comparisons   

Some people have asked us our thoughts on what the best cloud hosting provider is for them. The answer is as you would expect, it depends. I will say right off, that our preferred at the moment is GoGrid, but that has more to do with our specific use-cases than GroGrid being absolutely better than Amazon. The reason we choose GoGrid most of the time over Amazon is we know we need the server on all the time anyway, we run mostly windows servers, we like the real live e-Mail, phone, personalized support they offer free of charge and we absolutely need to have multiple public IPs per server since we have multiple SSL sites per server (and SSL unless you go for the uber *.domain version can't be done with one IP). GoGrid starts you off with 16 public ips you can distribute any way you like. Amazon is stingy with IPs, and you basically only get one public per server unless I misunderstood. In some cases just like when we are developing for a client and they are playing around with various speeds on various OS, Amazon EC is a better option since you can just turn off the server and not incur charges. In GoGrid, you have to delete the server instead of just shutting it down.

The cloud landscape is getting bigger and more players coming on board which is good since it means you are less likely to be stuck with a provider and you have more bargaining options. We only have experience with GoGrid and Amazon EC, so we can't speak for the others. Other providers we'd like to try are SkyGone (specifically for PostGIS and other GIS hosting), RackSpace Cloud, etc. but we haven't used those so can't speak for them, but each has their own little gotchas and gems in their offerings that makes them better suited for certain needs and out of the question for others. We are just talking about Cloud server hosting, not other services like cloud application services (like what Microsoft Azure offers), Relational Database Services Like (Amazon RDS (built on MySQL) or Microsoft SQL Azure (built on SQL Server 2008)), file server services, SasS cloud like SalesForce etc, though many cloud servers (e.g. both GoGrid and Amazon include some cloud storage space pre-packaged with their cloud server hosting plans). I find all those other cloud offerings like database only hosting a bit scary, mostly because haven't experimented with them.

These are the key metrics we judge cloud server hosting plans by and sure there are more, but these are the ones that are particularly important to us when making decisions and what controls our decisions on which to deploy on. Keep in mind we work mostly with Small ISVs,new Dot coms, non-Profits that work with other non-Profits but need an external secure web application (SSL) to collect data. All that scaling and stuff we haven't really had much of a need for and our clients running much larger servers are still leery of trusting the cloud for that because of lack of control of disk types, the pricing of larger servers etc. For those type of clients if we go with cloud, we'd probably choose GoGrid since they offer a combo plan using real servers and cloud servers. I will say that for pretty intense PostGIS spatial queries with millions records of a range of geometry types and sizes (anywhere from single points to multipolygons with 20 to 80,000 or more vertices), we've been using GoGrid and been surprised how well the performance is on a modest Dual core 2GHz RAM running Windows 2008 (32-bit) - I'm talking queries that return 50 - 2000 records on a specified user drawn spatial region (out of a selection of 3 million records), simplify, transform on the fly, return spatial intersections and all usually under 4-12 seconds (from generation of query to outputting on a web client). This is even with running the web server on the same box as the database server. We haven't run anything that intensive on Amazon EC instance so can't compare.

Note that GoGrid has their own chart comparing EC2 and Rackspace with their offering so you might want to check it out. I must also say that these are purely our opinions and we were not influenced by any monetary compensation to say them.

Many of our customers ask us this question so we thought we'd lay down our thoughts. The last couple of our articles have been how to do this and that in PostgreSQL, SQL Server, MySQL or having PostgreSQL coexist with an existing SQL Server install. A major reason for that is that in many of our projects we have a choice of what database to choose for a new piece of an application as long as it can play nicely with the existing infrastructure. Our core database competencies are still PostgreSQL, SQL Server, and MySQL with it leaning more toward PostgreSQL each day. We are perhaps somewhat unique in the PostgreSQL community in that Oracle never comes into our equation of decisions (though Oracle and PostgreSQL are perhaps more similar than the others). Oracle is too expensive for most of our clientele so it's a non-issue, and when our clients do have Oracle -- it's thrust upon them by thier ERP/CRM vendor and is essentially off limits to them.