By bloid
via electricmonk.nl
Published: Jun 24 2008 / 08:18
Recently a new 'hype' has been popping up, namely Amazon's S3 and Google App Engine. For those who don't know, S3 and App Engine are basically hosting facilities for web applications which run, and data that's stored, remotely on Amazon or Google's infrastructure. This allows you to benefit from the huge and reasonably super-scaling architectures that these companies have built.
Comments
clickpass.com/public/vbfischer replied ago:
Except I think the author meant EC2, not S3.. S3 is Amazon's storage service. EC2 is the cloud computing service.
,
Rob Signorelli replied ago:
I understand the argument of wanting to avoid vendor lockin for the sake of being able to have swappable components. But reality and experience just leaves this as a flimsy argument. The most unswappable aspect of google's app engine is the database layer... okay. Most shops don't swap that out -- ever. If it makes you sleep better at night to know that you can swap out one database vendor for another, have at it, but for most companies investing too much engineering into abstracting the database layer yields absolutely nothing in practice.
mheath replied ago:
The author's clear misunderstanding of AWS (mixing EC2 and S3) prevents me from lending any credence to this post.
The author's arguments are weak at best. You can still use EC2 and not be tied to Amazon's architecture. You can still use EC2 and not be tied to S3. Additionally, S3 is just as black of a box as Oracle or SQL Server.
Voters For This Link (10)
Voters Against This Link (4)