| 1 |
On Fri, 14 Dec 2012 02:00:54 -0800 |
| 2 |
Grant <emailgrant@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> > > Would everyone here be in favor of a dedicated server over a cloud |
| 5 |
> > > server from a host with good cloud infrastructure? The cloud |
| 6 |
> > > server concept is amazing but from what I'm reading a dedicated |
| 7 |
> > > server at the same price point far outperforms it. |
| 8 |
> > > |
| 9 |
> > > - Grant |
| 10 |
> > |
| 11 |
> > Last time I did the calculation, a dedicated or normal virtualized |
| 12 |
> > infrastructure was more cost effective as long as you could |
| 13 |
> > accurately predict the performance you need. |
| 14 |
> > |
| 15 |
> > Cloud services only really help if you need a high dynamic range |
| 16 |
> > regarding scale and performance, e.g. a service that could get a |
| 17 |
> > lot of new users very fast or is only really active for short time |
| 18 |
> > spans. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> Doesn't a good cloud server also have potentially higher availability |
| 21 |
> compared to dedicated? |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Potentially? Yes. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
In reality? No. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
It's not the virtualization that breaks, it's all the surrounding |
| 28 |
infrastructure, especially Layer 2. You will not believe how fragile |
| 29 |
that stuff can get. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
In the old days, a small slip up could isolate a small part of the |
| 32 |
network. These days, a small slip-up easily ripples though the entire |
| 33 |
network and takes down all of it, and sadly this is not rare. The |
| 34 |
networking needs of VMs are radically different from the traditional, |
| 35 |
and this is the side-effect: fragility. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
-- |
| 39 |
Alan McKinnon |
| 40 |
alan.mckinnon@×××××.com |
Archives