Comments on: Amazon EC2 and RedHat Enterprise! http://comments.deasil.com/2007/11/07/amazon-ec2-and-redhat-enterprise/ escape colon w q Wed, 07 Jan 2009 19:15:03 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: Alan http://comments.deasil.com/2007/11/07/amazon-ec2-and-redhat-enterprise/#comment-8562 Alan Wed, 16 Jan 2008 02:55:22 +0000 http://comments.deasil.com/2007/11/07/amazon-ec2-and-redhat-enterprise/#comment-8562 Yes, it is mountable read/write on only one instance at a time, but should be mountable read-only on as many instances as you want. Also, if mounted read/write on a single instance, it should be shareable with other instances using a network protocol such as NFS. Neither of these have been tested yet though! ;-) Yes, it is mountable read/write on only one instance at a time, but should be mountable read-only on as many instances as you want. Also, if mounted read/write on a single instance, it should be shareable with other instances using a network protocol such as NFS. Neither of these have been tested yet though! ;-)

]]> By: felix http://comments.deasil.com/2007/11/07/amazon-ec2-and-redhat-enterprise/#comment-8552 felix Tue, 15 Jan 2008 21:35:32 +0000 http://comments.deasil.com/2007/11/07/amazon-ec2-and-redhat-enterprise/#comment-8552 Alan, that thread you pointed to is really good. I hadn't realized, although probably should have, that you are running a local cache - in my brain I now have it working along the lines of a simplified AFS. Keeping a document root under this fs is a real boon... I presume that you could actually mount this (read-only perhaps?) on several instances? That would be really nice, too. Alan, that thread you pointed to is really good. I hadn’t realized, although probably should have, that you are running a local cache - in my brain I now have it working along the lines of a simplified AFS.

Keeping a document root under this fs is a real boon… I presume that you could actually mount this (read-only perhaps?) on several instances? That would be really nice, too.

]]> By: Alan http://comments.deasil.com/2007/11/07/amazon-ec2-and-redhat-enterprise/#comment-8548 Alan Tue, 15 Jan 2008 20:55:33 +0000 http://comments.deasil.com/2007/11/07/amazon-ec2-and-redhat-enterprise/#comment-8548 Not "a nerve", just a POV. S3 is not a POSIX file system and doesn't support mtimes or any other POSIX concept. Developers have found various ways to map POSIX operations to S3. PersistentFS is basically a complete POSIX-compliant file system (like ext3 and other unix file systems) that uses S3 as it backing store. For more information, see http://developer.amazonwebservices.com/connect/thread.jspa?messageID=74073#74073 The speed of reads is very good, primarily due to the large cache. Burst writes are very fast because PersistentFS has a short-term write back cache. With prolonged writes, PersistentFS will begin to throttle writes to prevent too much unflushed data from building up in its cache. If you want to see this in operation, PersistentFS has a number of "TraceXXX" parameters that allow you to monitor what it is doing. See http://www.PersistentFS.com/documentation/Parameters Storing web server files, or any other application or user data that you want around long term is a very good use of PersistentFS. I would not use it for software packages or temporary files. It could be used for log files, etc. if it is important not to lose them. Not “a nerve”, just a POV.

S3 is not a POSIX file system and doesn’t support mtimes or any other POSIX concept. Developers have found various ways to map POSIX operations to S3. PersistentFS is basically a complete POSIX-compliant file system (like ext3 and other unix file systems) that uses S3 as it backing store. For more information, see
http://developer.amazonwebservices.com/connect/thread.jspa?messageID=74073#74073

The speed of reads is very good, primarily due to the large cache. Burst writes are very fast because PersistentFS has a short-term write back cache. With prolonged writes, PersistentFS will begin to throttle writes to prevent too much unflushed data from building up in its cache. If you want to see this in operation, PersistentFS has a number of “TraceXXX” parameters that allow you to monitor what it is doing. See
http://www.PersistentFS.com/documentation/Parameters

Storing web server files, or any other application or user data that you want around long term is a very good use of PersistentFS. I would not use it for software packages or temporary files. It could be used for log files, etc. if it is important not to lose them.

