<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_15_1350213</id>
	<title>Amazon EC2 May Be Experiencing Growing Pains</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1263565620000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>1sockchuck writes <i>"Some developers using Amazon EC2 are wondering aloud whether the popularity of the cloud computing service is beginning to affect its performance. Amazon this week <a href="http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/archives/2010/01/14/amazon-we-dont-have-cloud-capacity-issues/">denied speculation that it was experiencing capacity problems</a> after a veteran developer reported performance issues and suggested that <a href="http://alan.blog-city.com/has\_amazon\_ec2\_become\_over\_subscribed.htm">EC2 might be oversubscribed</a>. Meanwhile, a cloud monitoring service published <a href="https://www.cloudkick.com/blog/2010/jan/12/visual-ec2-latency/">charts showing increased latency</a> on EC2 in recent weeks. The reports follow an incident over the holidays in which a <a href="http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/12/25/2247211/Holiday-E-Commerce-DDoS-Attack-Hits-EC2-Cloud">DDoS on a DNS provider</a> slowed Amazon's retail and cloud operations."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>1sockchuck writes " Some developers using Amazon EC2 are wondering aloud whether the popularity of the cloud computing service is beginning to affect its performance .
Amazon this week denied speculation that it was experiencing capacity problems after a veteran developer reported performance issues and suggested that EC2 might be oversubscribed .
Meanwhile , a cloud monitoring service published charts showing increased latency on EC2 in recent weeks .
The reports follow an incident over the holidays in which a DDoS on a DNS provider slowed Amazon 's retail and cloud operations .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1sockchuck writes "Some developers using Amazon EC2 are wondering aloud whether the popularity of the cloud computing service is beginning to affect its performance.
Amazon this week denied speculation that it was experiencing capacity problems after a veteran developer reported performance issues and suggested that EC2 might be oversubscribed.
Meanwhile, a cloud monitoring service published charts showing increased latency on EC2 in recent weeks.
The reports follow an incident over the holidays in which a DDoS on a DNS provider slowed Amazon's retail and cloud operations.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1350213.30779056</id>
	<title>Re:Missed Opportunity</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263571740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It misses the point of the magical cloud! If the phbs learn that the magical cloud can run out of capacity, then they might have to start <i>planning</i> again.</p><p>If they do that then EC2 and other similar services which sell the same capacity to 100 different people on the principle that they won't all get taxed at the same time, are going to have some explaining to do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It misses the point of the magical cloud !
If the phbs learn that the magical cloud can run out of capacity , then they might have to start planning again.If they do that then EC2 and other similar services which sell the same capacity to 100 different people on the principle that they wo n't all get taxed at the same time , are going to have some explaining to do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It misses the point of the magical cloud!
If the phbs learn that the magical cloud can run out of capacity, then they might have to start planning again.If they do that then EC2 and other similar services which sell the same capacity to 100 different people on the principle that they won't all get taxed at the same time, are going to have some explaining to do.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1350213.30778682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1350213.30779732</id>
	<title>Re:still too expensive</title>
	<author>segedunum</author>
	<datestamp>1263575460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>You can always tell someone doesn't know what they are talking about when they price up hardware and say memory is 'dirt cheap' and then say that something like EC2 is too expensive. I see it a lot in those scrawny developers around the web who don't want to do any deployment (and want to pretend it doesn't even exist) and want something like EC2 and Engine Yard but for the cost that they were paying for shared hosting - where they complained that they were running out of resources!<br> <br>

Purchasing hardware implies a lof of other costs - where you will host it, how you will connect it, how you will back it up........ Going a traditional hosting route for this is ridiculously expensive. You need to rent the hardware, you need to communicate with the hosting company about setting up, you don't know how it will be set up (at least things are standardised with EC2), how you will handle failover (buy more hardware!) and how you will back it up (buy more hardware and storage!). Can you snapshot your data easily? Can you simply fire up a copy of your server to get running again or do testing? How will you recover from a hardware failure or a disaster where you don't hear from your hosting company for several hours while everyone bites their finger nails? It's why every other hosting company is either denying that EC2 is happening, trying to trash-talk it or trying to come up with their own 'cloud' virtualised, decentralised storage platform with some kind of software management tool........and generally failing at it. They will either respond to it or they will die.<blockquote><div><p>RAM prices are dirt cheap and at current prices a 36GB RAM HP Proliant DL 380 G6 will run around $13,000 and 72GB of RAM another $2000. and that includes 5 year 4 hour response time support</p></div></blockquote><p>
Excuse me while I get up off the floor from laughing. What kind of 'support' do you think you get for that and how useful do you think it is? That supports is for ASPs and hosters. For the rest of us, deploying something means several layers of support on top of that for the hardware.

