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: 368
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