<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_10_27_1221201</id>
	<title>Amazon Cloud Adds Hosted MySQL</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1256648520000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>1sockchuck writes <i>"Amazon Web Services has added a <a href="http://aws.amazon.com/rds/">relational database service</a> to host MySQL databases in the cloud, and is also <a href="http://aws.typepad.com/aws/2009/10/amazon-ec2-now-an-even-better-value.html">dropping prices</a> on its Amazon EC2 compute service by as much as 15 percent. Amazon says the new service lets users focus on development rather than maintenance, but it will probably be bad news for startups offering database services built atop Amazon's cloud. Cloud Avenue warns that Amazon RDS should serve as '<a href="http://www.cloudave.com/link/amazon-releases-relational-database-as-a-service-my-initial-thoughts">a warning bell for the companies that build their entire business on Amazon ecosystem</a>. ... They are just one announcement away from complete destruction.' Data Center Knowledge has a <a href="http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/archives/2009/10/27/roundup-amazon-offers-mysql-in-the-cloud/">roundup  of analysis and commentary on Amazon RDS</a> and its impact on the cloud ecosystem."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>1sockchuck writes " Amazon Web Services has added a relational database service to host MySQL databases in the cloud , and is also dropping prices on its Amazon EC2 compute service by as much as 15 percent .
Amazon says the new service lets users focus on development rather than maintenance , but it will probably be bad news for startups offering database services built atop Amazon 's cloud .
Cloud Avenue warns that Amazon RDS should serve as 'a warning bell for the companies that build their entire business on Amazon ecosystem .
... They are just one announcement away from complete destruction .
' Data Center Knowledge has a roundup of analysis and commentary on Amazon RDS and its impact on the cloud ecosystem .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1sockchuck writes "Amazon Web Services has added a relational database service to host MySQL databases in the cloud, and is also dropping prices on its Amazon EC2 compute service by as much as 15 percent.
Amazon says the new service lets users focus on development rather than maintenance, but it will probably be bad news for startups offering database services built atop Amazon's cloud.
Cloud Avenue warns that Amazon RDS should serve as 'a warning bell for the companies that build their entire business on Amazon ecosystem.
... They are just one announcement away from complete destruction.
' Data Center Knowledge has a roundup  of analysis and commentary on Amazon RDS and its impact on the cloud ecosystem.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1221201.29883593</id>
	<title>Optimization</title>
	<author>dingen</author>
	<datestamp>1256657280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wonder if programming for cloud services will bring back the need for code that is optimized for speed (or using as little resources as possible), since you pay for the actual usage of these resources.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder if programming for cloud services will bring back the need for code that is optimized for speed ( or using as little resources as possible ) , since you pay for the actual usage of these resources .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder if programming for cloud services will bring back the need for code that is optimized for speed (or using as little resources as possible), since you pay for the actual usage of these resources.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1221201.29883313</id>
	<title>Re:Warning Bell</title>
	<author>MyDixieWrecked</author>
	<datestamp>1256655840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It really depends what kind of service(s) you're launching on the cloud. If you're building generic infrastructure to cover some area of the market that AWS doesn't cover well or at all, then you may be in for a rude awakening in the future. This doesn't mean that such a service should not be built, it's just that one should realize what kind of risks are involved when developing something like that.</p><p>There are plenty of services that build on top of AWS that will probably be safe from competition well into the future. Those include services that are very specific such as Heroku's Rails app hosting, which will actually benefit from additions such as this MySQL instance type and the price cuts of EC2.</p><p>Also, when building apps that essentially turn you into a reseller of AWS services, although there may come a time when amazon starts competing directly with you, you've got your app built. If you built it properly, it should not be difficult to re-wire your backend to utilize some other service or build your own cloud infrastructure. If you're big enough and have the necessary capital, it may actually be a cost savings to do such a thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It really depends what kind of service ( s ) you 're launching on the cloud .
If you 're building generic infrastructure to cover some area of the market that AWS does n't cover well or at all , then you may be in for a rude awakening in the future .
This does n't mean that such a service should not be built , it 's just that one should realize what kind of risks are involved when developing something like that.There are plenty of services that build on top of AWS that will probably be safe from competition well into the future .
Those include services that are very specific such as Heroku 's Rails app hosting , which will actually benefit from additions such as this MySQL instance type and the price cuts of EC2.Also , when building apps that essentially turn you into a reseller of AWS services , although there may come a time when amazon starts competing directly with you , you 've got your app built .
If you built it properly , it should not be difficult to re-wire your backend to utilize some other service or build your own cloud infrastructure .
If you 're big enough and have the necessary capital , it may actually be a cost savings to do such a thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It really depends what kind of service(s) you're launching on the cloud.
If you're building generic infrastructure to cover some area of the market that AWS doesn't cover well or at all, then you may be in for a rude awakening in the future.
This doesn't mean that such a service should not be built, it's just that one should realize what kind of risks are involved when developing something like that.There are plenty of services that build on top of AWS that will probably be safe from competition well into the future.
Those include services that are very specific such as Heroku's Rails app hosting, which will actually benefit from additions such as this MySQL instance type and the price cuts of EC2.Also, when building apps that essentially turn you into a reseller of AWS services, although there may come a time when amazon starts competing directly with you, you've got your app built.
If you built it properly, it should not be difficult to re-wire your backend to utilize some other service or build your own cloud infrastructure.
If you're big enough and have the necessary capital, it may actually be a cost savings to do such a thing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1221201.29882797</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1221201.29883145</id>
	<title>Quadruple Extra Large</title>
	<author>vagabond\_gr</author>
	<datestamp>1256654880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>With the two new types, their <a href="http://aws.amazon.com/ec2/#pricing" title="amazon.com">instance list</a> [amazon.com] looks like the McDonalds menu.</p><p>I'd like a Quadruple Extra Large with cheese please.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With the two new types , their instance list [ amazon.com ] looks like the McDonalds menu.I 'd like a Quadruple Extra Large with cheese please .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With the two new types, their instance list [amazon.com] looks like the McDonalds menu.I'd like a Quadruple Extra Large with cheese please.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1221201.29885179</id>
	<title>Re:Not competitive enough</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256664660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You know, unless you are hosting Sidekick data.  That reminds me.  I know people who use the Recycle Bin as a folder for storing files.  Just sayin'</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You know , unless you are hosting Sidekick data .
That reminds me .
