Bump default instance type parameters #6

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Oct 23, 2012

Projects

None yet

8 participants

@gholms
Member
gholms commented Oct 8, 2012

The default parameters for instance types are far too small for modern
hardware and software. This commit bumps them to the following values:

  • m1.small: 1 CPU, 5 GB disk, 512 MB RAM
  • c1.medium: 2 CPUs, 10 GB disk, 512 MB RAM
  • m1.large: 2 CPUs, 15 GB disk, 1024 MB RAM
  • m1.xlarge: 2 CPUs, 20 GB disk, 2048 MB RAM
  • c1.xlarge: 4 CPUs, 20 GB disk, 4096 MB RAM
@gholms gholms Bump default instance type parameters
The default parameters for instance types are far too small for modern
hardware and software.  This commit bumps them to the following values:

 - m1.small:  1 CPU,   5 GB disk,  512 MB RAM
 - c1.medium: 2 CPUs, 10 GB disk,  512 MB RAM
 - m1.large:  2 CPUs, 15 GB disk, 1024 MB RAM
 - m1.xlarge: 2 CPUs, 20 GB disk, 2048 MB RAM
 - c1.xlarge: 4 CPUs, 20 GB disk, 4096 MB RAM
ca89b13
@gholms
Member
gholms commented Oct 8, 2012

These instance types are still smaller than EC2's, but this is mainly due to the fact that EC2's smallest instance type has 0 instance storage, which Eucalyptus doesn't support, and the next smallest instance type has 160 GB of instance storage, which I suspect is larger than most users are going to want as a minimum.

@a13m
Contributor
a13m commented Oct 8, 2012

I certainly agree with bumping the RAM in the smallest types to 512, as well as bumping the disk up to 5 GB. I'm not sure about the rationale of a couple of the choices, though, such as the 15 GB disk size for m1.large. I don't want to hold up a useful usability change by splitting hairs, but could you elaborate on these choices a little bit? Why not have higher RAM limits ? In general, I think RAM : CPU core ratios are a bit higher these days than what these numbers allow.

Also, FWIW, this issue was raised here: https://eucalyptus.atlassian.net/browse/EUCA-595

@JMoLo
Contributor
JMoLo commented Oct 8, 2012

this may be a really dumb question, but has anyone talked to actual users
about what they would want for these definitions?

:)

J.Lo

On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 3:27 PM, Andy Grimm notifications@github.com wrote:

I certainly agree with bumping the RAM in the smallest types to 512, as
well as bumping the disk up to 5 GB. I'm not sure about the rationale of a
couple of the choices, though, such as the 15 GB disk size for m1.large. I
don't want to hold up a useful usability change by splitting hairs, but
could you elaborate on these choices a little bit? Why not have higher RAM
limits ? In general, I think RAM : CPU core ratios are a bit higher these
days than what these numbers allow.

Also, FWIW, this issue was raised here:
https://eucalyptus.atlassian.net/browse/EUCA-595


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/eucalyptus/eucalyptus/pull/6#issuecomment-9242533.


*Jenny Loza - *Principal User Experience Architect

Eucalyptus Systems

www.eucalyptus.com

+1 512-496-1236

Follow us on Twitter http://twitter.com/#!/eucalyptuscloud

Like our Facebook
Pagehttp://www.facebook.com/pages/Eucalyptus-Systems-Inc/164828240204708

Keep up-to-date with
ushttp://go.eucalyptus.com/Sign-Up-for-Cloud-Computing-News.html?Offer=Other&OfferDetails=Sign%20Up%20for%20Cloud%20Computing%20News&LeadSourceDetails=Eucalyptus%20Website&OfferURL=http%3A%2F%2Fgo.eucalyptus.com%2FSign-Up-for-Cloud-Computing-News.html


@rudygodoy

Here's a 2009's RightScale report that among other interesting data shows that most EC2 customers are migrating from small instances to larger instances for scaling, as opposed to launching more instances.

http://blog.rightscale.com/2009/10/05/amazon-usage-estimates/

Realistically most instances are setup to run applications, particularly web applications. I don't see a web app running in a 2GB disk with 512RAM instance.

@a13m
Contributor
a13m commented Oct 8, 2012

JMoLo, there's a bit of a problem in that a hobbyist with an old workstation will want a very different set of parameters from someone with a modern enterprise-class server. It might seem easy to argue for what the enterprise user wants, except that if you aim too high, the out-of-box experience for the hobbyist will be an inability to launch instances until the properties are tuned. Proposing a change from 128MB to 512MB is a no-brainer on the low-end, because many distros simply won't boot with less than 512 MB of RAM. Once you get beyond that obvious threshold, though, there's no simple answer. You are welcome to start a poll, though. :-)

@viglesiasce
Contributor

I think these defaults presented by gholms are quite sane and strike a good balance between the hobbyist and enterprise.

@a13m
Contributor
a13m commented Oct 10, 2012

After talking to Dan, I've sent a note to Eucalyptus Product Management to get their opinion. Will push this through if they think the numbers make sense.

@gholms
Member
gholms commented Oct 11, 2012

I arrived at these numbers after consulting with @hspencer77 since he has experience with so many Eucalyptus clouds. I'm not particularly picky about the specific numbers; I simply care about bumping them to values that are reasonable for this day and age.

@grze
Member
grze commented Oct 23, 2012

Merging it.

@IForOneWelcomeOurNewRobotOverlords IForOneWelcomeOurNewRobotOverlords merged commit ca89b13 into eucalyptus:testing Oct 23, 2012
@sangmin
Member
sangmin commented Oct 23, 2012

Is this the changed value? I'm asking because the management console needs
the values in the configuration.

  • m1.small: 1 CPU, 5 GB disk, 512 MB RAM
  • c1.medium: 2 CPUs, 10 GB disk, 512 MB RAM
  • m1.large: 2 CPUs, 15 GB disk, 1024 MB RAM
  • m1.xlarge: 2 CPUs, 20 GB disk, 2048 MB RAM
  • c1.xlarge: 4 CPUs, 20 GB disk, 4096 MB RAM

On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 8:36 PM, chris grzegorczyk <notifications@github.com

wrote:

Merging it.


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/eucalyptus/eucalyptus/pull/6#issuecomment-9689763.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment