Re: Amazon High I/O instances

[Sébastien Lorion <sl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Vincent, I would appreciate that you stop assuming things based on zero information about what I am doing. I understand that you are trying to be helpful, but I can assure you that going bare-metal only does not make any sense in my context.

Sébastien

On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 12:44 PM, Vincent Veyron <vv.lists@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Le mercredi 22 août 2012 à 13:15 +0800, Craig Ringer a écrit :

> He appears to be suggesting that buying access to real hardware in a
> datacenter (if not buying the hardware yourself) is more cost effective
> and easier to manage than using "cloud" style services with more
> transient hosts like EC2 offers. At least that's how I understood it.

Hi Craig,

Actually, my comments about costs were misleading : I simply reacted to
the fact that the OP wanted to test his application for high
performance, and thought that it would be easier with bare metal rather
than with AWS, because you have less parameters to control this way.

Also, I'll admit that I jumped the gun without reading about the SSD
offer by Amazon. Still, I would test first with a machine that I
control, but it maybe that Sébastien already did that.

I am curious to know what kind of application requires 10s to 100s of
instances with a PostgreSQL database, because that could get unwieldy
with big data (which I assumed from the high performance specification)

--
Vincent Veyron
http://marica.fr/
Gestion informatique des sinistres d'assurances et des dossiers contentieux pour le service juridique