General – BidElastic

What you don’t know does hurt you. On the clouds

admin — Mon, 25 Jul 2016 02:02:30 +0000

Not knowing how much you overpay can hurt your bottom line. Significantly. To find out how people deal with cloud costs, we surveyed AWS users. About 70% of respondents have already taken some measures to control AWS costs, but only 30% of those who tried succeeded in achieving their cost reduction targets.

During July 10-17 we ran an online survey on what cloud users have done to curb AWS costs. We recruited via Twitter 130 respondents from a pool of 21,000 European developers, engineers and IT managers identified on trovero as having worked with AWS. On positif.ly we asked every respondent up to five two-pronged questions. The first prong of every question was about participants’ own experiences with AWS; the second about how they thought their peers would respond to the same question, as shown below:

About 70% of our respondents had already done something to reduce AWS costs (see below).

Of those who tried to reduce AWS costs, only 30% said they were satisfied with the results and 70% reported that they’d failed to achieve their cost reduction targets. Interestingly, they felt that on average 63% of their peers who tried also failed (close to 70% reported failure rate). In other words, there’s a general admission that reducing AWS costs is difficult and respondents don’t think that others have it better. There’s also another effect in play: Although 70% of respondents tried to control AWS costs, they estimate only 45% of their peers have done so. The message seems to be, sure, as a community we agree that it is a difficult problem, but we don’t tell others what we did and how we failed.

Our most revealing result is that 65% of respondents don’t have a good handle on how much they can reduce their AWS costs. So it’s natural to assume that respondents would be willing to deploy a monitoring solution as the first step to get a sense as to how much they can save.

Surprisingly, 17% of respondents relied on only built-in AWS reporting and only 8% of our respondents chose third party monitoring solution (see below). Two conclusions are warranted. First, respondents might have had already deployed such a solution before focusing on cost reduction activities. Second, instead of offering an assessment of possible savings, the solution may have simply recommended conservative measures like purchasing long-term reserved instances. These conclusions are supported by the fact that 38% of respondents chose long-term reserved instances as the top solution they’d tried.

Are reserved instances the way to go? Our answer is a resounding no, for a simple reason that buying long-term reserved instances perpetuates the using inefficient cloud architectures, which inflate cloud costs to begin with. Our respondents agree. Exploring less orthodox options, such as introducing serverless architectures or using spot instances was expected to be quite popular, at 13% and 20% respectively, but had been tried by only 4% and 8% of respondents. “None of the above”, chosen by 25% of respondents, included dynamic load balancing, aggressive pruning of on-demand instances and “using something other than AWS, duh!”.

Our takeaway from this survey was that incremental measures to curb runaway AWS costs have failed to provide tangible savings. We’ve also discovered that cloud users face significant friction when exploring the full range of options on the AWS ecosystem. AWS costs may be a painful financial sore. The costs of treating it are certain, but rewards are anything but. So unless someone shows up with a proven turn-key solution, AWS users are reluctant to spend time on half-measures without much cost saving. If this is you, contact BidElastic to arrange a consultation. You may have found a solution that works.

AWS cloud storage for Big Data

ageller — Mon, 16 May 2016 15:57:43 +0000

A key financial advantage of cloud computing over onsite computing is elasticity: Cloud computing power and storage resources can be provisioned on-demand at virtually any size. This ability of clouds to elastically allocate resources makes performing large-scale data processing and analytic jobs cost-effective.

Cloud clusters

To begin, let’s go over AWS options for large computing clusters and massive data storage.

An AWS cluster can be built either via EC2 instances on IaaS or Elastic Map Reduce (EMR) on Hadoop PaaS. With both options, you need to take several decisions on how to optimize costs. For every cluster node you need to decide its instance type, and then how you want to purchase the instance: On-demand, instance or spot. Remember that optimizing direct costs is only one part of the issue; the other part is optimizing over SLA levels. You need to make these pricing decisions for both IaaS and PaaS (EMR supports both reserved and spot instances). BidElastic can help you to find cost- and SLA-optimal node structures for your Hadoop or Apache Spark installation.

How about data storage?

AWS data storage options for large analytics are even more complicated than those of computing power. To understand the AWS ecosystem of large data storage, let’s begin with data types commonly found in large-scale computations: Transactional data; streamed data, and logs and binary files.

For transactional data AWS offers three choices: Relational (RDS) and NOSQL (DynamoDB) databases, and a data warehouse (RedShift).

