David Chappell

  • September 2020
  • November 2017
  • April 2017
  • October 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • August 2015
  • April 2015
  • December 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007
  • January 2007
  • December 2006
  • November 2006
  • October 2006
  • September 2006
  • August 2006
  • July 2006
  • June 2006
  • May 2006
  • April 2006
  • March 2006
  • February 2006
  • January 2006
  • December 2005
  • November 2005
  • October 2005
  • September 2005
  • August 2005
  • July 2005
  • June 2005
  • May 2005
  • April 2005
  • March 2005
  • February 2005
  • January 2005
  • December 2004
  • November 2004
  • October 2004
  • September 2004
  • August 2004
  • July 2004
  • June 2004
  • May 2004
  • April 2004
  • March 2004
  • February 2004
  • January 2004
  • December 2003

Opinari

Get the Feed! Subscribe

Amazon Reserved Instances and Cloud Capacity Planning  
# Saturday, March 21, 2009
 
Amazon's announcement of discounted pricing for EC2 customers who make long-term commitments is welcome news. Cheaper is better.

One way to look at this change is to see it solely as a price reduction, something focused on addressing customer concerns. But adding reservations also addresses Amazon's own concerns.

Here's the issue: Customers want to see EC2 and similar public cloud platforms as an infinite pool of compute resources. Rather than building out your own data center to handle peak loads, you can instead count on your cloud provider always to have enough capacity. The providers themselves encourage this view, since it's one of their strongest economic arguments.

But can a cloud platform really provide infinite compute resources? Of course not. Relying on a cloud provider for peak computing resources doesn't make the capacity planning problem go away: It just moves it out of your data center and into the cloud. And the people who run cloud data centers now face this problem in a big way. As more firms depend on them, they need to predict more accurately what their aggregate demand will be.

With the original EC2 approach of VMs on demand, this is essentially impossible. While a cloud capacity planner might make some inferences based on previous demand, number of new customers, and other variables, accurately predicting the future is tough when anybody can request a bunch of new VMs with no warning.

Reservations make it easier. By knowing more up front about a customer's likely usage, cloud platform planners can make better decisions. Since having too much capacity hurts the cloud provider's profits, while not having enough capacity at times of heavy demand is really bad for business, knowledge about future usage has enormous value.

So yes, Amazon is lowering prices. At the same time, though, they're improving their own ability to make intelligent investments in their business.

As the innovator, Amazon is once again defining our expectations about what a public cloud platform is and how it should be priced. Because reservations are so valuable to the people who run a cloud platform, expect the idea to spread.


1 comments :: Post a Comment

 


Comments:

Yes agreed but I did an analysis of a recent posting in January09 by Chris Fleck's Blog on AWS reserve instance. It appears the economic value are only applicable to certain low to medium usage workloads which from the scenario case study appear to be around the intermittent loads of 8 hours or less per day. The 24x7x365 3 year example is still expensive relative to purchase cost for predictable loads. The hybrid burst scenario is much more compelling economically giving results that suggest a lower cost than a on-premise purchase. This is predicated with a switch capability to be able to put variable loads into to the cloud. I believe the Microsoft Azure model does this and is looking equally very compelling potentially.

The threshold of buist (both over capacity or selected on-demand capacity) I have coined "the economic click barrier" to cloud computer CAP and OPex adoption. There is also another clock barrier the absolute cost of OPex versus purchase cost on-premise which is where the cost of a short temr Dev/test environment is far cheaper in a cloud scenario by the order of 1:50 or more such as a 4 week project using a high end CPU server configuration capacity for just 40 hours x 4 weeks approx to $600 only.

BTW really enjoyed the Feb 09 white paper publication on Microsoft Azure, excellent document.

Best Regards
Mark Skilton
Cloud Computing Evangelist, CSC
 

Post a Comment


<< Home