I know people who use the Recycle Bin as a folder for storing files .
Just sayin'</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know, unless you are hosting Sidekick data.
That reminds me.
I know people who use the Recycle Bin as a folder for storing files.
Just sayin'</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1221201.29883561</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1221201.29884863</id>
	<title>Re:A Little Disappointed</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1256663040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm sure this has been in the planning long before the Oracle business was announced. Amazon can't predict the future any better than anyone else.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sure this has been in the planning long before the Oracle business was announced .
Amazon ca n't predict the future any better than anyone else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sure this has been in the planning long before the Oracle business was announced.
Amazon can't predict the future any better than anyone else.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1221201.29882761</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1221201.29889049</id>
	<title>Re:Quadruple Extra Large</title>
	<author>kchrist</author>
	<datestamp>1256637360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What do they call that in France?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What do they call that in France ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What do they call that in France?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1221201.29883145</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1221201.29883835</id>
	<title>I'm not sure what's so compelling</title>
	<author>HangingChad</author>
	<datestamp>1256658420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>It rids the customers of any need for time consuming database administration tasks.</i>

</p><p>I'm sorry but administering a db just isn't that difficult or time-consuming.  It takes a certain level of technical knowledge to write good SQL.  If you can do that, usually you have enough skill to handle the little bit of maintenance MySQL requires.  This isn't like running an Exchange or SQL Server with a ton of overhead, licensing fees, and required add-ons.  You can scale MySQL for the cost of hardware.  I'm not seeing a compelling reason to let Amazon run my databases.

</p><p>And then there's no question of who owns the data, who has access to it, and what happens to your data if you can't pay the hosting bill?  If your application or web site is so wildly successful that you have to manage failover and load balancing, then you can afford to hire people to solve those happy problems.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It rids the customers of any need for time consuming database administration tasks .
I 'm sorry but administering a db just is n't that difficult or time-consuming .
It takes a certain level of technical knowledge to write good SQL .
If you can do that , usually you have enough skill to handle the little bit of maintenance MySQL requires .
This is n't like running an Exchange or SQL Server with a ton of overhead , licensing fees , and required add-ons .
You can scale MySQL for the cost of hardware .
I 'm not seeing a compelling reason to let Amazon run my databases .
And then there 's no question of who owns the data , who has access to it , and what happens to your data if you ca n't pay the hosting bill ?
If your application or web site is so wildly successful that you have to manage failover and load balancing , then you can afford to hire people to solve those happy problems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> It rids the customers of any need for time consuming database administration tasks.
I'm sorry but administering a db just isn't that difficult or time-consuming.
It takes a certain level of technical knowledge to write good SQL.
If you can do that, usually you have enough skill to handle the little bit of maintenance MySQL requires.
This isn't like running an Exchange or SQL Server with a ton of overhead, licensing fees, and required add-ons.
You can scale MySQL for the cost of hardware.
I'm not seeing a compelling reason to let Amazon run my databases.
And then there's no question of who owns the data, who has access to it, and what happens to your data if you can't pay the hosting bill?
If your application or web site is so wildly successful that you have to manage failover and load balancing, then you can afford to hire people to solve those happy problems.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1221201.29883747</id>
	<title>Re:Warning Bell</title>
	<author>Full Metal Jackass</author>
	<datestamp>1256658060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, would Cloud Avenue's business model not be threatened if they hosted the databases on their own physical servers?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , would Cloud Avenue 's business model not be threatened if they hosted the databases on their own physical servers ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, would Cloud Avenue's business model not be threatened if they hosted the databases on their own physical servers?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1221201.29882797</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1221201.29883909</id>
	<title>Calling all attorneys</title>
	<author>cellurl</author>
	<datestamp>1256658720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There needs to be a 5 year "promise" of service by Amazon. I for one wouldn't move my junk to them without a 5 year "community pledge" or something. When a big company starts providing everything, it scares me. The only way I would sleep at night using them is if/when my servers were burning up. <br> <br>

<a href="http://www.wikispeedia.org/" title="wikispeedia.org" rel="nofollow">wikispeedia</a> [wikispeedia.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>There needs to be a 5 year " promise " of service by Amazon .
I for one would n't move my junk to them without a 5 year " community pledge " or something .
When a big company starts providing everything , it scares me .
The only way I would sleep at night using them is if/when my servers were burning up .
wikispeedia [ wikispeedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There needs to be a 5 year "promise" of service by Amazon.
I for one wouldn't move my junk to them without a 5 year "community pledge" or something.
When a big company starts providing everything, it scares me.
The only way I would sleep at night using them is if/when my servers were burning up.
wikispeedia [wikispeedia.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1221201.29885589</id>
	<title>Re:Showing their cards at last</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256666340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ok, you are a moron.</p><p>Cloud computing, at least in this case, is a publicly available commoditized service requiring little to no maintenance interaction by a client.  Do data centers provide this?  How much does it cost to get a managed immediately scalable instance at your hosting provider?</p><p>They are not the same thing, and you only make yourself look foolish when you equate the two.  Stop being disingenuous in your attempt to be smug.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok , you are a moron.Cloud computing , at least in this case , is a publicly available commoditized service requiring little to no maintenance interaction by a client .
Do data centers provide this ?
How much does it cost to get a managed immediately scalable instance at your hosting provider ? They are not the same thing , and you only make yourself look foolish when you equate the two .
Stop being disingenuous in your attempt to be smug .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok, you are a moron.Cloud computing, at least in this case, is a publicly available commoditized service requiring little to no maintenance interaction by a client.
Do data centers provide this?
How much does it cost to get a managed immediately scalable instance at your hosting provider?They are not the same thing, and you only make yourself look foolish when you equate the two.
