Which AWS EC2 Instance w. Windows to run Lucee?

dev google-group-archive
1

Hi, which AWS EC2 instance would you recommend to run lucee in Windows? AS database i will usw AWS RDS with SQL server.
t2.micro (1GB) 250 USD/3 years
t2.small (2GB) 488 USD/3 years
t2.medium (4GB) 974 USD/3 years

Is the small instance the sweet spot?
Regards
Thorsten

2

“It Depends”.

Seriously though. It depends. How much traffic? How big an app? etc etc.

Just as a side note, if you don’t need to run MSSQL on the box (i.e you’re
using RDS) then you could run *nix and save a bit on the licencing.
Also, if you know you’re going the AWS route, then you can buy reserved
instances which will lower you $ per hour.
Personally I use Elasticbeanstalk tomcat container, which spawns EC2
instances (micro) on demand behind a load balancer, then a bog standard RDS
mySQL instance across multiple availability zones. Works for me.

TOn Monday, 27 April 2015 14:44:32 UTC+1, thorste...@googlemail.com wrote:

Hi, which AWS EC2 instance would you recommend to run lucee in Windows? AS
database i will usw AWS RDS with SQL server.
t2.micro (1GB) 250 USD/3 years
t2.small (2GB) 488 USD/3 years
t2.medium (4GB) 974 USD/3 years

Is the small instance the sweet spot?
Regards
Thorsten

3

3 year instances aren’t going to help you if you need to grow.

Let’s say your 1GB or 2GB EC2 instance works now, but in 1 year you need
twice that, that investment you just made is now worthless as the reserved
instance won’t apply for 4GB instance.
If you’re expecting to scale at some point, you’re better off going behind
a load balancer and then adding lots of smaller instances (where investing
in reserved instances makes more sense).

TOn Monday, 27 April 2015 16:07:44 UTC+1, thorste...@googlemail.com wrote:

Hi Tom, it’s just a launching APP. So in the beginning few traffic. But i
don’t like the hassle to migrate every few months if it will grow. The
prices are already for 3 year reserved instances.
My knowledge on Linux is not that good. It’s a shame.
Maybe going to profitbricks. Cheaper but would have to run my own SQL
server.

4

We have used all three of those, and like Tom said, it really depends - but
dont underestimate how memory hungry windows server is. We have ended up
with the t2.mediums as our lowest size because of the two cpus and 4gb of
ram - configured lucee to take 2.5 gb. The smaller ones really arent
enough ram for anything but the smallest/low use applications.

If you dont have to use windows, save yourself a lot of money.On Monday, April 27, 2015 at 8:44:32 AM UTC-5, thorste...@googlemail.com wrote:

Hi, which AWS EC2 instance would you recommend to run lucee in Windows? AS
database i will usw AWS RDS with SQL server.
t2.micro (1GB) 250 USD/3 years
t2.small (2GB) 488 USD/3 years
t2.medium (4GB) 974 USD/3 years

Is the small instance the sweet spot?
Regards
Thorsten

5

Hi Tom, it’s just a launching APP. So in the beginning few traffic. But i don’t like the hassle to migrate every few months if it will grow. The prices are already for 3 year reserved instances.
My knowledge on Linux is not that good. It’s a shame.
Maybe going to profitbricks. Cheaper but would have to run my own SQL server.

6

If possible, I would recommend starting with Linux t2.small and MySQL RDS,
you will save some significant $ opting for open source and once you start
needing to scale, the savings (or alternatively, license costs) will
multiply. Start with on demand instances and once you finally work out
(after load testing) which instances suit you best, you can use 1 year
reserved instances for a good balance of savings and flexibility,

Also consider using AWS Elastic Beanstalk Tomcat containers, they make
autoscaling and deployment a snap.On Monday, April 27, 2015 at 11:44:32 PM UTC+10, thorste...@googlemail.com wrote:

Hi, which AWS EC2 instance would you recommend to run lucee in Windows? AS
database i will usw AWS RDS with SQL server.
t2.micro (1GB) 250 USD/3 years
t2.small (2GB) 488 USD/3 years
t2.medium (4GB) 974 USD/3 years

Is the small instance the sweet spot?
Regards
Thorsten

7

If you’re looking to use windows, then take a wide birth on AWS, and head to Azure, then understand the pricing models as you can save up to 80% off the rack rates by choosing the right machines and other discounts based on how many machines you have (aka available via a partner), and should be around 20% cheaper than AWS.

