Take the 2-minute tour ×
Server Fault is a question and answer site for professional system and network administrators. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I have a little experience with Amazon EC2 and setting up a free micro instance

and I started thinking about other sites I own on traditional web hosting, where you pay X/month, don't really market for traffic and just show clients that you have a presence on the web.

Would EC2 be 'better' for that since the micro-instance is free until you get traffic?

share|improve this question

1 Answer 1

up vote 2 down vote accepted
  1. Have in mind, that micro instances does not have the same performance all the time. http://docs.amazonwebservices.com/AWSEC2/latest/UserGuide/concepts_micro_instances.html
  2. Amazon gives you for free only 30GB of space for all system.
  3. It's not service, so any instance shutdown means inaccessibility of your services.
  4. It's like VPS, you have to take care of machine and set all things by yourself.
share|improve this answer
    
I thought micro instances don't shutdown unless you shut them down. I was thinking small simple sites with no functionality outside of hardcoded html and css could benefit –  CQM May 16 '12 at 12:12
3  
If you're looking at static html and css, then take a look at using S3 instead of EC2 instances. –  Matt Houser May 16 '12 at 12:31
    
okay, they have free tier as well? –  CQM May 16 '12 at 12:34
    
It's true, but I have experienced an about one-hour-shutdown with no reason from Amazon. Probably hardware issue. @UP: free tier: aws.amazon.com/free –  krogon May 16 '12 at 12:39

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

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