]]> By: felix http://comments.deasil.com/2007/11/07/amazon-ec2-and-redhat-enterprise/#comment-8543 felix Tue, 15 Jan 2008 18:50:23 +0000 http://comments.deasil.com/2007/11/07/amazon-ec2-and-redhat-enterprise/#comment-8543 Alan, hey, I think I inadvertently touched a nerve, I didn't mean to. I wasn't saying that it was a terrible idea, it just struck me as odd. Of course, I think much of the world would take exception to your views of the Software Development Business Model. Beyond which, you guarantee that your software will be 100% bug free from the moment you start charging? That seems a little... like asking for trouble. I use much software that is paid for that is not filled with bugs. Those developers are rewarded by my continuing to pay them for upgrades as they improve their product. Now, it may be the case that with a product like a file system that perhaps there isn't a significant upgrade path - which would have a different ongoing profit model. I don't know, but ultimately I think your final question is unfair given that I believe and have personally experienced more than those two software models. Saying all that for positive or negative, does not take away from the fact that I think it could be an essential piece of software for many people rolling out on EC2 and the ongoing cost negligible in the context of a successful site. I had heard that one problem with S3 was that it didn't have mtimes? Does this accommodate that in any way so you can see last change times and the like? (or was that lack in S3 a myth?) Am also curious about performance... I had always assumed that if such a product came around, it would be useful for certain things but not a good idea to host the files the webserver was accessing. Do you have guidelines on usage? Alan, hey, I think I inadvertently touched a nerve, I didn’t mean to. I wasn’t saying that it was a terrible idea, it just struck me as odd. Of course, I think much of the world would take exception to your views of the Software Development Business Model. Beyond which, you guarantee that your software will be 100% bug free from the moment you start charging? That seems a little… like asking for trouble.

I use much software that is paid for that is not filled with bugs. Those developers are rewarded by my continuing to pay them for upgrades as they improve their product. Now, it may be the case that with a product like a file system that perhaps there isn’t a significant upgrade path - which would have a different ongoing profit model.

I don’t know, but ultimately I think your final question is unfair given that I believe and have personally experienced more than those two software models.

Saying all that for positive or negative, does not take away from the fact that I think it could be an essential piece of software for many people rolling out on EC2 and the ongoing cost negligible in the context of a successful site.

I had heard that one problem with S3 was that it didn’t have mtimes? Does this accommodate that in any way so you can see last change times and the like? (or was that lack in S3 a myth?) Am also curious about performance… I had always assumed that if such a product came around, it would be useful for certain things but not a good idea to host the files the webserver was accessing. Do you have guidelines on usage?

]]> By: Alan http://comments.deasil.com/2007/11/07/amazon-ec2-and-redhat-enterprise/#comment-8541 Alan Tue, 15 Jan 2008 17:57:57 +0000 http://comments.deasil.com/2007/11/07/amazon-ec2-and-redhat-enterprise/#comment-8541 > I don’t love the subscription cost for something that seems more like software than service Software Development Business Model A ----------------------------------------------- - Ship buggy, hard-to-use software - Make on-going revenue with an endless cycle of buggy updates, "software maintenance" and "support" Software Development Business Model B ----------------------------------------------- - Ship bug-free, easy-to-use software - Make on-going revenue by "renting" or "leasing" the use of the trouble-free software Questions: ------------ Is bug-free software worth less than buggy software? Which would you rather pay for? Should the developers of buggy software be rewarded with on-going revenue, while the developers of bug-free software receive a one-time payment and that is it? > I don’t love the subscription cost for something that seems more like software than service

Software Development Business Model A
———————————————–
- Ship buggy, hard-to-use software
- Make on-going revenue with an endless cycle of buggy updates, “software maintenance” and “support”

Software Development Business Model B
———————————————–
- Ship bug-free, easy-to-use software
- Make on-going revenue by “renting” or “leasing” the use of the trouble-free software

Questions:
————
Is bug-free software worth less than buggy software?
Which would you rather pay for?
Should the developers of buggy software be rewarded with on-going revenue, while the developers of bug-free software receive a one-time payment and that is it?

