EC2 persistence of machine

Posted by Seagull on Server Fault See other posts from Server Fault or by Seagull
Published on 2010-05-02T20:18:11Z Indexed on 2010/05/03 23:59 UTC
Read the original article Hit count: 341

I notice that EBS-backed AMIs are much like a VMWare instances -- I can stop them and also persist them to disk, and all this is done relatively quickly.

However, I believe that S3 backed machines are different. They cannot be 'stopped', but rather can only be shut-down, written to S3 disk and started up again; with at least a 15 min delay in doing so.

Why the difference? How do AMI providers decide whether to use EBS or S3? If I need to stop/persist/restart machines relatively frequently, then I am implicitly limited to just the EBS-backed machines?

© Server Fault or respective owner

Related posts about amazon-s3

Related posts about amazon-ec2