tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1523467929027326011.post801470509203605650..comments2010-07-22T02:32:47.544-07:00Robert Doylehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11490824920079576088noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1523467929027326011.post-45238752430091819632010-07-22T02:32:47.544-07:002010-07-22T02:32:47.544-07:00Online home work help is a guide about working at home using the internet. Here you can find information, advice and help on online home work, work from home.<br /><br /><br />http://www.homeworkhelponline.org/<br /><br />AkshayAkshayhttp://www.homeworkhelponline.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1523467929027326011.post-40367783685262870272009-11-18T03:53:13.374-08:002009-11-18T03:53:13.374-08:00Hi Silvano<br />Thanks for your comments. Italy is a way off I think my Italian is not good ;-)<br />CiaoRobert Doylehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11490824920079576088noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1523467929027326011.post-71783004241711332622009-11-18T03:49:18.284-08:002009-11-18T03:49:18.284-08:00Hi Bilal<br />First thing I&#39;d say is EC2 is not a cheaper option. I have used The Planet (http://www.theplanet.com) to hire dedicated boxes for another project and they work brilliantly well.We have been running 4 boxes in the Planet for the last 3 years without a single issue. They are also very cheap so I would never complain about the service we get. <br />Saying all that we are in the process of moving them to EC2 why? because of two main reasons 1) Peace of Mind. If a box on the planet goes pop we have a stessful time to rebuild and test etc to get it back up. In EC2 if a box goes pop we just launch it again. 2) Scalability, If we need to expand our resouces in the Planet it&#39;s a big undertaking that takes management and time, in EC2 we just launch up another instance and attached to the Load Balancer (which is great in AWS). Cost wise it&#39;s probably cheaper to go the Planet to tell you the truth.<br />But we also push all our assets to CloudFront in AWS so I find it&#39;s much more reliable and quicker for our customers too. Why don&#39;t you try parts of AWS first like ther CloudFront and S3 to see how you get on.<br />Hope this helps?Robert Doylehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11490824920079576088noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1523467929027326011.post-67283053241228335902009-11-07T01:25:46.868-08:002009-11-07T01:25:46.868-08:00Hi Robert,<br /><br />thank you very much for your explanation! You have been really very nice.<br /><br />Any idea of expanding in Italy? My father is a Math Professor at University of Engineering?<br /><br />Thanks Again<br /><br />--silvanoSilvano Paxiahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10286816791501134177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1523467929027326011.post-75940565218370407152009-11-04T14:16:40.429-08:002009-11-04T14:16:40.429-08:00I have been evaluating EC2 for a while now. The question I have is in regards to run away costs. We build and maintain a content management system for websites. We have a few hundred customers. Some with very high traffic websites, others with small websites with minimal visitors. Quite a few with Videos that are streamed. What I&#39;m concerned with is cost. Porting our system over only to find out that because of our usage, we are worse than we were before cost wise. In a month, if you were to consider your high usage periods when you have 20 servers provisioned, how much does that run you cost wise? Or how does that compare to the low usage periods? <br /><br />My problem is I just don&#39;t know enough about EC2. Even though I can read all of the white papers and pricing charts, I just don&#39;t know how to apply that to our situation and resource needs. <br /><br />When I saw your report, I got excited because now I&#39;ve found a real person that has experience going through what we will need to go through and can help me understand the costs and how you performed your evaluation of need. I appreciate any help or insight you can provide.Bilalhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02364797491220684154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1523467929027326011.post-82465881957994327602009-10-17T04:12:08.493-07:002009-10-17T04:12:08.493-07:00Hi Silvano<br />Thanks for the nice comments. Nearly all the interaction on SimpleDB is from our Web servers which are on EC2 so this has no real latency issues as they exist on the same network. We also cache all the main SimpleDB request on the server so SimpleDB is not even hit in these scenarios.<br />Our Session state is held on SimpleDB too but again the interaction is between webserver and SimpleDB so again no problem.<br />We use webservices to supply data to Silverlight controls on the client but we have no more latency issues then if we were running the DB server in a traditional way and of course we using caching extensively here too.<br />On a side note I have used simpleDB for awhile now and I find it rock solid reliable and latency is not really an issue for me yet anyway.<br />Thanks<br />RobertRoberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11490824920079576088noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1523467929027326011.post-26824297664737653232009-10-16T07:48:19.006-07:002009-10-16T07:48:19.006-07:00Hello,<br /><br />first of all, GREAT JOB...<br /><br />I would like to build an infrastructure similar to yours using ASP.Net, SimpleDB and i would like to make it scalable like yours, but i have a question. I have read a lot about the latency of SimpleDB, my question is: If a user registers in your web site how you solve the latency problem? I understood that you store the sessions in Simple DB, but if some reasons there is some latency how you manage it?<br /><br />Thanks <br /><br />--silvano<br /><br />October 16, 2009 7:46 AMSilvano Paxiahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10286816791501134177noreply@blogger.com