Trust me - every other hosting company has scaling, infrastructure and bandwidth issues. I've been through it. My experience with EC2 in my somewhat limited comparative forays thus far have been infinitely preferable.</p><blockquote><div><p>i buy an HP server i buy one machine and a few hard drives. to support me Amazon needs to buy a few servers and 5 times the raw space for DR purposes.</p></div></blockquote><p>
Yer, probably because you don't back anything up and you haven't had to handle recovery from a disaster. Pffffffffffffffff............... We can see who the average Slahsdot reader is when this gets modded up with this level of grammar.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You can always tell someone does n't know what they are talking about when they price up hardware and say memory is 'dirt cheap ' and then say that something like EC2 is too expensive .
I see it a lot in those scrawny developers around the web who do n't want to do any deployment ( and want to pretend it does n't even exist ) and want something like EC2 and Engine Yard but for the cost that they were paying for shared hosting - where they complained that they were running out of resources !
Purchasing hardware implies a lof of other costs - where you will host it , how you will connect it , how you will back it up........ Going a traditional hosting route for this is ridiculously expensive .
You need to rent the hardware , you need to communicate with the hosting company about setting up , you do n't know how it will be set up ( at least things are standardised with EC2 ) , how you will handle failover ( buy more hardware !
) and how you will back it up ( buy more hardware and storage ! ) .
Can you snapshot your data easily ?
Can you simply fire up a copy of your server to get running again or do testing ?
How will you recover from a hardware failure or a disaster where you do n't hear from your hosting company for several hours while everyone bites their finger nails ?
It 's why every other hosting company is either denying that EC2 is happening , trying to trash-talk it or trying to come up with their own 'cloud ' virtualised , decentralised storage platform with some kind of software management tool........and generally failing at it .
They will either respond to it or they will die.RAM prices are dirt cheap and at current prices a 36GB RAM HP Proliant DL 380 G6 will run around $ 13,000 and 72GB of RAM another $ 2000 .
and that includes 5 year 4 hour response time support Excuse me while I get up off the floor from laughing .
What kind of 'support ' do you think you get for that and how useful do you think it is ?
That supports is for ASPs and hosters .
For the rest of us , deploying something means several layers of support on top of that for the hardware .
Trust me - every other hosting company has scaling , infrastructure and bandwidth issues .
I 've been through it .
My experience with EC2 in my somewhat limited comparative forays thus far have been infinitely preferable.i buy an HP server i buy one machine and a few hard drives .
to support me Amazon needs to buy a few servers and 5 times the raw space for DR purposes .
Yer , probably because you do n't back anything up and you have n't had to handle recovery from a disaster .
Pffffffffffffffff............... We can see who the average Slahsdot reader is when this gets modded up with this level of grammar .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can always tell someone doesn't know what they are talking about when they price up hardware and say memory is 'dirt cheap' and then say that something like EC2 is too expensive.
I see it a lot in those scrawny developers around the web who don't want to do any deployment (and want to pretend it doesn't even exist) and want something like EC2 and Engine Yard but for the cost that they were paying for shared hosting - where they complained that they were running out of resources!
Purchasing hardware implies a lof of other costs - where you will host it, how you will connect it, how you will back it up........ Going a traditional hosting route for this is ridiculously expensive.
