SAS 15K RPM Drive (RAID10 controller with 256MB cache)
- 48GB DELL RAM
I would say their reliability is great on the dedicated side (their Cloud reliability is just OK) and their "fanatical" support is really good, as they advertise.
Edit: just to clarify these are Rackspace UK (LON3) prices.
Supposedly (and take that with a grain of salt since this information is a few layers removed) the current VMWare based cloud they have is limiting how flexible they can be about their offering, i.e. every instance price level just doubles everything and all but the 32G instance has 4 virtual cores. Once they move to the new system supposedly you'll be able to mix & match things more. Maybe their current cloud really requires homogenous hardware, I don't know.
As for modern cores: Rackspace is somewhat conservative about what hardware they offer, though you can get special order. My desktop i7 2600K has single-thread performance that's essentially twice of the quad-core quad-CPU Xeon in the "real" server. A place like Hetzner -- http://www.hetzner.de/en/hosting/produktmatrix/rootserver-pr... -- offers a € 49 server using that.
As for AWS, isn't the way to "fix" that to use essentially striped EBS volumes?
The new Cloud Servers will have much greater flexibility and a better feature set. It will help solve many issues that customers have with the current offerings. That information will be coming out over the next couple of months, but since we are only about two-weeks different from the OpenStack nova code base, you can always look there for a preview.
Rackspace does offer a VMWare based private cloud (http://www.rackspace.com/managed_hosting/private_cloud/) for customers who want virtualization, but on their own dedicated hardware. VMWare is not used for public cloud (as far as I know).
Obvious Disclosure: I work at Rackspace and this is to the best of my knowledge.
I can't think of too many cases in which I'd have my private key but no terminal to SSH from, but I like having this option.
(Takes me back to bygone days of serving up MindTerm from my home computer over dyndns, a convenient way to do what I needed to do from restrictive school machines... Anyone else do that?)
I'm currently using the Rackspace VM that gives 4gb of ram. I wanted to switch to EC2 after they dropped prices, but I would have either had to drop down to a small (1.7gb - not an option for my workload) or up to a large (7gb - costs over $50/mo more).
With all of these improvements Amazon is making, Rackspace's VM offerings are now horribly overpriced.
I understand the economics though - cores definitely cost a lot more than memory, so perhaps its just wishful thinking.
EDIT: I should clarify - I know they already have the "High CPU Medium", but it would be nice to have a step between that and the Large instance type that had two cores, but slightly more memory.
A medium instance is actually a very nice option for small deployments.
Micro instances are throttled -http://gregsramblings.com/2011/02/07/amazon-ec2-micro-instan.... I, personally, do not maintain any 32-bit AMIs. The offer gap between a micro and a large instance for 64 was large enough for me to feel it.
Other than that, exciting news. EC2 has always been about being able to choose a fitting solution for your particular needs, and this fills a niche.
http://aws.amazon.com/ec2/instance-types/
In the API, the new one is "m1.medium" . The one you spun up the other day was probably a "c1.medium" .