ttist25
asked on
Amazon EC2 - Is it a good fit?
Hello,
I have a client who requires a VPS to run a small ASP.NET application. The application uses a SQL 2008 backend and ASP.NET 3.5 frontend.
It's a fairly simple app and wont have very heavy user access. There may be 4-5 people accessing it per day and only for a few minutes at a time.
We have tried to use a shared windows account at accuwebhosting.com which is really inexpensive (great because these guys are a new startup on a shoestring budget) and it was ALMOST flexible enough but not quite.
The VPS I'm looking at has 1GB RAM, 40GB storage, and 250GB transfer per month. That's ~$280 bucks a year.
Usually I'm all about dynamic technology but, here I'm a little hesitant. Should I be?
Any help will be greatly appreciated.
Thanks!
I have a client who requires a VPS to run a small ASP.NET application. The application uses a SQL 2008 backend and ASP.NET 3.5 frontend.
It's a fairly simple app and wont have very heavy user access. There may be 4-5 people accessing it per day and only for a few minutes at a time.
We have tried to use a shared windows account at accuwebhosting.com which is really inexpensive (great because these guys are a new startup on a shoestring budget) and it was ALMOST flexible enough but not quite.
The VPS I'm looking at has 1GB RAM, 40GB storage, and 250GB transfer per month. That's ~$280 bucks a year.
Usually I'm all about dynamic technology but, here I'm a little hesitant. Should I be?
Any help will be greatly appreciated.
Thanks!
I would have preferred more RAM. But to get it going, it probably suffice. But more is better ...
ASKER
Thanks for the response. Have you had any experience on Amazon EC2?
Do you think it might be a good fit?
Do you think it might be a good fit?
Amazon is a great fit.
At about the same price you get the option to do much more. You can backup and restore your server image, add more storage on demand, create multiple server instances with load balancing for that special occasion, and much more.
This is a calculator with your data as I see it. I put in the forecast bandwidth from such an application (not some theoretical limit), and put you on an annual contract using a reserved instance. I also added 100GB of monthly backup.
You can try this setup risk free for a nominal fee of $0.12 per hour using on demand instances, so if you can tell within 2 days if it works for you, you end up paying $5.8 for the test.
http://calculator.s3.amazonaws.com/calc5.html?key=calc-9E4499D5-21D8-4837-A16C-1CE1463B9AE6
At about the same price you get the option to do much more. You can backup and restore your server image, add more storage on demand, create multiple server instances with load balancing for that special occasion, and much more.
This is a calculator with your data as I see it. I put in the forecast bandwidth from such an application (not some theoretical limit), and put you on an annual contract using a reserved instance. I also added 100GB of monthly backup.
You can try this setup risk free for a nominal fee of $0.12 per hour using on demand instances, so if you can tell within 2 days if it works for you, you end up paying $5.8 for the test.
http://calculator.s3.amazonaws.com/calc5.html?key=calc-9E4499D5-21D8-4837-A16C-1CE1463B9AE6
ASKER
Shalomc,
Thanks so much for your response. Filling out the calculator was a step beyond the call of duty! THANKS.
Sorry for not responding sooner but I've been drowning in forums and PDF's and websites in reference to this and, so far I'm thinking EC2 might not be a good fit.
My (incorrect) assumption was that "utilization" was measured per access rather than instance uptime. This server will need to be up 24/7. Persistent data is a consideration given the SQL database so the EBS would definitely be required in case the instance were to drop.
At $55.96 per month this is almost $400.00 per year more than the traditional VPS I was looking at. Am I missing something? It's very possible that I am! :)
Thanks again for your help.
Thanks so much for your response. Filling out the calculator was a step beyond the call of duty! THANKS.
Sorry for not responding sooner but I've been drowning in forums and PDF's and websites in reference to this and, so far I'm thinking EC2 might not be a good fit.
My (incorrect) assumption was that "utilization" was measured per access rather than instance uptime. This server will need to be up 24/7. Persistent data is a consideration given the SQL database so the EBS would definitely be required in case the instance were to drop.
At $55.96 per month this is almost $400.00 per year more than the traditional VPS I was looking at. Am I missing something? It's very possible that I am! :)
Thanks again for your help.
ASKER CERTIFIED SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
ASKER
Thanks a lot shalomc