Stop being disingenuous in your attempt to be smug.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1221201.29882753</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1221201.29891113</id>
	<title>Re:A Little Disappointed</title>
	<author>MarkWatson</author>
	<datestamp>1256646180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wouldn't be surprised if PostgreSQL support will be forthcoming.</p><p>BTW, I spent 2 hours experimenting with RDS - I'll probably start using it when it is out of beta.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would n't be surprised if PostgreSQL support will be forthcoming.BTW , I spent 2 hours experimenting with RDS - I 'll probably start using it when it is out of beta .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wouldn't be surprised if PostgreSQL support will be forthcoming.BTW, I spent 2 hours experimenting with RDS - I'll probably start using it when it is out of beta.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1221201.29882761</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1221201.29884315</id>
	<title>Why the confusion?</title>
	<author>Maudib</author>
	<datestamp>1256660640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am not sure why people are so confused about what cloud computing means in this context. It is pretty straightforward-</p><p>(1) Yes, the underlying technology is "just" a data-center that you could provision through standard channels.<br>(2) Yes, it is "just" a normal MySQL server that you could manage and scale through normal means.</p><p>Now take those above functions, and put them behind an API that we can call into from our software. Could you manage the same things directly? Of course! However there are use cases where being able to control these functions through is very desirable.</p><p>Now take a bunch of other infrastructure resources and put control of them all behind APIs too. One ends up with a very different thing then traditional hosting. You can't provision 100x servers/databases/hadoop nodes for a single hour or night at a traditional host based on some event your software manages, and then pay less then $100. Sure the underlying tools are the same, and there are many traditional use cases where AWS is actually more expensive. However there are an equal number of situations where the reverse is also true.</p><p>As for who owns the data, thats just FUD resulting from an unfortunate overlap in terms with things like Facebook. The AWS TOS and contract is quite clear on who owns the data. Just like any other data center, if you don't secure/encrypt your stuff it is possible for the host to look into it, but this is no more likely in AWS then at Rack Space or Data Pipe.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am not sure why people are so confused about what cloud computing means in this context .
It is pretty straightforward- ( 1 ) Yes , the underlying technology is " just " a data-center that you could provision through standard channels .
( 2 ) Yes , it is " just " a normal MySQL server that you could manage and scale through normal means.Now take those above functions , and put them behind an API that we can call into from our software .
Could you manage the same things directly ?
Of course !
However there are use cases where being able to control these functions through is very desirable.Now take a bunch of other infrastructure resources and put control of them all behind APIs too .
One ends up with a very different thing then traditional hosting .
You ca n't provision 100x servers/databases/hadoop nodes for a single hour or night at a traditional host based on some event your software manages , and then pay less then $ 100 .
Sure the underlying tools are the same , and there are many traditional use cases where AWS is actually more expensive .
However there are an equal number of situations where the reverse is also true.As for who owns the data , thats just FUD resulting from an unfortunate overlap in terms with things like Facebook .
The AWS TOS and contract is quite clear on who owns the data .
Just like any other data center , if you do n't secure/encrypt your stuff it is possible for the host to look into it , but this is no more likely in AWS then at Rack Space or Data Pipe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am not sure why people are so confused about what cloud computing means in this context.
It is pretty straightforward-(1) Yes, the underlying technology is "just" a data-center that you could provision through standard channels.
(2) Yes, it is "just" a normal MySQL server that you could manage and scale through normal means.Now take those above functions, and put them behind an API that we can call into from our software.
Could you manage the same things directly?
Of course!
However there are use cases where being able to control these functions through is very desirable.Now take a bunch of other infrastructure resources and put control of them all behind APIs too.
One ends up with a very different thing then traditional hosting.
You can't provision 100x servers/databases/hadoop nodes for a single hour or night at a traditional host based on some event your software manages, and then pay less then $100.
Sure the underlying tools are the same, and there are many traditional use cases where AWS is actually more expensive.
However there are an equal number of situations where the reverse is also true.As for who owns the data, thats just FUD resulting from an unfortunate overlap in terms with things like Facebook.
The AWS TOS and contract is quite clear on who owns the data.
Just like any other data center, if you don't secure/encrypt your stuff it is possible for the host to look into it, but this is no more likely in AWS then at Rack Space or Data Pipe.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1221201.29885853</id>
	<title>Can you guarantee PCI compliance in writing yet...</title>
	<author>ducomputergeek</author>
	<datestamp>1256667420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wonder how many sites are accepting and or storing credit card data on the Amazon cloud without knowing they're breaking the terms of their merchant account contracts.</p><p>Until Amazon, or any other "cloud" provider can guarantee PCI-Compliance, we can't even consider them.  Our current data center guarantees Level-I compliance and we have it in writing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder how many sites are accepting and or storing credit card data on the Amazon cloud without knowing they 're breaking the terms of their merchant account contracts.Until Amazon , or any other " cloud " provider can guarantee PCI-Compliance , we ca n't even consider them .
Our current data center guarantees Level-I compliance and we have it in writing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder how many sites are accepting and or storing credit card data on the Amazon cloud without knowing they're breaking the terms of their merchant account contracts.Until Amazon, or any other "cloud" provider can guarantee PCI-Compliance, we can't even consider them.
Our current data center guarantees Level-I compliance and we have it in writing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1221201.29883577</id>
	<title>Cost</title>
	<author>tibman</author>
	<datestamp>1256657220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The smallest instance is 11 cents an hour or ~$80 a month.  That just seems like a lot to me, atleast for a personal DB.  That $80 only gets you a virtual box with "1.7 GB memory, 1 ECU (1 virtual core with 1 ECU), 64-bit platform." with a max of 1 TB storage (also an additional cost).  It just doesn't seem worth it, tbh.</p><p>I guess if a company is counting hardware costs, payroll, electricity, and stuff like that.. $80 might be a good deal.  But i think most people would rather have a normal server hosted for $10-20 a month.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The smallest instance is 11 cents an hour or ~ $ 80 a month .
That just seems like a lot to me , atleast for a personal DB .
That $ 80 only gets you a virtual box with " 1.7 GB memory , 1 ECU ( 1 virtual core with 1 ECU ) , 64-bit platform .
" with a max of 1 TB storage ( also an additional cost ) .
It just does n't seem worth it , tbh.I guess if a company is counting hardware costs , payroll , electricity , and stuff like that.. $ 80 might be a good deal .
But i think most people would rather have a normal server hosted for $ 10-20 a month .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The smallest instance is 11 cents an hour or ~$80 a month.
That just seems like a lot to me, atleast for a personal DB.
That $80 only gets you a virtual box with "1.7 GB memory, 1 ECU (1 virtual core with 1 ECU), 64-bit platform.
" with a max of 1 TB storage (also an additional cost).
It just doesn't seem worth it, tbh.I guess if a company is counting hardware costs, payroll, electricity, and stuff like that.. $80 might be a good deal.
