Why do people use traditional hosting services instead of cloud services like Amazon which they can dynamically scale when it goes viral ?
Ask HN: Why don't people use cloud and then cry when their site goes viral?
1–5 of 5 posts
Re: Ask HN: Why don't people use cloud and then cry when their site goes viral?
#2New year, new trolls. Honestly, i was surpriser to find this on the front page. I would say that the target market of hacker news is not surprised nor complains when their site goes viral.
Re: Ask HN: Why don't people use cloud and then cry when their site goes viral?
#3[deleted]
Re: Ask HN: Why don't people use cloud and then cry when their site goes viral?
#4Cost, control, certainty, per-machine performance, simplicity.
You don't get "dynamically scale" for free just by using Amazon. So if you aren't going to put the up-front investment into building your system so it can scale quickly then it frequently doesn't make sense to use amazon as it is more expensive.
Further, EC2 has a lot of uncool attributes, like low and inconsistent IO throughput both from machine to machine and to EBS, certain limits about the network configurations, and the fact that you have to go the "let it fail" route instead of trying to just have redundancy within a machine. "Let it fail" works for certain kinds of workloads and architectures and requires more complex software.
Re: Ask HN: Why don't people use cloud and then cry when their site goes viral?
#5New year, new trolls. Honestly, i was surpriser to find this on the front page. I would say that the target market of hacker news is not surprised nor complains when their site goes viral.
I think he's referring the the 3 words creator, that posted recently that his site went viral. He was using cloud hosting from my understanding ( rackspace ). I don't think he understood to just should of just pay for a larger instance.