sl4shd0t
03-27-2008, 05:28 PM
For months now, I've been geeked about Amazon's EC2 as a web hosting service. But until today, in my opinion, it wasn't ready for prime time. Now it is, for two reasons. One, you can get static IPs, so if an outward-facing VM goes down you can quickly start another one and point your site's traffic to it without waiting for DNS propagation. And two, you can now separate your VMs into "physically distinct, independent infrastructure" zones, so you can plan to keep your site up if a tornado takes out one NOC. If I were developing a new website I'd host it there; buying or leasing real hardware for a startup seems silly. If you have questions, or especially if you know something about other companies' virtual hosting options, post comments -- let's compare notes.Read more of this story (http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/03/27/1515241&from=rss) at Slashdot.
http://rss.slashdot.org/~a/Slashdot/slashdotDevelopers?i=CYs361</img> (http://rss.slashdot.org/~a/Slashdot/slashdotDevelopers?a=CYs361)
http://rss.slashdot.org/~r/Slashdot/slashdotDevelopers/~4/259098202
More... (http://rss.slashdot.org/~r/Slashdot/slashdotDevelopers/~3/259098202/article.pl)
http://rss.slashdot.org/~a/Slashdot/slashdotDevelopers?i=CYs361</img> (http://rss.slashdot.org/~a/Slashdot/slashdotDevelopers?a=CYs361)
http://rss.slashdot.org/~r/Slashdot/slashdotDevelopers/~4/259098202
More... (http://rss.slashdot.org/~r/Slashdot/slashdotDevelopers/~3/259098202/article.pl)