But i think most people would rather have a normal server hosted for $10-20 a month.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1221201.29883649</id>
	<title>Re:Warning Bell</title>
	<author>Monkeedude1212</author>
	<datestamp>1256657520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Accidentally modded down, posting to remove my mod points from this thread (ignore this post)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Accidentally modded down , posting to remove my mod points from this thread ( ignore this post )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Accidentally modded down, posting to remove my mod points from this thread (ignore this post)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1221201.29882797</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1221201.29885439</id>
	<title>It's a screaming deal</title>
	<author>Wee</author>
	<datestamp>1256665740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>I guess if a company is counting hardware costs, payroll, electricity, and stuff like that.. $80 might be a good deal. But i think most people would rather have a normal server hosted for $10-20 a month.</i>
<br> <br>

"Might be a good deal"?  Are you kidding?  It's a raging deal!  You get patching, sysadmin, hosting, etc for that $80. You likely even get more in terms of resources than you would on your "normal" $20/month hosted server (which is probably going to be some pokey virtualized instance on a grossly overloaded server some place).
<br> <br>

You also get backups and redundancy for that eighty bucks. The PSU blows in that hosted server and you're looking at downtime. You lose a disk and then you're looking at paying one of your employees to re-install everything, reload the DB, test it, etc.
<br> <br>

You can do a hell of a lot with what they're giving you. I wouldn't use it for a personal web site or anything, but for a small business who needs a basic DB-backed web site/service, it's quite a deal (especially if they are short on internal IT resources).  Given MySQL's popularity in its nice, I'd say the DB choice was appropriate as well.
<br> <br>

-B</htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess if a company is counting hardware costs , payroll , electricity , and stuff like that.. $ 80 might be a good deal .
But i think most people would rather have a normal server hosted for $ 10-20 a month .
" Might be a good deal " ?
Are you kidding ?
It 's a raging deal !
You get patching , sysadmin , hosting , etc for that $ 80 .
You likely even get more in terms of resources than you would on your " normal " $ 20/month hosted server ( which is probably going to be some pokey virtualized instance on a grossly overloaded server some place ) .
You also get backups and redundancy for that eighty bucks .
The PSU blows in that hosted server and you 're looking at downtime .
You lose a disk and then you 're looking at paying one of your employees to re-install everything , reload the DB , test it , etc .
You can do a hell of a lot with what they 're giving you .
I would n't use it for a personal web site or anything , but for a small business who needs a basic DB-backed web site/service , it 's quite a deal ( especially if they are short on internal IT resources ) .
Given MySQL 's popularity in its nice , I 'd say the DB choice was appropriate as well .
-B</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess if a company is counting hardware costs, payroll, electricity, and stuff like that.. $80 might be a good deal.
But i think most people would rather have a normal server hosted for $10-20 a month.
"Might be a good deal"?
Are you kidding?
It's a raging deal!
You get patching, sysadmin, hosting, etc for that $80.
You likely even get more in terms of resources than you would on your "normal" $20/month hosted server (which is probably going to be some pokey virtualized instance on a grossly overloaded server some place).
You also get backups and redundancy for that eighty bucks.
The PSU blows in that hosted server and you're looking at downtime.
You lose a disk and then you're looking at paying one of your employees to re-install everything, reload the DB, test it, etc.
You can do a hell of a lot with what they're giving you.
I wouldn't use it for a personal web site or anything, but for a small business who needs a basic DB-backed web site/service, it's quite a deal (especially if they are short on internal IT resources).
Given MySQL's popularity in its nice, I'd say the DB choice was appropriate as well.
-B</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1221201.29883577</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1221201.29883711</id>
	<title>Re:I did some maths</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256657880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This surprises me. Even if you go for "Extra Large" at 80c/hour that would only account for $584/month. And it's much cheaper if you go for a reserved instance.</p><p>So you must be using $1000/month worth of bandwidth and storage: wow.</p><p>If you've done your sums right, though, I'd take it as a sign that you've got a fairly unique set of requirements, that are a bad fit for the Amazon billing model.</p><p>What happens when your Xeam server with 16GB of RAM develops a hardware fault, incidentally?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This surprises me .
Even if you go for " Extra Large " at 80c/hour that would only account for $ 584/month .
And it 's much cheaper if you go for a reserved instance.So you must be using $ 1000/month worth of bandwidth and storage : wow.If you 've done your sums right , though , I 'd take it as a sign that you 've got a fairly unique set of requirements , that are a bad fit for the Amazon billing model.What happens when your Xeam server with 16GB of RAM develops a hardware fault , incidentally ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This surprises me.
Even if you go for "Extra Large" at 80c/hour that would only account for $584/month.
And it's much cheaper if you go for a reserved instance.So you must be using $1000/month worth of bandwidth and storage: wow.If you've done your sums right, though, I'd take it as a sign that you've got a fairly unique set of requirements, that are a bad fit for the Amazon billing model.What happens when your Xeam server with 16GB of RAM develops a hardware fault, incidentally?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1221201.29883449</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1221201.29891815</id>
	<title>use with mysqlfs?</title>
	<author>gumbi west</author>
	<datestamp>1256650380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So could you use this with mysqlfs to do backups?</htmltext>
<tokenext>So could you use this with mysqlfs to do backups ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So could you use this with mysqlfs to do backups?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1221201.29884477</id>
	<title>Postgres scales worse</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256661360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I was a little disappointed that MySQL was the only choice offered.  I was hoping for Postgres to be offered along side.  It's strange to me that most ISPs/hosting companies still don't offer Postgres.  MySQL is prevalent but its future is a bit shaky at the moment.  Postgres is open source and offers some great features.</p></div><p><div class="quote"><p>I was a little disappointed that MySQL was the only choice offered.  I was hoping for Postgres to be offered along side.  It's strange to me that most ISPs/hosting companies still don't offer Postgres.  MySQL is prevalent but its future is a bit shaky at the moment.  Postgres is open source and offers some great features.</p></div><p>Unfortunately Postgres still scales out very poorly compared to MySQL - apparently performance of a Sloany cluster degrades very quickly with each node added (resulting with unacceptable performance for more than 4 nodes). Which is contrasted to scaling up - MySQL doesn't make such a good use of multicores as Postgres. But scaling out is what you want up there in the cloud.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I was a little disappointed that MySQL was the only choice offered .
I was hoping for Postgres to be offered along side .
It 's strange to me that most ISPs/hosting companies still do n't offer Postgres .
MySQL is prevalent but its future is a bit shaky at the moment .
