Infrastructure as a Service: Benchmarking Cloud Computingby Johan De Gelas on June 2, 2011 8:50 PM EST
- Posted in
- IT Computing
- IT Computing general
- Cloud Computing
Finding a Home for Your Website
Building and deploying a heavy duty web service from the ground up is a long and costly process. At the IT section of AnandTech, we mostly focus on the fun part of the process: choosing and buying a server. However, there is much more to it. Designing the software and taking care of cooling, networking, security, availability, patching and performance is a lot of work. Add all these time investments to the CAPEX investments in your server and it is clear that doing everything yourself is a huge financial risk.
These days, almost everybody outsources a part of this process. The most basic form is collocation: you rely on a hosting provider to provide the internet bandwidth and access, the electricity, and the rack space; you take control of rest of the process. A few steps higher is unmanaged dedicated hosting services. The hosting provider takes care of all the hardware and networking. You get full administrative access to the server (for example root access for Linux), which means the client is responsible for the security and maintenance of his own dedicated box.
The next step is to outsource that part too. With managed hosting services you won’t get full control, but the hosting provider takes care of almost everything: you only have to worry about the look and content of your web service. The Service Level Agreement (SLA) guarantees the quality of service that you get.
The problem with managed and unmanaged hosting services is that they are in many cases too restrictive and don't offer enough control. If performance is lacking, for example, the hosting provider often points to the software configuration while the customer feels that the hardware and network might be the problem. It is also quite expensive to enable the web server to scale to handle peak loads, and high availability may come at a premium.
Enter cloud hosting. Many feel that cloud computing is just old wine in new bottles, but cloud hosting is an interesting evolution. A good cloud hosting starts by building on a clustered hosting solution: instead of relying on one server, we get the high availability and the load balancing capabilities of a complete virtualized cluster.
Virtualization allows the management software to carve up the cluster any way the customers like--choose the number of CPUs, RAM and storage that you want and make your own customized server; if you need more resources for a brief period, the cluster can provide this in a few seconds and you only pay for the time that you actually use this extra capacity. Best of all, cloud hosting allows you to set up a new server in less than an hour. Cloud hosting, or Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS), is definitely something new. Technically it is evolutionary, but from the customer point of view it offers a kind of flexibility that is revolutionary.
There is a downside to the whole cloud IaaS solution: most of the information about the subject is so vague and fluffy that it is nearly useless. What exactly are you getting when you start up an Amazon Instance or your own cloud at the Terremark Enterprise Cloud?
As always, we don’t care much about the marketing fluff; we're more interested in benchmarking in true AnandTech style. We want to know what kind of performance we get when we buy a certain amount of resources. Renting 5GB of RAM is pretty straightforward: it means that our applications should be able to use up to 5GB of RAM space. But what about 5GHz--what does that mean? Is that 5GHz of nostalgic Pentium goodness; or is it 5GHz of the newest complex, out-of-order, integrated memory controller, 1 billion transistor CPU monsters? We hope to provide some answers with our investigations.
Post Your CommentPlease log in or sign up to comment.
View All Comments
Mxlasm - Friday, June 3, 2011 - linkThis question is probably not to Anand but to some fellow readers who may wish to educate the uneducated :)
In the setup descibed, can one virtual computer/OS span many physical systems? Can someone please point me to a good (wiki?) article about how that is done? There are many text about the subject of virtualization in general, but hard to nail some specific questions.
Also, how many cores max can one virtual system get? Or, in other words, if the physical system has so many cores, can you request more cores, and how can your virtual system can be efficiently scaled up if you are already reaching the max of one physical server?
bobbozzo - Saturday, June 4, 2011 - linkCurrently, a single virtual server cannot span more than one physical server, BUT VMs can be MIGRATED between multiple physical servers in case one physical server is too busy or is failing.
You can pretend you have more cores than you really do by limiting the GHz for each VM, or possibly by just over-allocating VMs and hoping they don't all get busy at once.
Regardless, if the server is maxed out, all you can do to get more performance is to migrate VMs to another server.
HMTK - Monday, June 6, 2011 - linkvSphere can currently use 6 or 12 CPU CORES (HT does not count as a core) per physical CPU. The exact number is determined by licensing. If you want to use 12 cores be prepared to pay a lot. Personally I think this is idiotic and hopefully VMware changes this in vSphere 5 later this year.
VM's can use 4 or 8 vCPU's with 8 vCPU's limited to the expensive Enterprise Plus SKU.
Kid98 - Sunday, June 5, 2011 - linkYou don't have to look very hard to find others with similar solutions. (cloudshare.com is one)
Seems a bit like Terremark is being presented as the premier choice. How can that be ascertained without comparison to others?
sushanthr77 - Tuesday, June 7, 2011 - linkThanks for the excellent article. Most articles about cloud are too vague and dwell into the abstracts that the details. This was well structured and presented.
ProDigit - Sunday, June 12, 2011 - linkI find cloud computing nothing more than taking a bus or train in public transport!
The caveats are more than the benefits. There's nothing like having your own vehicle to drive!
So with computing!
Have your own hardware, and don't depend on your internet connection to provide what hardware should!
vinaywagh - Wednesday, June 29, 2011 - linkI enjoyed reading this article. But what it lacks is a cost benefit analysis. If I were to setup a small datacenter today, I would need to hire IT engineers and pay for the power and space for it which would cost me $x. What I want to know is to get the same performance as the local server, what would it cost me to move it to the cloud ?
vlang :: crmhelpdesksoftware.com - Wednesday, September 21, 2011 - linkThank you for details re Terremark from your perspective.
ShirleyBurnell - Friday, September 20, 2019 - linkThanks for writing this awesome post on cloud computing. The way you discussed the cloud hosting and how the managed and unmanaged hosting services differs from each other is simply great. What I think is that, you must have pointed out the best option according to you in that case.
For me, I have used both managed and unmanaged hosting google hosting service and I consider managed one over the un-managed hosting. I have been using Google GCE hosting server managed by Cloudways for last 2 years and it has really helped me in bringing down my hosting expenses.