Comments on: Why I chose The Rackspace Cloud over AWS

By: David Schott

David Schott — Fri, 23 Apr 2010 03:20:52 +0000

Thanks Tony. You helped me decide which hosting company to go with.

By: Brad Schick

Brad Schick — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 06:38:30 +0000

Another perspective on Amazon EC2 versus Rackspace CS:

http://blog.schicks.net/2009/rackspace-vs-amazon/

I find that RSC’s “directly attached and persistent” storage is actually a mixed blessing as currently implemented.

By: Tony Primerano

Tony Primerano — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 00:16:07 +0000

Creating and cloning images is easier on Rackspace than on AWS but at the moment they can not be shared between accounts but that is changing soon.

Once you get a machine setup how you like it you click backup from the web interface to create a snapshot image of the machine. Then you can use that image to restore that machine or use it to create a new instance.

By: wik

wik — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 23:43:58 +0000

rackcloud servers looks exactly like VPS I am currently using from vpslink.com, but cheapest due to flexible traffic rates only

btw, is it possible to build custom OS images with rackspace?
From running system or from the scratch? Or maybe cloning existent instance when new needed? I have interest in such feature…

Thanks.

By: Tony Primerano

Tony Primerano — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 14:02:16 +0000

yes I could put several of my servers on a single 2GB host but I like to decouple my system as much as possible. If I had one host and it went down I’d be in big trouble. As it is if my DB host goes down several things no longer work but there are a few services that I offer that will continue to operate normally as they don’t depend on the database.

By: Tom Hubbard

Tom Hubbard — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 11:47:44 +0000

Great points, Tony. But do you really need to be running several 256MB servers, or is there some way that you could consolidate apps onto a single 2GB host?

I do agree that EC2 is a bit difficult to set up initially.

By: Tony Primerano

Tony Primerano — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 14:26:17 +0000

Hey Tom, Thanks for EC2 information. I agree EC2 is cheaper if you are running the equivalent of small EC2 instances but for a majority of my servers I am using 256 and 512MB instances with very little bandwidth. Rackspace is currently saving me a lot of money over AWS but I may move some servers to EC2 in the future if it saves me money.

The issue with the EC2 “small instance” is that is it pretty large. Maybe they need Mini and Micro instances. I also would be willing to pay a little more for Rackspace as their 1 click backup is much easier than EC2 (last time I checked).

By: Tom Hubbard

Tom Hubbard — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 01:31:34 +0000

EC2 is much cheaper, especially if you get a reserved instance.

With a reserved instance you can get $0.05/hour. Compare that to what a comparable RackSpace instance costs: $0.12/hour . Also EC2 bandwidth out is $0.17/GB and RackSpace is $0.22/GB . Those are significant differences that go directly to the bottom line.

Tom Hubbard
804-767-1744

By: Derek Gathright

Derek Gathright — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 02:56:46 +0000

Exact same situation here. Started with EC2 and used it for about a year, loved it, but wanted something cheaper. Then I looked at Slicehost, realized I use little bandwidth and settled with Rackspace Cloud Servers for personal projects. The price for what you get is incredible. Scaling is super easy. You get a really nice control panel. I’ve gone from recommending EC2 for projects at work (with little luck because of cost) to using RSC because cost isn’t even an issue. EC2 is such a nightmare when it comes to backing up & cloning when you compare it to Rackspace Cloud. Excellent product. Kudos Rackspace.

By: Erik Carlin

Erik Carlin — Sun, 06 Sep 2009 22:43:35 +0000

Tony,

Absolutely. It would likely be a “cap” flag you could turn on/off and default would be off.

Erik