Postgres is open source and offers some great features.I was a little disappointed that MySQL was the only choice offered .
I was hoping for Postgres to be offered along side .
It 's strange to me that most ISPs/hosting companies still do n't offer Postgres .
MySQL is prevalent but its future is a bit shaky at the moment .
Postgres is open source and offers some great features.Unfortunately Postgres still scales out very poorly compared to MySQL - apparently performance of a Sloany cluster degrades very quickly with each node added ( resulting with unacceptable performance for more than 4 nodes ) .
Which is contrasted to scaling up - MySQL does n't make such a good use of multicores as Postgres .
But scaling out is what you want up there in the cloud .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was a little disappointed that MySQL was the only choice offered.
I was hoping for Postgres to be offered along side.
It's strange to me that most ISPs/hosting companies still don't offer Postgres.
MySQL is prevalent but its future is a bit shaky at the moment.
Postgres is open source and offers some great features.I was a little disappointed that MySQL was the only choice offered.
I was hoping for Postgres to be offered along side.
It's strange to me that most ISPs/hosting companies still don't offer Postgres.
MySQL is prevalent but its future is a bit shaky at the moment.
Postgres is open source and offers some great features.Unfortunately Postgres still scales out very poorly compared to MySQL - apparently performance of a Sloany cluster degrades very quickly with each node added (resulting with unacceptable performance for more than 4 nodes).
Which is contrasted to scaling up - MySQL doesn't make such a good use of multicores as Postgres.
But scaling out is what you want up there in the cloud.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1221201.29882761</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1221201.29886117</id>
	<title>So jaded at people being jaded</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256668620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Look, buzzword hype is annoying, but it's as predictable as the sunrise that whenever *anything* that uses a buzzwordy term comes up, that the Slashdot collective will trip all over themselves to show how much smarter and wiser they are, how much better they could do everything, how if only everyone would listen to their great wisdom they wouldn't waste time on such frivolous pursuits, et cetera, ad nauseum.  Managing a big database, it's never hard.  Provisioning servers, a cakewalk, who needs all this fancy schmancy newfangled nonsense.  Just an endless litany of echo chamber arrogance.</p><p>So know what?  I'm going to say "cloud" when I refer to mass-hosted dynamically provisioned virtual servers, and it's a litmus test: anyone I see rolling their eyes, I don't want to hear their damned opinion, because all the knowledge and skills they have are going to be bent at tearing down others just to reinforce their fragile egos.  I want to get work done so I can get home and de-stress and enjoy a nice dinner, tv, and sex with the wife, and not waste time with toxic people and their constant too-hip-for-you attitudes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Look , buzzword hype is annoying , but it 's as predictable as the sunrise that whenever * anything * that uses a buzzwordy term comes up , that the Slashdot collective will trip all over themselves to show how much smarter and wiser they are , how much better they could do everything , how if only everyone would listen to their great wisdom they would n't waste time on such frivolous pursuits , et cetera , ad nauseum .
Managing a big database , it 's never hard .
Provisioning servers , a cakewalk , who needs all this fancy schmancy newfangled nonsense .
Just an endless litany of echo chamber arrogance.So know what ?
I 'm going to say " cloud " when I refer to mass-hosted dynamically provisioned virtual servers , and it 's a litmus test : anyone I see rolling their eyes , I do n't want to hear their damned opinion , because all the knowledge and skills they have are going to be bent at tearing down others just to reinforce their fragile egos .
I want to get work done so I can get home and de-stress and enjoy a nice dinner , tv , and sex with the wife , and not waste time with toxic people and their constant too-hip-for-you attitudes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Look, buzzword hype is annoying, but it's as predictable as the sunrise that whenever *anything* that uses a buzzwordy term comes up, that the Slashdot collective will trip all over themselves to show how much smarter and wiser they are, how much better they could do everything, how if only everyone would listen to their great wisdom they wouldn't waste time on such frivolous pursuits, et cetera, ad nauseum.
Managing a big database, it's never hard.
Provisioning servers, a cakewalk, who needs all this fancy schmancy newfangled nonsense.
Just an endless litany of echo chamber arrogance.So know what?
I'm going to say "cloud" when I refer to mass-hosted dynamically provisioned virtual servers, and it's a litmus test: anyone I see rolling their eyes, I don't want to hear their damned opinion, because all the knowledge and skills they have are going to be bent at tearing down others just to reinforce their fragile egos.
I want to get work done so I can get home and de-stress and enjoy a nice dinner, tv, and sex with the wife, and not waste time with toxic people and their constant too-hip-for-you attitudes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1221201.29887269</id>
	<title>clouds</title>
	<author>smoker2</author>
	<datestamp>1256673360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>They are just one announcement away from complete destruction.</p></div></blockquote><p>That statement sums up the whole "cloud" debate for me.<br> <br>yes I know it was referring to the start-ups offering services on top of the amazon services. But my point stands.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They are just one announcement away from complete destruction.That statement sums up the whole " cloud " debate for me .
yes I know it was referring to the start-ups offering services on top of the amazon services .
But my point stands .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They are just one announcement away from complete destruction.That statement sums up the whole "cloud" debate for me.
yes I know it was referring to the start-ups offering services on top of the amazon services.
But my point stands.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1221201.29883619</id>
	<title>Re:I did some maths</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256657340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Are you taking into account what the 8core xeon server with 16 GB RAM costed you and what it will cost in the future to replace it?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you taking into account what the 8core xeon server with 16 GB RAM costed you and what it will cost in the future to replace it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you taking into account what the 8core xeon server with 16 GB RAM costed you and what it will cost in the future to replace it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1221201.29883449</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1221201.29885165</id>
	<title>Re:Not competitive enough</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256664600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Exactly right -- it's thoroughly balanced and redundant.  In fact, Microsoft is using the Azure platform to manage their Sidekick customer data.</p><p>Oh wait...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly right -- it 's thoroughly balanced and redundant .
In fact , Microsoft is using the Azure platform to manage their Sidekick customer data.Oh wait.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly right -- it's thoroughly balanced and redundant.
In fact, Microsoft is using the Azure platform to manage their Sidekick customer data.Oh wait...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1221201.29883561</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1221201.29883319</id>
	<title>Re:A Little Disappointed</title>
	<author>tcopeland</author>
	<datestamp>1256655900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; It's strange to me that most ISPs/hosting<br>&gt; companies still don't offer Postgres.</p><p><a href="http://heroku.com/" title="heroku.com">Heroku</a> [heroku.com] offers Rails application hosting on PostgreSQL only.  38K apps and growing... their setup is very slick.</p><p>Then again, I'm a big fan of <a href="http://railsonpostgresql.com/" title="railsonpostgresql.com">Rails on PostgreSQL</a> [railsonpostgresql.com].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; It 's strange to me that most ISPs/hosting &gt; companies still do n't offer Postgres.Heroku [ heroku.com ] offers Rails application hosting on PostgreSQL only .
38K apps and growing... their setup is very slick.Then again , I 'm a big fan of Rails on PostgreSQL [ railsonpostgresql.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; It's strange to me that most ISPs/hosting&gt; companies still don't offer Postgres.Heroku [heroku.com] offers Rails application hosting on PostgreSQL only.
38K apps and growing... their setup is very slick.Then again, I'm a big fan of Rails on PostgreSQL [railsonpostgresql.com].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1221201.29882761</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1221201.29886977</id>
	<title>Re:Optimization</title>
	<author>ELitwin</author>
	<datestamp>1256672280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Since when did code optimized for speed go out of fashion?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Since when did code optimized for speed go out of fashion ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since when did code optimized for speed go out of fashion?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1221201.29883593</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1221201.29886027</id>
	<title>Re:I'm not sure what's so compelling</title>
	<author>slim</author>
	<datestamp>1256668140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm sorry but administering a db just isn't that difficult or time-consuming.</p></div><p>It's quite a lot more difficult and time-consuming than <i>not administering a DB</i>.</p><ul> <li>Not monitoring security patch announcements</li><li>Not feeding and watering a backup system</li><li>Not needing to procure storage hardware in advance of requirements</li></ul><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>... and so on.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sorry but administering a db just is n't that difficult or time-consuming.It 's quite a lot more difficult and time-consuming than not administering a DB .
Not monitoring security patch announcementsNot feeding and watering a backup systemNot needing to procure storage hardware in advance of requirements ... and so on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sorry but administering a db just isn't that difficult or time-consuming.It's quite a lot more difficult and time-consuming than not administering a DB.
Not monitoring security patch announcementsNot feeding and watering a backup systemNot needing to procure storage hardware in advance of requirements ... and so on.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1221201.29883835</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1221201.29883449</id>
	<title>I did some maths</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256656440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I run a site larger than slashdot</p><p>it costs 150 euro a month for an 8core xeon server with 16GB ram</p><p>it would cost me well over 1500 dollars for same to be hosted on Amazon</p><p>lol!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I run a site larger than slashdotit costs 150 euro a month for an 8core xeon server with 16GB ramit would cost me well over 1500 dollars for same to be hosted on Amazonlol !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I run a site larger than slashdotit costs 150 euro a month for an 8core xeon server with 16GB ramit would cost me well over 1500 dollars for same to be hosted on Amazonlol!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1221201.29882797</id>
	<title>Warning Bell</title>
	<author>slim</author>
	<datestamp>1256652960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I guess the warning bell is, if your business model is to host something simple and obvious on EC2, then resell it, you can expect direct competition - in this case from Amazon themselves.</p><p>To be sustainable, you need to add something difficult, or non-obvious, or that fills a niche, or stands out in some other way.</p><p>Cloud Avenue could still do OK, if they can make their offering better than Amazon's, by whatever means - a nicer UI, better management tools, better customer support, etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess the warning bell is , if your business model is to host something simple and obvious on EC2 , then resell it , you can expect direct competition - in this case from Amazon themselves.To be sustainable , you need to add something difficult , or non-obvious , or that fills a niche , or stands out in some other way.Cloud Avenue could still do OK , if they can make their offering better than Amazon 's , by whatever means - a nicer UI , better management tools , better customer support , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess the warning bell is, if your business model is to host something simple and obvious on EC2, then resell it, you can expect direct competition - in this case from Amazon themselves.To be sustainable, you need to add something difficult, or non-obvious, or that fills a niche, or stands out in some other way.Cloud Avenue could still do OK, if they can make their offering better than Amazon's, by whatever means - a nicer UI, better management tools, better customer support, etc.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1221201.29893597</id>
	<title>Re:Postgres scales worse</title>
	<author>jadavis</author>
	<datestamp>1256669700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Unfortunately Postgres still scales out very poorly compared to MySQL</i></p><p>...</p><p><i>Sloany cluster degrades very quickly</i></p><p>Where did you get your information?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unfortunately Postgres still scales out very poorly compared to MySQL...Sloany cluster degrades very quicklyWhere did you get your information ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unfortunately Postgres still scales out very poorly compared to MySQL...Sloany cluster degrades very quicklyWhere did you get your information?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1221201.29884477</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1221201.29882753</id>
	<title>Showing their cards at last</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256652600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Turns out "the cloud" is just another name for "datacenter". Who knew?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Turns out " the cloud " is just another name for " datacenter " .
Who knew ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Turns out "the cloud" is just another name for "datacenter".
Who knew?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1221201.29891053</id>
	<title>I tried it first thing this morning</title>
	<author>MarkWatson</author>
	<datestamp>1256645880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Copying from my blog (http://markwatson.com/blog/2009/10/i-just-tried-amzons-new-relational.html):</p><p>Amazon just released a beta of their Relational Database Service (RDS). You pay by the EC2 instance hour, about the same cost as a plain EC2, but about $0.01/hour more for a small instance, plus some storage costs, and bandwidth costs if you access the database outside of an Amazon availability zone.</p><p>RDS MyQL compatible (version 5.1) and is automatically monitored, restarted, and backed up.</p><p>Currently, there is no master slave replication, but this is being worked on (RDS beta just started today).</p><p>Here are my notes on my first use of RDS:</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * Install the RDS command line tools<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * rds-create-db-instance --db-instance-identifier marktesting123 --allocated-storage 5 --db-instance-class db.m1.small --engine MySQL5.1 --master-username marktesting123 --master-user-password markpasstesting123<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * Wait a few minutes and see if the RDS instance is ready: rds-describe-db-instances<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * Open up ports for external access, if required (note, here I am opening up for world wide access just for this test): rds-authorize-db-security-group-ingress default --cidr-ip 0.0.0.0/0<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * Use a mysql client to connect: mysql -h marktesting123.cyvbi77nio5f.us-east-1.rds.amazonaws.com -u marktesting123 -p<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * create database recipes;<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * in another bash shell: cat recipes.sql | mysql -h marktesting123.cyvbi77nio5f.us-east-1.rds.amazonaws.com recipes -u marktesting123 -p<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * In the mysql client: use the remote RDS hosted database and be happy<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * delete RDS instance (to stop paying for it): rds-delete-db-instance marktestng123 --skip-final-snapshot</p><p>Any mysql client libraries should work fine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Copying from my blog ( http : //markwatson.com/blog/2009/10/i-just-tried-amzons-new-relational.html ) : Amazon just released a beta of their Relational Database Service ( RDS ) .
