Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?

Submission + - Amazon EC2/S3 vs. traditional Webhosting? 3

Tasha26 writes: I was recently asked to name a good webhosting site (and the friend didn't want GoDaddy for some reason), but then I wondered how an Amazon EC2/S3 solution compares (in price or advantage) over traditional web-hosting? Maybe there's a study on it or someone has experience of running a site from Amazon. I looked at the Amazon pricing but it turns out to be a structure: I/O connections, bandwidth, S3, EC2... even if you don't use S3 but your Firefox S3 app. pings to it, you get billed. Too many variables for a straightforward comparison. Any help would be much appreciated, thanks.
This discussion was created for logged-in users only, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Amazon EC2/S3 vs. traditional Webhosting?

Comments Filter:
  • We were making the same comparison, but switched focus to RackSpace because of their simpler pricing model.

    RackSpace Pricing []

    We also liked that they're releasing OpenStack under the Apache 2 license.
    • i needed something like 4 to 6 clicks to get somewhere that remotely looks like pricing... why aren't they up front about it? Also they have too many options, like some maze game.
      • The thing is that any comparison you can make without knowing the use case will simply be inaccurate. I'm sure that a regular webhost that charges a fixed amount for a decent bit of space and bandwidth will be the most economical up to a certain point. If beyond that a dedicated or virtual dedicated server is more interesting than the cloud offering, that depends on what kind of bandwidth is expected, how cpu and disk intensive this site is, and so on.

        Simply put you're asking people to make a recommendation

With all the fancy scientists in the world, why can't they just once build a nuclear balm?