When storing traditional relational transactional data in RDS you can scale the transactional speed of databases up by increasing database instance size. To improve data reading in RDS you can scale databases out by adding read replicas. Read replica data are copied from the master database asynchronously. Up to five read replicas are available for MySQL and PostgreSQL and up to 15 for Aurora. However, if you’re not concerned with latency, you can overcome this limit by read replicas of read replicas.
As a NOSQL PaaS AWS offers DynamoDB supporting scale key-value storage models. The key advantage of DynamoDB is its scaling out model and ability to increase throughput capacity on demand. DynamoDB’s pricing model is based on through-output and stored data volume.
Finally, AWS offers Redshift as a data warehousing solution with unlimited capacity columnar storage. Redshift is compatible with PostreSQL database drivers, so using Redshift you can analyze data with SQL queries.

To process streamed data in AWS you can use Kinesis. Kinesis supports simultaneous asynchronous ingestion of several data streams and integrates with AWS technology stack nicely. Within Kinesis there are various services to process data with, for example, you can send each item to an AWS Lambda service or a SQS queue for further processing.

Logs and binary files can be stored in AWS S3. The big advantage of S3 is that a Hadoop cluster can operate directly on S3, so there is no need to build data nodes. So if your problem permits, using S3 greatly increases cost-efficiency of the analytic job. You need to be cautious here however. Data transfer rate of a local volume outperforms that of S3. This problem can be mitigated by data compression and composing clusters out of large numbers of smaller nodes. As data compression methods, we recommend LZO for Hadoop1 and Snappy for Hadoop2. Data transfer parallelism on S3 is efficient, so when a lot of workers on several nodes request S3 data simultaneously, the combined transfer rate is satisfactory for most applications. As another bonus, Amazon Hadoop PaaS (EMR) and standalone Hadoop installations support reading and writing map-reduce operations to S3. It is also possible to query S3 data with Presto or Hive. Integration of S3 data storage with Apache Spark is also straightforward.

Optimizing Amazon Web Services costs

ageller — Sat, 09 Apr 2016 21:08:34 +0000

Amazon Web Services (AWS) evolves constantly. In 2015 Amazon announced over 700 AWS updates, typically new and modified features or novel pricing mechanisms. When AWS functionalities evolve, so do cost-effective cloud solutions on AWS. A solution that used to offer low costs a year ago doesn’t necessarily do so today. Let’s go over three examples.

The first example of AWS updates that make it necessary to refine cloud solutions on AWS is the Infrequent Access (IA) storage class for Simple Storage Service (S3). S3 costs 0.03 USD per GB per month; S3-IA 0.0125, about 60 percent less. S3-IA functionality and redundancy are identical to those of S3, but there is a catch: It costs 0.01 USD to retrieve a GB of data from S3-IA while data retrieval is free in S3. Also S3-IA GET requests cost 150 percent more than those of S3. So S3-IA can lower the cost of rarely used buckets substantially, but can also raise the cost of frequently used buckets. We offer predictive analytics and cost structure optimization on S3 to help companies take full advantage of S3-IA.

Another issue to keep in mind is how AWS credits and cost tracking work together or don’t. Amazon issues credits as service discount; incentive to new customers, and compensation when it breaches the SLA on specific S3 services (S3 SLA). Again there is a catch: Amazon recommends that customers track AWS costs via Billing Alarms. But Billing Alarm is not triggered until a customer account runs out of credit. So, once customers receives credits for any reason, they can’t properly track and monitor AWS costs unless they use one of the external tools for AWS cost tracking.

Finally, consider billing for the Amazon Relational Database Service (RDS). With a regular EC2 instance Amazon doesn’t charge customers for the period of time the instance is stopped. Not so with an RDS instance. Here Amazon does charge customers for instance time regardless of whether the instance is stopped or not. Only deleting the database server along with automatic database backups stops the billing. Deleting automatic backups doesn’t affect persistent manual database snapshots that can be used to restore the database at a later time. So, RDS customers who use a relational database for only a few hours can lower costs by either running an RDBMS on an EC2 instance or a script that snapshots the database; deletes it at the end of the day and restores it the next day. None of these options is particularly attractive.

The above examples show that to run competitive cloud computing solutions on AWS, companies need to continuously track the costs structure of the solution; constantly monitor AWS feature updates, and adapt accordingly. A more cost-effective and less time consuming way to cut costs would be to deploy cost optimization services.