Rackspace is far superior to Amazon EC2

After reading a report yesterday, which states that cloud hosting Rackspace is more profitable than Amazon, I decided to check it out today.



I don’t have time to do formal benchmarks, so I’ve done on Rackspace hosting a clone of a system that can hardly withstand EC2. I chose the cheapest tariff for Rackspace, a gigabyte 32-bit Windows 2003 server, which costs $ 0.08 per hour, that is, $ 59 per month. This is much cheaper than a mini server for $ 90 from Amazon. The result was shocking.



With the same load that consumed all the CPU resources on EC2, the Rackspace server barely exceeded the norm. So I started adding more load to the Rackspace server. Now he does about one and a half times more work than the EC2 system.



Here are two performance monitoring charts with a CPU load history, remember that the first server is much more active than the second.

')









I will definitely switch from EC2 to Rackspace.



Apparently, Amazon should examine its performance. Whatever it is, but they have to fix something, which is why Amazon is seriously inferior to Rackspace.



About the author: Dave Wiener is an American developer, entrepreneur and journalist, founder of Living Videotext and Userland Software.