The Problem With S3,EC2, and Web Hosting
Sunday, November 12th, 2006
Update: It looks like EC2 data persistence worked a little different to the way I understood it. Apparently you can reboot instances and not lose anything, but you will lose everything if you terminate the instance. Fair enough. But, the concern then appears to be that if your box crashes, you can’t reboot and can only terminate or possibly get an admin to manually reboot the box. There’s a nice thread here if you’re interested.
There is clearly a lot of interest in using S3 as a web hosting service, and particularly in combination with EC2. Unfortunately it doesn’t work yet, and here’s why…
S3 is Amazon’s simple storage service which is a geographically distributed storage grid. The nice thing about this service is that it’s inexpensive (pay per use), fault tolerant, and provides great performance. The huge problem with this service as a web host is that it really is very simple. Not simple to use however, it’s complicated, but simple as in stupid. Why? Well, you don’t have access to things you take for granted with web hosting like default index files, mod_rewrite, auto compression for gzip/deflate requests.
I was using S3 for serving my static assets. I decided to switch to a simple shared host because I had to serve a 220K javascript asset uncompressed, compared to the 56K compressed equivalent.
The pro S3 web hosters at this point chime in with, “just stick it behind a web server, EC2 *wink* *wink*, and perform redirects”.
OK, so take the hint and stick is behind EC2, now you’re paying a minimum of $72 a month and it’s no longer an inexpensive service. You also need to start compiling Linux images for EC2 – but all I want to do is push static assets like HTML, CSS, JS, and Images! Ignore the hint to throw S3 behind EC2 and throw it behind a web server elsewhere, but there goes your fault tolerance advantage!
So why not just ignore S3 and simply use EC2 for your web hosting needs? Well, EC2 requires a Linux image – a bit complicated for my time constrained mind at the moment, and worst of all, EC2 does not provide persistent storage because that’s what S3 is for! If your EC2 crashes, or you bring it down for some reason then all the data stored on the box is gone (really, it’s in the FAQ).
S3 and EC2 are a couple of really interesting products. I really like the way Amazon is supplying Internet infrastructure. S3 and EC2 are just not built for web hosting right now. The uses I’m hearing for S3 and EC2 is mostly for testing environments, or as an external backup system. I’m sure other services will build on what’s already there and a great hosting platform will be created, but for now things just don’t fit right, so no thanks.