You pay by the EC2 instance hour , about the same cost as a plain EC2 , but about $ 0.01/hour more for a small instance , plus some storage costs , and bandwidth costs if you access the database outside of an Amazon availability zone.RDS MyQL compatible ( version 5.1 ) and is automatically monitored , restarted , and backed up.Currently , there is no master slave replication , but this is being worked on ( RDS beta just started today ) .Here are my notes on my first use of RDS :         * Install the RDS command line tools         * rds-create-db-instance --db-instance-identifier marktesting123 --allocated-storage 5 --db-instance-class db.m1.small --engine MySQL5.1 --master-username marktesting123 --master-user-password markpasstesting123         * Wait a few minutes and see if the RDS instance is ready : rds-describe-db-instances         * Open up ports for external access , if required ( note , here I am opening up for world wide access just for this test ) : rds-authorize-db-security-group-ingress default --cidr-ip 0.0.0.0/0         * Use a mysql client to connect : mysql -h marktesting123.cyvbi77nio5f.us-east-1.rds.amazonaws.com -u marktesting123 -p         * create database recipes ;         * in another bash shell : cat recipes.sql | mysql -h marktesting123.cyvbi77nio5f.us-east-1.rds.amazonaws.com recipes -u marktesting123 -p         * In the mysql client : use the remote RDS hosted database and be happy : - )         * delete RDS instance ( to stop paying for it ) : rds-delete-db-instance marktestng123 --skip-final-snapshotAny mysql client libraries should work fine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Copying from my blog (http://markwatson.com/blog/2009/10/i-just-tried-amzons-new-relational.html):Amazon just released a beta of their Relational Database Service (RDS).
You pay by the EC2 instance hour, about the same cost as a plain EC2, but about $0.01/hour more for a small instance, plus some storage costs, and bandwidth costs if you access the database outside of an Amazon availability zone.RDS MyQL compatible (version 5.1) and is automatically monitored, restarted, and backed up.Currently, there is no master slave replication, but this is being worked on (RDS beta just started today).Here are my notes on my first use of RDS:
        * Install the RDS command line tools
        * rds-create-db-instance --db-instance-identifier marktesting123 --allocated-storage 5 --db-instance-class db.m1.small --engine MySQL5.1 --master-username marktesting123 --master-user-password markpasstesting123
        * Wait a few minutes and see if the RDS instance is ready: rds-describe-db-instances
        * Open up ports for external access, if required (note, here I am opening up for world wide access just for this test): rds-authorize-db-security-group-ingress default --cidr-ip 0.0.0.0/0
        * Use a mysql client to connect: mysql -h marktesting123.cyvbi77nio5f.us-east-1.rds.amazonaws.com -u marktesting123 -p
        * create database recipes;
        * in another bash shell: cat recipes.sql | mysql -h marktesting123.cyvbi77nio5f.us-east-1.rds.amazonaws.com recipes -u marktesting123 -p
        * In the mysql client: use the remote RDS hosted database and be happy :-)
        * delete RDS instance (to stop paying for it): rds-delete-db-instance marktestng123 --skip-final-snapshotAny mysql client libraries should work fine.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1221201.29893563</id>
	<title>Re:A Little Disappointed</title>
	<author>jadavis</author>
	<datestamp>1256669280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Just a tip, about 10 years ago when MySQL started, PostGRES had been abandoned for several years with no maintenance.</i></p><p>That is utterly false. Mailing lists, commits, steady releases, and community activity all around the world over the last 10 years prove otherwise.</p><p>I've seen a suspiciously similar post in response to another article, so you obviously intend to misinform (I don't know or care why).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just a tip , about 10 years ago when MySQL started , PostGRES had been abandoned for several years with no maintenance.That is utterly false .
Mailing lists , commits , steady releases , and community activity all around the world over the last 10 years prove otherwise.I 've seen a suspiciously similar post in response to another article , so you obviously intend to misinform ( I do n't know or care why ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just a tip, about 10 years ago when MySQL started, PostGRES had been abandoned for several years with no maintenance.That is utterly false.
Mailing lists, commits, steady releases, and community activity all around the world over the last 10 years prove otherwise.I've seen a suspiciously similar post in response to another article, so you obviously intend to misinform (I don't know or care why).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1221201.29883657</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1221201.29882893</id>
	<title>Goodie</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256653440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do they offer any good databases?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do they offer any good databases ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do they offer any good databases?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1221201.29883783</id>
	<title>Re:Cost</title>
	<author>slim</author>
	<datestamp>1256658180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If it's a personal DB, you'd probably not want to run it 24/7. Remember Amazon VMs are trivial to bring up and down, and you only pay while they're up.</p><p>If you're thinking about the backend for a personal Wordpress page (etc) this probably isn't the right platform.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If it 's a personal DB , you 'd probably not want to run it 24/7 .
Remember Amazon VMs are trivial to bring up and down , and you only pay while they 're up.If you 're thinking about the backend for a personal Wordpress page ( etc ) this probably is n't the right platform .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it's a personal DB, you'd probably not want to run it 24/7.
Remember Amazon VMs are trivial to bring up and down, and you only pay while they're up.If you're thinking about the backend for a personal Wordpress page (etc) this probably isn't the right platform.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1221201.29883577</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1221201.29882761</id>
	<title>A Little Disappointed</title>
	<author>Comatose51</author>
	<datestamp>1256652600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I was a little disappointed that MySQL was the only choice offered.  I was hoping for Postgres to be offered along side.  It's strange to me that most ISPs/hosting companies still don't offer Postgres.  MySQL is prevalent but its future is a bit shaky at the moment.  Postgres is open source and offers some great features.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I was a little disappointed that MySQL was the only choice offered .
