Re: Amazon High I/O instances

Vincent, I would appreciate that you stop assuming things based on zero
information about what I am doing. I understand that you are trying to be
helpful, but I can assure you that going bare-metal only does not make any
sense in my context.

Sébastien

On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 12:44 PM, Vincent Veyron <vv(dot)lists(at)wanadoo(dot)fr>wrote:

> Le mercredi 22 août 2012 à 13:15 +0800, Craig Ringer a écrit :
>
> > He appears to be suggesting that buying access to real hardware in a
> > datacenter (if not buying the hardware yourself) is more cost effective
> > and easier to manage than using "cloud" style services with more
> > transient hosts like EC2 offers. At least that's how I understood it.
>
> Hi Craig,
>
> Actually, my comments about costs were misleading : I simply reacted to
> the fact that the OP wanted to test his application for high
> performance, and thought that it would be easier with bare metal rather
> than with AWS, because you have less parameters to control this way.
>
> Also, I'll admit that I jumped the gun without reading about the SSD
> offer by Amazon. Still, I would test first with a machine that I
> control, but it maybe that Sébastien already did that.
>
> I am curious to know what kind of application requires 10s to 100s of
> instances with a PostgreSQL database, because that could get unwieldy
> with big data (which I assumed from the high performance specification)
>
> --
> Vincent Veyron
> http://marica.fr/
> Gestion informatique des sinistres d'assurances et des dossiers
> contentieux pour le service juridique
>
>