]]> By: felix http://comments.deasil.com/2007/11/07/amazon-ec2-and-redhat-enterprise/#comment-8536 felix Tue, 15 Jan 2008 13:42:40 +0000 http://comments.deasil.com/2007/11/07/amazon-ec2-and-redhat-enterprise/#comment-8536 Alan, huh! Thanks for the pointer looks like a really interesting product! I'm a little leery of the pricing model - I don't love the subscription cost for something that seems more like software than service. But still, it seems like the best and only game in that town. The release notes are interesting and it seems like a really well featured product, be curious to see it when it reaches release time. Alan, huh! Thanks for the pointer looks like a really interesting product! I’m a little leery of the pricing model - I don’t love the subscription cost for something that seems more like software than service. But still, it seems like the best and only game in that town. The release notes are interesting and it seems like a really well featured product, be curious to see it when it reaches release time.

]]> By: Alan http://comments.deasil.com/2007/11/07/amazon-ec2-and-redhat-enterprise/#comment-8523 Alan Tue, 15 Jan 2008 05:07:27 +0000 http://comments.deasil.com/2007/11/07/amazon-ec2-and-redhat-enterprise/#comment-8523 You can mount an S3-backed file system using PersistentFS, http://www.PersistentFS.com You can mount an S3-backed file system using PersistentFS, http://www.PersistentFS.com

]]> By: felix http://comments.deasil.com/2007/11/07/amazon-ec2-and-redhat-enterprise/#comment-6805 felix Thu, 08 Nov 2007 19:46:19 +0000 http://comments.deasil.com/2007/11/07/amazon-ec2-and-redhat-enterprise/#comment-6805 Fred, you're right - to an extent. The problem, to the extent that it is a problem, is that you are paying a subscription fee per seat. So, if as a small or medium sized organization you are running several servers and want to keep things standardized you are paying per seat which can amount to thousands per year, even for servers that are performing minor tasks for you. For the most part, this is OS/updates/upgrades - many do not need the unlimited support - so for those people, when cheaper (non-subscription) alternatives exist it is harder to rationalize the fee. If, as an organization you are using the support to a reasonable degree it becomes much more palatable to pay that yearly fee. Fred, you’re right - to an extent. The problem, to the extent that it is a problem, is that you are paying a subscription fee per seat. So, if as a small or medium sized organization you are running several servers and want to keep things standardized you are paying per seat which can amount to thousands per year, even for servers that are performing minor tasks for you. For the most part, this is OS/updates/upgrades - many do not need the unlimited support - so for those people, when cheaper (non-subscription) alternatives exist it is harder to rationalize the fee.

If, as an organization you are using the support to a reasonable degree it becomes much more palatable to pay that yearly fee.

]]> By: fred http://comments.deasil.com/2007/11/07/amazon-ec2-and-redhat-enterprise/#comment-6803 fred Thu, 08 Nov 2007 18:06:52 +0000 http://comments.deasil.com/2007/11/07/amazon-ec2-and-redhat-enterprise/#comment-6803 How is RHEL's pricing "nutty?" For less than a buck a day for the entry level offering, you get the OS, updates, free upgrades when new versions come out, and unlimited technical support via the web interface. If you look at other commercial Linux offerings, you will pay for upgrades and per-incident costs for support. I'd say that RHEL is pretty darned reasonable. How is RHEL’s pricing “nutty?” For less than a buck a day for the entry level offering, you get the OS, updates, free upgrades when new versions come out, and unlimited technical support via the web interface. If you look at other commercial Linux offerings, you will pay for upgrades and per-incident costs for support. I’d say that RHEL is pretty darned reasonable.

]]> By: felix http://comments.deasil.com/2007/11/07/amazon-ec2-and-redhat-enterprise/#comment-6793 felix Thu, 08 Nov 2007 13:47:20 +0000 http://comments.deasil.com/2007/11/07/amazon-ec2-and-redhat-enterprise/#comment-6793 Nice piece! It certainly clarifies things - I honestly hate the RHEL client website. It's incredibly confusing about what you need to get and what the various options are. Ah well. Now work out how much cloud computing RHEL will cost yearly. :) Nice piece! It certainly clarifies things - I honestly hate the RHEL client website. It’s incredibly confusing about what you need to get and what the various options are. Ah well. Now work out how much cloud computing RHEL will cost yearly. :)

]]>