There are other virtualizing environments that offer better perf/$, such as softlayer, rackspace cloud, and more.
EC2 is popular... and hence oversubscribed. People complain about IO perf, and while it's not as bad as some people claim, you have to be aware that EC2 isnt some magical land where things work great, there are lots of gotchas, slower machines, cluster, etc. Running a high performance database on low performance systems will end up with a low performance database, you might want to check those expectations at the door. Good luck! -ryan On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 11:35 AM, Jonathan Gray <jg...@fb.com> wrote: > There are others who have had far more experience than I have with HBase + > EC2, so will let them chime in. But I personally recommend against this > direction if you expect to have a consistent cluster size and/or a > significant amount of load. > > EC2 is great at quickly scaling up/down, but is usually not cost effective if > you're running a cluster of a fixed set of nodes 24/7. > > EC2 also generally experiences far worse IO performance than dedicated > hardware, so with any significant load, performance suffers on EC2. > > In addition, EC2 presents its own operational pains and availability issues. > Users on EC2 generally have more problems than those with their own setups. > > JG > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Peter Haidinyak [mailto:phaidin...@local.com] >> Sent: Monday, February 07, 2011 11:25 AM >> To: user@hbase.apache.org >> Subject: Amazon EC2 >> >> Hi, >> We are looking at moving our cluster to Amazon's EC2 solution. Has >> anybody out there already done this or tried and would you have any >> recommendations/warning? >> >> Thanks >> >> -Pete >