You need to rent the hardware, you need to communicate with the hosting company about setting up, you don't know how it will be set up (at least things are standardised with EC2), how you will handle failover (buy more hardware!
) and how you will back it up (buy more hardware and storage!).
Can you snapshot your data easily?
Can you simply fire up a copy of your server to get running again or do testing?
How will you recover from a hardware failure or a disaster where you don't hear from your hosting company for several hours while everyone bites their finger nails?
It's why every other hosting company is either denying that EC2 is happening, trying to trash-talk it or trying to come up with their own 'cloud' virtualised, decentralised storage platform with some kind of software management tool........and generally failing at it.
They will either respond to it or they will die.RAM prices are dirt cheap and at current prices a 36GB RAM HP Proliant DL 380 G6 will run around $13,000 and 72GB of RAM another $2000.
and that includes 5 year 4 hour response time support
Excuse me while I get up off the floor from laughing.
What kind of 'support' do you think you get for that and how useful do you think it is?
That supports is for ASPs and hosters.
For the rest of us, deploying something means several layers of support on top of that for the hardware.
Trust me - every other hosting company has scaling, infrastructure and bandwidth issues.
I've been through it.
My experience with EC2 in my somewhat limited comparative forays thus far have been infinitely preferable.i buy an HP server i buy one machine and a few hard drives.
to support me Amazon needs to buy a few servers and 5 times the raw space for DR purposes.
Yer, probably because you don't back anything up and you haven't had to handle recovery from a disaster.
Pffffffffffffffff............... We can see who the average Slahsdot reader is when this gets modded up with this level of grammar.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1350213.30779108</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1350213.30780644</id>
	<title>Startups are not building data centers</title>
	<author>cryfreedomlove</author>
	<datestamp>1263579480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The cloud providers will have growing pains for years to come.  However, cloud is a much better choice than the overhead of building and running your own data center.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The cloud providers will have growing pains for years to come .
However , cloud is a much better choice than the overhead of building and running your own data center .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The cloud providers will have growing pains for years to come.
However, cloud is a much better choice than the overhead of building and running your own data center.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1350213.30779496</id>
	<title>Re:still too expensive</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263574260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>i priced out a high memory config and it's like $6000 per year [...] add in the increased bandwidth costs and the supposed cost savings vanish. it's like the ghetto people that lease a lexus or a Benz because they can't afford to buy or they like the lower monthly payments.</p></div><p>Well, Amazon had some unused hardware so they let people use it a bit at high prices. Their side of the deal is pretty good, I think. The real question is, what are *you* doing paying 6k/year for 8 cores.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>i priced out a high memory config and it 's like $ 6000 per year [ ... ] add in the increased bandwidth costs and the supposed cost savings vanish .
it 's like the ghetto people that lease a lexus or a Benz because they ca n't afford to buy or they like the lower monthly payments.Well , Amazon had some unused hardware so they let people use it a bit at high prices .
Their side of the deal is pretty good , I think .
The real question is , what are * you * doing paying 6k/year for 8 cores .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i priced out a high memory config and it's like $6000 per year [...] add in the increased bandwidth costs and the supposed cost savings vanish.
it's like the ghetto people that lease a lexus or a Benz because they can't afford to buy or they like the lower monthly payments.Well, Amazon had some unused hardware so they let people use it a bit at high prices.
Their side of the deal is pretty good, I think.
The real question is, what are *you* doing paying 6k/year for 8 cores.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1350213.30779108</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1350213.30779576</id>
	<title>Is Spot Instances for unused capacity at fault?</title>
	<author>ogiller</author>
	<datestamp>1263574560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I seen to recall a post on slashdot about  <a href="http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/12/15/0057232/Amazon-Introduces-Bidding-For-EC2-Compute-Time?art\_pos=5" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">Amazon Introduces Bidding For EC2 Compute Time</a> [slashdot.org]. This announcement took place on 12/14/2009, which coincides with the increase in average ping latency as illustrated in <a href="https://www.cloudkick.com/blog/2010/jan/12/visual-ec2-latency/" title="cloudkick.com" rel="nofollow">cloudkick's chart</a> [cloudkick.com]. Was Amazon unprepared for the increase in demand created as a result of bidding off of the unused EC2 capacity?</p><p>I am sure that people came up with some pretty creative thing to do with low priced EC2 capacity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I seen to recall a post on slashdot about Amazon Introduces Bidding For EC2 Compute Time [ slashdot.org ] .