I was hoping for Postgres to be offered along side .
It 's strange to me that most ISPs/hosting companies still do n't offer Postgres .
MySQL is prevalent but its future is a bit shaky at the moment .
Postgres is open source and offers some great features .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was a little disappointed that MySQL was the only choice offered.
I was hoping for Postgres to be offered along side.
It's strange to me that most ISPs/hosting companies still don't offer Postgres.
MySQL is prevalent but its future is a bit shaky at the moment.
Postgres is open source and offers some great features.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1221201.29884389</id>
	<title>OPS</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1256660940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"The cloud" is simply Other People's Servers. Not too buzzwordy. Of course, buzzwords' only real use to to make people think you understand things you don't, so since people are starting to understand what "the cloud" is, you can use the new acronym "OPS". If they ask what "OPS" is you can tell them, but they won't ask because they'll be afraid you'll think they're stupid.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" The cloud " is simply Other People 's Servers .
Not too buzzwordy .
Of course , buzzwords ' only real use to to make people think you understand things you do n't , so since people are starting to understand what " the cloud " is , you can use the new acronym " OPS " .
If they ask what " OPS " is you can tell them , but they wo n't ask because they 'll be afraid you 'll think they 're stupid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The cloud" is simply Other People's Servers.
Not too buzzwordy.
Of course, buzzwords' only real use to to make people think you understand things you don't, so since people are starting to understand what "the cloud" is, you can use the new acronym "OPS".
If they ask what "OPS" is you can tell them, but they won't ask because they'll be afraid you'll think they're stupid.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1221201.29882753</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1221201.29883561</id>
	<title>Not competitive enough</title>
	<author>Richard\_at\_work</author>
	<datestamp>1256657160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>While not directly comparable, the Azure platform being launched next month by Microsoft includes two relational database options:<br> <br>

1. Small database (1GB)- $9.99/month<br>
2. Large database (10GB) - $99.99/month<br> <br>

Each SQL Azure database is triple redundant automatically, and you do not pay for storage or load balancing.  The Amazon model has you paying for the instance ($81 per 31 days for the small instance) plus storage charges and other costs.<br> <br>

Not too impressed at the moment.</htmltext>
<tokenext>While not directly comparable , the Azure platform being launched next month by Microsoft includes two relational database options : 1 .
Small database ( 1GB ) - $ 9.99/month 2 .
Large database ( 10GB ) - $ 99.99/month Each SQL Azure database is triple redundant automatically , and you do not pay for storage or load balancing .
The Amazon model has you paying for the instance ( $ 81 per 31 days for the small instance ) plus storage charges and other costs .
Not too impressed at the moment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While not directly comparable, the Azure platform being launched next month by Microsoft includes two relational database options: 

1.
Small database (1GB)- $9.99/month
2.
Large database (10GB) - $99.99/month 

Each SQL Azure database is triple redundant automatically, and you do not pay for storage or load balancing.
The Amazon model has you paying for the instance ($81 per 31 days for the small instance) plus storage charges and other costs.
Not too impressed at the moment.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1221201.29883657</id>
	<title>Re:A Little Disappointed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256657580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just a tip, about 10 years ago when MySQL started, PostGRES had been abandoned for several years with no maintenance.</p><p>I run a hosting ISP, I receive requests about once every 2 years for PostGRES, I always say no, go to a specialized service.</p><p>My question for you is, why don't you just give up and use what the entire world is using? It would be better for your employer/client if they could run your code on a larger set of suppliers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just a tip , about 10 years ago when MySQL started , PostGRES had been abandoned for several years with no maintenance.I run a hosting ISP , I receive requests about once every 2 years for PostGRES , I always say no , go to a specialized service.My question for you is , why do n't you just give up and use what the entire world is using ?
It would be better for your employer/client if they could run your code on a larger set of suppliers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just a tip, about 10 years ago when MySQL started, PostGRES had been abandoned for several years with no maintenance.I run a hosting ISP, I receive requests about once every 2 years for PostGRES, I always say no, go to a specialized service.My question for you is, why don't you just give up and use what the entire world is using?
It would be better for your employer/client if they could run your code on a larger set of suppliers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1221201.29882761</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1221201_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1221201.29884389
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1221201.29882753
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1221201_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1221201.29883783
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1221201.29883577
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1221201_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1221201.29893597
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1221201.29884477
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1221201.29882761
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1221201_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1221201.29884863
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1221201.29882761
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1221201_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1221201.29885439
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1221201.29883577
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1221201_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1221201.29885165
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1221201.29883561
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1221201_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1221201.29885179
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1221201.29883561
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1221201_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1221201.29883649
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1221201.29882797
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1221201_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1221201.29883313
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1221201.29882797
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1221201_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1221201.29893563
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1221201.29883657
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1221201.29882761
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1221201_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1221201.29883747
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1221201.29882797
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1221201_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1221201.29885589
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1221201.29882753
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1221201_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1221201.29883319
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1221201.29882761
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1221201_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1221201.29883619
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1221201.29883449
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1221201_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1221201.29886977
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1221201.29883593
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1221201_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1221201.29886027
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1221201.29883835
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1221201_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1221201.29889049
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1221201.29883145
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1221201_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1221201.29883711
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1221201.29883449
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1221201_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1221201.29891113
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1221201.29882761
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_27_1221201.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1221201.29883561
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1221201.29885165
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1221201.29885179
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_27_1221201.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1221201.29883449
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1221201.29883711
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1221201.29883619
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_27_1221201.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1221201.29886117
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_27_1221201.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1221201.29883593
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1221201.29886977
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_27_1221201.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1221201.29883145
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1221201.29889049
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_27_1221201.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1221201.29885853
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_27_1221201.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1221201.29882797
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1221201.29883649
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1221201.29883313
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1221201.29883747
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_27_1221201.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1221201.29891815
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_27_1221201.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1221201.29882753
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1221201.29885589
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1221201.29884389
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_27_1221201.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1221201.29883577
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1221201.29885439
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1221201.29883783
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_27_1221201.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1221201.29884315
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_27_1221201.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1221201.29883835
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1221201.29886027
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_27_1221201.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1221201.29882761
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1221201.29891113
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1221201.29884863
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1221201.29883319
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1221201.29883657
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1221201.29893563
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1221201.29884477
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1221201.29893597
</commentlist>
</conversation>
