-1

We are considering hosting our web sites on amazon aws, so that they can scale on-demand. Currently we host in the region of 500 web sites on multi-tenanted servers, but we want to move away from this architecture and have at least 1 server per website. It appears that amazon aws has a limit of 5 ip addresses per account, so we would not be able to have a unique public ip address for each site, which is fair enough considering the shortage of ipv4 addresses.

So the next thought that comes to mind is to host each web site as an application on elastic beanstalk, but it seems there is a limit of 75 applications per account, so I guess this is not an option either. Amazon say you can request more, but would they really agree to allow us to have 425 more?

The next thought that comes to mind is to use an amazon application load balancer. Apparently you can have 50 listeners and each of these listeners can have an ssl certificate and can be routed to a specific ec2 instance, so we could have www.site1.co.uk map to one ec2 server and www.site2.co.uk map to another ec2 server etc. However I have read that you can only have 20 ec2 servers per account, so I guess we would not be able to host our web sites like this either? Amazon say you can requrest more ec2 instances, but would they really agree to allow us to have 480 more?

So what options do we have on amazon aws? (Bearing in mind that we do not want to have multi-tenanted servers). Does anyone here have experience of running hundreds of separate web sites on amazon aws?

Many thanks in advance for any advice that you can offer.

  • 2
    Amazon will happily lift those limits for you. In virtually all cases, they exist to protect new users from accidentally spending a million dollars and complaining to support about it. – ceejayoz Sep 20 '17 at 20:07
  • 4
    Why don't you want multi-tenanted servers? You can get MUCH better utilization and lower costs if you combine. Docker containers could help with isolation, but might be too much trouble. If you just want to run a bunch of servers, no problem, AWS will raise any limit you like to let you spend money - and it will be a fair whack of money with as many servers and as much disk as you're likely to want. 500 t2.small servers with 20GB SSD and say 5TB/month of outbound traffic is around $10K/month. – Tim Sep 20 '17 at 20:13
0

At my current place of employment, we are hosting 3000+ sites from a single elastic IP. I'm not suggesting that is a great idea, but it is something you can do.

You can circumvent the AWS resource limits by opening several accounts. Be aware that you will then lose the benefits of volume pricing. Also, it would make for a management nightmare.

Please consider that if you are running up against resource limitations in a service that hosts Netflix, perhaps your ideas about architecture are bad.

If you really need isolated tenancy, use containers. I'm 100% that sure all 500 of your sites would run happily together on a single m4.16xlarge instance. Even containerized.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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