Just saw your email between all the others .. Pinterest, Instagram, Netflix, Shazam, NASDAQ, Cycle Computing (
http://arstechnica.com/business/2011/09/30000-core-cluster-built-on-amazon-ec2-cloud/) .. that list could go on and on, see
http://aws.amazon.com/solutions/case-studies/ for some more.
For a small all-in-one web server, any kind of web hosting is fine, and Amazon would most certainly be the pricier option.
Sébastien
On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 12:40 AM, Chris Travers
<chris.travers@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 1:18 AM, Vincent Veyron
<vv.lists@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
Le mardi 21 août 2012 à 01:33 -0400, Sébastien Lorion a écrit :
>
>
> Since Amazon has added new high I/O instance types and EBS volumes,
> anyone has done some benchmark of PostgreSQL on them ?
>
I wonder : is there a reason why you have to go through the complexity
of such a setup, rather than simply use bare metal and get good
performance with simplicity?
For instance, the dedibox I use for my app (visible in sig) costs 14,00
euros/month, and sits at .03% load average with 5 active users; you can
admin it like a home pc.
The main use cases I know of are relatively small instances where the web server and db server for an app may be on the same system.
--
Vincent Veyron
http://marica.fr/ Gestion informatique des sinistres d'assurances et des dossiers contentieux pour le service juridique