Server Fault is a question and answer site for system and network administrators. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I am new to Amazon Web Services, and I have read the documentation about the AWS products. The closest products to meet my needs is EC2 and S3.

What I want to do is, I need to host some php files and a single MySql database. Its not a website, I just need a host(instance). My php files are not very heavy, and so for the database.

I am not sure if I should use EC2 or S3, any advice?

share|improve this question

closed as not a real question by Chris S, gravyface, Ben Pilbrow, Scott Pack, Chopper3 Feb 28 '11 at 15:34

It's difficult to tell what is being asked here. This question is ambiguous, vague, incomplete, overly broad, or rhetorical and cannot be reasonably answered in its current form. For help clarifying this question so that it can be reopened, visit the help center.If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

What good are PHP files without a HTTPd? – Chris S Feb 28 '11 at 2:56
Hmm.. I use for games. The games need to connect database. Well, I believe, I will need to create a website for the games, but, not for now, I am focus more on the game engine. – cloudff7 Feb 28 '11 at 3:04

S3 is for data storage only. You cannot run any sort of processes on S3. As such, you'll need at least one EC2 instance on which you'll run your database and webserver. The EC2 instance will also hold your php files, you could possibly use S3 for storing your static files, though.

share|improve this answer
Thanks ErikA, I was hesitated because the sample that I can only find in aws for php is S3. – cloudff7 Feb 28 '11 at 3:05
If you don't need the scalability/flexibility that AWS gives you, I may recommend going with a more "simple" VPS provider like Slicehost, Linode, or any number of others that are out there. You'll likely have a better experience by doing this. Not that AWS gives bad service, it's just quite a bit more complicated and it's not really targeted at simple web hosting. – EEAA Feb 28 '11 at 3:16

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.