1 |
On 10/25/2011 6:27 PM, Pandu Poluan wrote: |
2 |
> (Sorry for the late reply; somehow this thread got lost in the mess) |
3 |
> |
4 |
> On Oct 12, 2011 2:03 AM, "James" <wireless@×××××××××××.com |
5 |
> <mailto:wireless@×××××××××××.com>> wrote: |
6 |
> > |
7 |
> > Pandu Poluan <pandu <at> poluan.info <http://poluan.info>> writes: |
8 |
> > |
9 |
> > |
10 |
> > > The head honcho of my company just asked me to "plan for migration of |
11 |
> > > X into the cloud" (where "X" is the online trading server that our |
12 |
> > > investors used). |
13 |
> > |
14 |
> > This is a single server or many at different locations. |
15 |
> > If a WAN monitoring is what you are after, along with individual |
16 |
> > server resources, you have many choices. |
17 |
> > |
18 |
> |
19 |
> It's a single server that's part of a three-server system. The server |
20 |
> needs to communicate with its 2 cohorts continuously, so I have to |
21 |
> provision enough backhaul bandwidth from the cloud to my data center. |
22 |
> |
23 |
> In addition to provisioning enough RAM and CPU, of course. |
24 |
> |
25 |
> > > Now, I need to monitor how much RAM is used throughout the day by X, |
26 |
> > > also how much bandwidth gets eaten by X throughout the day. |
27 |
> > |
28 |
> > Most of the packages monitor ram as well as other resource utilization |
29 |
> > of the servers, firewall, routers and other SNMP devices in your network. |
30 |
> > some experimentation may be warranted to find what your team likes best. |
31 |
> > |
32 |
> |
33 |
> Currently I've settled on a simple solution: run dstat[1] with nohup 30 |
34 |
> minutes before 1st trading session, stop it 30 minutes after 2nd trading |
35 |
> session, and send the CSV record via email. Less intrusion into the |
36 |
> system (which the Systems guys rightly have reservations of). |
37 |
> |
38 |
|
39 |
You're not going to be happy with this design for a couple of reasons. |
40 |
|
41 |
1. It's more expensive that your current setup. If the two servers at |
42 |
your datacenter are down I assume the server is the cloud is useless and |
43 |
vice versa. You already have to maintain infrastructure for those two |
44 |
servers so you're realizing no savings by eliminating on server from |
45 |
your infrastructure. Buying a $1500 rack server amortized over three |
46 |
years is a better deal than paying for equivalent power in the cloud. |
47 |
|
48 |
2. Latency. You're increasing it. |
49 |
|
50 |
3. Cloud performance varies. Networks split, machines run slow, it |
51 |
happens. You'll have more consistent performance on your own machines. |
52 |
It's getting better, but it's still something with which to be aware. |
53 |
|
54 |
Migrating to virtual servers makes some sense, but you need to look at |
55 |
it on a case by case basis. |
56 |
|
57 |
kashani |