hadoop-common-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Edward Capriolo <edlinuxg...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Hadoop on physical Machines compared to Amazon Ec2 / virtual machines
Date Thu, 31 May 2012 19:22:15 GMT
We actually were in an Amazon/host it yourself debate with someone.
Which prompted us to do some calculations:

http://www.edwardcapriolo.com/roller/edwardcapriolo/entry/myth_busters_ops_editition_is

We calculated the cost for storage alone of 300 TB on ec2 as 585K a month!

The cloud people hate hearing facts like this with staggering $
values. They also do not like hearing how a $35 dollar a month
physical server at Joe's datacenter is much better then an equivilent
cloud machine.

http://blog.carlmercier.com/2012/01/05/ec2-is-basically-one-big-ripoff/

When you bring these facts the go-to-move is go-buzzword with phrases
"cost of system admin", "elastic", "up front initial costs".

I will say that Amazons EMR service is pretty cool and their is
something to it, but the cost of storage and good performance is off
the scale for me.


On 5/31/12, Mathias Herberts <mathias.herberts@gmail.com> wrote:
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but the sole cost of storing 300TB on AWS
> will account for roughly 300000*0.10*12 = 360000 USD per annum.
>
> We operate a cluster with 112 nodes offering 800+ TB of raw HDFS
> capacity and the CAPEX was less than 700k USD, if you ask me there is
> no comparison possible if you have the datacenter space to host your
> machines.
>
> Do you really need 10Gbe? We're quite happy with 1Gbe will no
> over-subscription.
>
> Mathias.
>

Mime
View raw message