48
edits
Auto-tools/Projects/EC2Builder: Difference between revisions
→EBS-backed Instances vs S3-backed Instances
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 44: | Line 44: | ||
Relatively recently, EBS (Elastic Block Storage) has also become an option. Instead of mounting a drive stored in S3, you can store the AMI in elastic block storage. This allows faster boot up, as well as an option to "stop" an image and preserve its state prior to stopping. There is also no size limit (or well, it's such a high limit that we don't really care) to the drive. However it is more expensive because instead of just paying hourly running cost + storage cost, we pay additional storage cost. We do save a bit of money on the AMI storage: we're only charged for the memory that our additional modifications to the AMI have made, whereas an S3 instance is charged for storing the whole AMI. | Relatively recently, EBS (Elastic Block Storage) has also become an option. Instead of mounting a drive stored in S3, you can store the AMI in elastic block storage. This allows faster boot up, as well as an option to "stop" an image and preserve its state prior to stopping. There is also no size limit (or well, it's such a high limit that we don't really care) to the drive. However it is more expensive because instead of just paying hourly running cost + storage cost, we pay additional storage cost. We do save a bit of money on the AMI storage: we're only charged for the memory that our additional modifications to the AMI have made, whereas an S3 instance is charged for storing the whole AMI. | ||
It wasn't clear | It wasn't super clear how much of a difference this made from the price perspective, but from a performance perspective EBS is clearly superior and AMI creation and everything related to that is significantly easier given that Amazon provides GUI tools and snapshot tools for AMI creation. As a result the AMIs that are prepared right now are EBS-backed and not S3-backed. | ||
== Preliminary Design == | == Preliminary Design == | ||