On 5/31/07, Tracy R Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Bob La Quey wrote:
> It is also nice to have someone else take care of all that.
This is true and certainly a strong argument in favor of EC2.
> BTW I don't see why it would be that hard to automate
> the restoration of an EC2 based service. Just store the
> appropriate image in S3 then poll the EC2 instance. If
> it goes down launch another.
Restoring an image is indeed easy. But what if that image contains your
mail server? You will lose all data since you last created your image. I
backup my EC2 system to S3 every 24 hours and I am still very hesitant
to put my email server on EC2 because I really don't want to lose 24
hours worth of email.
Mail is not much data. Why not send the increments to S3
every few minutes?
> I am building a boat of my own design. Nothing could
> be less pragmatic than that. (Well maybe designing
> and building an airplane; those guys really are nuts :)
Building an airplane is good fun. My dad should be ready to make the
first flight in his RV-7 any day now. Designing an airplane which you
hope to haul the family around in some day is indeed nuts. :)
I can swim a lot better than I can fly so I will stick with boats.
BobLQ
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