This announcement took place on 12/14/2009 , which coincides with the increase in average ping latency as illustrated in cloudkick 's chart [ cloudkick.com ] .
Was Amazon unprepared for the increase in demand created as a result of bidding off of the unused EC2 capacity ? I am sure that people came up with some pretty creative thing to do with low priced EC2 capacity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I seen to recall a post on slashdot about  Amazon Introduces Bidding For EC2 Compute Time [slashdot.org].
This announcement took place on 12/14/2009, which coincides with the increase in average ping latency as illustrated in cloudkick's chart [cloudkick.com].
Was Amazon unprepared for the increase in demand created as a result of bidding off of the unused EC2 capacity?I am sure that people came up with some pretty creative thing to do with low priced EC2 capacity.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1350213.30779870</id>
	<title>Re:Staged DDoS?</title>
	<author>hesaigo999ca</author>
	<datestamp>1263576180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You bring up a very good point, as to how to stay looking like a real solution while trying to explain your downfalls, and a fake DDos attack would be great thing, however, if I am hearing that Amazon is subject to DDos and do not know how to circumvent them, then I have to say, this sounds just as bad to me, however, I am very pessimistic when it comes to<br>security. On the whole, no one knows what they are talking about and everybody is hacked.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You bring up a very good point , as to how to stay looking like a real solution while trying to explain your downfalls , and a fake DDos attack would be great thing , however , if I am hearing that Amazon is subject to DDos and do not know how to circumvent them , then I have to say , this sounds just as bad to me , however , I am very pessimistic when it comes tosecurity .
On the whole , no one knows what they are talking about and everybody is hacked .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You bring up a very good point, as to how to stay looking like a real solution while trying to explain your downfalls, and a fake DDos attack would be great thing, however, if I am hearing that Amazon is subject to DDos and do not know how to circumvent them, then I have to say, this sounds just as bad to me, however, I am very pessimistic when it comes tosecurity.
On the whole, no one knows what they are talking about and everybody is hacked.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1350213.30778878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1350213.30780098</id>
	<title>Re:Missed Opportunity</title>
	<author>segedunum</author>
	<datestamp>1263577260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>It misses the point of the magical cloud! If the phbs learn that the magical cloud can run out of capacity, then they might have to start planning <b>again</b>.</p></div></blockquote><p>
People have actually <i>planned</i> deployment? Not on the planet Earth that I'm living on they haven't.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It misses the point of the magical cloud !
If the phbs learn that the magical cloud can run out of capacity , then they might have to start planning again .
People have actually planned deployment ?
Not on the planet Earth that I 'm living on they have n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It misses the point of the magical cloud!
If the phbs learn that the magical cloud can run out of capacity, then they might have to start planning again.
People have actually planned deployment?
Not on the planet Earth that I'm living on they haven't.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1350213.30779056</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1350213.30778894</id>
	<title>Amazon can't eat its own dog food</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263570780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just the other day I came across Amazon's marketing materials explaining the benefits of EC2 in which they show a pretty graph of your datacenter capacity vs. demand over time.  EC2 is supposed to scale up right along side the demand for services.  But Amazon has to use the traditional datacenter model to support EC2; it doesn't have the luxury of its datacenter automatically scaling up with demand.  It is inexpensive for us customers to scale up our EC2 services, but relatively expensive for Amazon to decide to add a bunch of new servers or upgrade a bunch of existing servers in their datacenter, or maybe even add a new datacenter.</p><p>If I were Amazon and started noticing increased latency, after checking to make sure everything was in fact functioning properly, I would probably wait to see if the spike in usage is just temporary or if it will be sustained enough to warrant an increase in datacenter capacity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just the other day I came across Amazon 's marketing materials explaining the benefits of EC2 in which they show a pretty graph of your datacenter capacity vs. demand over time .