The advice on how memory hungry windows is is horrific and completely wrong and embarrassing to be honest that linux fanbois are so out of touch with tech.

We run windows 2016 container scale sets with lucee, and spin up windows instances (about 6 seconds to spin up 5 instances to serving traffic and scalesets are automatically under a load balancer so no configuration needed)… and for pricing… dirt cheap and way cheaper than windows on AWS #fail

We find no performance difference between windows and linux for lucee on windows containers vs ubuntu.

Personally we chose MSSQL has more advanced features than RDS or mysql so we went that option as the features meant we had performance gains on the db side. Also having R as part of MSSQL means we can use relational and nosql in a single query with performance, as well as having json output from queries.

If you need to know what VM types and sizes to use, hit me up, but as a general rule B-series are great for burstable instances and F series are great for heavy processing sites (remember vm types on Azure have different cpu, ram and network speeds)

btw you could run nanoserver on any of those instance sizes (t2.micro (1GB) 250 USD/3 years,
t2.small (2GB) 488 USD/3 years, t2.medium (4GB) 974 USD/3 years) with no issues. In the end the deciding factor is more lucee/tomcat when it comes to performance in my experience on smaller machines.

8

With AWS… you’re also not going to get any value out of long term deals with smaller plans anyway… maybe $50 over a year… azure have better incremental steps, but you need the right enterprise deal to get same pricing as AWS.

I’d get t3 (not t2 or t3a) series… best bang for the money. t3 has way faster bandwidth than t2 and faster and more burstable processor than t3a. Also think about potentially load balancing two t3.small’s instead of getting a t3 medium… that way you’re getting more isolation also.

We’ve just moved our AWS systems model to scale horizontally, rather than upping machines sizes, that way we can put in SPOT instances as scale up and save a tonne of money due to spot prices (around 70% cheaper we’ve found as our app runs hot at nights and weekends when enterprise is offpeak = #sweet), then we have non-spot instances for base load.

9

I would first ask yourself, what does Windows do that Linux does not do, and why you need it.

If there is certain technical reasons to pick IIS and or Windows OS, then go with it. However, if it just a training issue, then you should do what over 70 percent of the planet does and run a *NIX derivative.

As for cloud providers, AWS & Azure, Rackspace, Softlayer(IBM CLOUD) and others all offer competitive cloud services platforms.

You should choose which service and provider best offers the products and services at the prices that align with your budget.

Keep in mind that memory demands on Windows is eight to thirty times more than similar software processes on linux.

1 Like
10

70% of ‘websites’, not webserver bro… out of top 1M websites.

Just for the record: 70% of servers ‘do not’ run linux. in fact around 73% of the world’s servers installed in 2019 are Windows, not that what ‘websites’ run should ever factor in web application server choice. They are two different segments with different requirements, that crossover in some small areas.

Read…

services like iCloud run on windows (on azure), the UK stock exchange runs on windows and sql server, these are way larger than anything anyone here is running btw… os is not a given, and it’s not a trivial decision.

There is a lot of reasons to go with windows, and a lot of reasons to go with linux, there is no ‘hands down winner’… also there is a lot of reasons to go with apache and others for nginx or iis also. Each is great at different things.

When we tested server core 2019 vs ubuntu with lucee, NEITHER came out faster with our apps, even with load testing, an they used almost exactly the same resources, so on azure we’re running window core 2019 and on aws we’re running centos (as AWS is horrible at optimising windows)

I could go on in depth about the pros and cons of each platform, and like wise the pros and cons of mssql over mysql (on windows or linux) but at the end of the day the forumla is simple. It’s not based around fanboi comments, but real tangibles.

You should choose based on 1) Talent 2) colo/vps/Cloud provider (all valid options) 3) Licencing - remember the most expensive part of your website is your developers, not your licencing.

11

Interesting, I would never expect so. Somehow in this article all the links to the sources shows an 404 pages not found. Can’t find any other reliable source about that topic. Really strange.

12

I think that’s because the article is more than 10 years old. It cites a study from 2009!

13

Netcraft keeps track of these stats.

IIS is only around 15.5 percent. The rest is some kind of *NX based os.