Amazon EC2 Auto Scaling

There are no reasonable alternatives to consider when you're building a highly available application of EC2 instances in AWS. There are alternative high availability architectures to consider, including but not limited Elastic Kubernetes Service or serverless architectures. In our case, we were locked in to EC2s at the time of architecture so there was no alternative for our use case. Serverless is often a great choice but it's worth utilizing AWS tooling such as Cost Explorer to spec out potential costs of a serverless architecture as opposed to one that takes advantage of EC2 instances.

The operating system, CPU, RAM, and storage may be constructed in any configuration and readily altered after the build. The most important factor is the "sense of security."Problems may arise once every several years, but there is a significant difference when discussing how to cope with hardware problems in the local age.

On the servers with fixed resources, Microsoft IIS was installed. In terms of storage capacity, the server has a predetermined limit. It's possible to run out of money before the next billing cycle begins. A higher price tag or more resources may be necessary to ensure everything works as expected. Oracle Compute Instance Autoscaling works like AWS once. But AWS EC2 Autoscaling has many more configuration options. AWS EC2 Automatic Scaling eliminates the need to visit the server and assess its performance physically.

The main reason is our total infra is created on AWS and we tend to use the natural service by AWS rather than third party tools, which has more advantages when the auto scaling interacts with other AWS services and its way easy to configure when we compare it with counter parts like Autoscale from Microsoft Azure.

They are complement with each other. EC2 Auto Scaling + S3 can almost satisfy the needs for most cloud based applications.

The Oracle Compute Instance Auto scaling features works very similar to the AWS once. However, the AWS EC2 Auto scaling feature has many more config parameters to it.

AWS UI's are better to use. They are cleaner. Azure UI looks crowded. AWS instance is faster than Azure. Load balancer emphases in AWS is useful.

1 year ago, without auto scaling, every time we think we might have a peak in demand, we launch a new server manually. So far we did not buy it but sometimes the server was not used at all or we forgot to remove from load balancer. Cost was affected a little bit but human intervention was always required constantly.

We tried with dedicated hardware load balancers with two servers a few years ago. It was a huge investment, and involves a lot of work, mainly on the server side. Also, that was not elastic. So if we wanted to go from 2 to 3 servers, we need to buy another server. That works, but that was not a good experience.