EC2 is supposed to scale up right along side the demand for services .
But Amazon has to use the traditional datacenter model to support EC2 ; it does n't have the luxury of its datacenter automatically scaling up with demand .
It is inexpensive for us customers to scale up our EC2 services , but relatively expensive for Amazon to decide to add a bunch of new servers or upgrade a bunch of existing servers in their datacenter , or maybe even add a new datacenter.If I were Amazon and started noticing increased latency , after checking to make sure everything was in fact functioning properly , I would probably wait to see if the spike in usage is just temporary or if it will be sustained enough to warrant an increase in datacenter capacity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just the other day I came across Amazon's marketing materials explaining the benefits of EC2 in which they show a pretty graph of your datacenter capacity vs. demand over time.
EC2 is supposed to scale up right along side the demand for services.
But Amazon has to use the traditional datacenter model to support EC2; it doesn't have the luxury of its datacenter automatically scaling up with demand.
It is inexpensive for us customers to scale up our EC2 services, but relatively expensive for Amazon to decide to add a bunch of new servers or upgrade a bunch of existing servers in their datacenter, or maybe even add a new datacenter.If I were Amazon and started noticing increased latency, after checking to make sure everything was in fact functioning properly, I would probably wait to see if the spike in usage is just temporary or if it will be sustained enough to warrant an increase in datacenter capacity.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1350213.30779916</id>
	<title>Re:Missed Opportunity</title>
	<author>MarkWatson</author>
	<datestamp>1263576420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think that what you are seeing with AppEngine (and same effect with Heroku, which is EC2 based) is this: if your web application has not processed any requests for several seconds (or longer?), then it needs to be rolled back online.</p><p>Try an experiment: assuming that you have a private (non-advertised) AppEngine app, time the first request with ab (Apache benchmark tool). Then time requests that are sent every second. I bet that you see the 20 second page load time vanish if you are making frequent requests.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think that what you are seeing with AppEngine ( and same effect with Heroku , which is EC2 based ) is this : if your web application has not processed any requests for several seconds ( or longer ?
) , then it needs to be rolled back online.Try an experiment : assuming that you have a private ( non-advertised ) AppEngine app , time the first request with ab ( Apache benchmark tool ) .
Then time requests that are sent every second .
I bet that you see the 20 second page load time vanish if you are making frequent requests .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think that what you are seeing with AppEngine (and same effect with Heroku, which is EC2 based) is this: if your web application has not processed any requests for several seconds (or longer?
), then it needs to be rolled back online.Try an experiment: assuming that you have a private (non-advertised) AppEngine app, time the first request with ab (Apache benchmark tool).
Then time requests that are sent every second.
I bet that you see the 20 second page load time vanish if you are making frequent requests.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1350213.30779300</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1350213.30779470</id>
	<title>Re:still too expensive</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263574080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apples and tomatoes..  Unless your company already owns a fully equipped data center with excess capacity you have to factor in colocation space, power, cooling, backups, network infrastructure, and security.  And if you're not colocating in a space where you can purchase bandwidth you have to factor in the cost of the physical circuit(s) (T1/T3/Metro-E, whatever).</p><p>We haven't even begun to consider availability.  What if your app can't tolerate 4 hours of downtime (for the HP monkey to come swap out your motherboard)?  Now we need redundant servers, redundant connectivity, generator and ups capacity, highly-available network infrastructure, load balancers, etc.  Let's not forget the highly paid staff/consultants to implement and maintain all of this.</p><p>What happens when your app takes off and you need to scale rapidly?  Now you have to procure and install servers, keeping up with the infrastructure required every step of the way.</p><p>Also, don't forget in 5 years that $13,000 server you just bought will be a boat anchor.  Time to purchase a whole new round of hardware.</p><p>I'm not claiming cloud computing is the end all solution for everything, there are certainly drawbacks..  But you cannot compare the cost of a $13,000 server to a $6,000/year instance lease as apples to apples.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apples and tomatoes.. Unless your company already owns a fully equipped data center with excess capacity you have to factor in colocation space , power , cooling , backups , network infrastructure , and security .
And if you 're not colocating in a space where you can purchase bandwidth you have to factor in the cost of the physical circuit ( s ) ( T1/T3/Metro-E , whatever ) .We have n't even begun to consider availability .
What if your app ca n't tolerate 4 hours of downtime ( for the HP monkey to come swap out your motherboard ) ?
Now we need redundant servers , redundant connectivity , generator and ups capacity , highly-available network infrastructure , load balancers , etc .
Let 's not forget the highly paid staff/consultants to implement and maintain all of this.What happens when your app takes off and you need to scale rapidly ?
Now you have to procure and install servers , keeping up with the infrastructure required every step of the way.Also , do n't forget in 5 years that $ 13,000 server you just bought will be a boat anchor .
Time to purchase a whole new round of hardware.I 'm not claiming cloud computing is the end all solution for everything , there are certainly drawbacks.. But you can not compare the cost of a $ 13,000 server to a $ 6,000/year instance lease as apples to apples .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apples and tomatoes..  Unless your company already owns a fully equipped data center with excess capacity you have to factor in colocation space, power, cooling, backups, network infrastructure, and security.
And if you're not colocating in a space where you can purchase bandwidth you have to factor in the cost of the physical circuit(s) (T1/T3/Metro-E, whatever).We haven't even begun to consider availability.
What if your app can't tolerate 4 hours of downtime (for the HP monkey to come swap out your motherboard)?
Now we need redundant servers, redundant connectivity, generator and ups capacity, highly-available network infrastructure, load balancers, etc.
Let's not forget the highly paid staff/consultants to implement and maintain all of this.What happens when your app takes off and you need to scale rapidly?
Now you have to procure and install servers, keeping up with the infrastructure required every step of the way.Also, don't forget in 5 years that $13,000 server you just bought will be a boat anchor.
Time to purchase a whole new round of hardware.I'm not claiming cloud computing is the end all solution for everything, there are certainly drawbacks..  But you cannot compare the cost of a $13,000 server to a $6,000/year instance lease as apples to apples.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1350213.30779108</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1350213.30780068</id>
	<title>I am a happy customer</title>
	<author>MarkWatson</author>
	<datestamp>1263577140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I keep a small reserve instance running 24x7 and the cost is very low. I also have a EBS bootable large instance that I run for a few hours at a time as needed. It has been a while since I used it, but Elastic MapReduce also works well and is fairly inexpensive for what you get.</p><p>About half of my customers also use EC2s.</p><p>(Note: Amazon gave me a large grant to use EC2 for free for work on my last book, but my comments are my honest opinions.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I keep a small reserve instance running 24x7 and the cost is very low .
I also have a EBS bootable large instance that I run for a few hours at a time as needed .
It has been a while since I used it , but Elastic MapReduce also works well and is fairly inexpensive for what you get.About half of my customers also use EC2s .
( Note : Amazon gave me a large grant to use EC2 for free for work on my last book , but my comments are my honest opinions .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I keep a small reserve instance running 24x7 and the cost is very low.
I also have a EBS bootable large instance that I run for a few hours at a time as needed.
It has been a while since I used it, but Elastic MapReduce also works well and is fairly inexpensive for what you get.About half of my customers also use EC2s.
(Note: Amazon gave me a large grant to use EC2 for free for work on my last book, but my comments are my honest opinions.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1350213.30779214</id>
	<title>Re:Missed Opportunity</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263572760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Because it's more than that.  "Cloud Computing" is a marketing architecture, not a technical one.  Incidents like this demonstrate poor planning and design, nothing more.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because it 's more than that .
" Cloud Computing " is a marketing architecture , not a technical one .
Incidents like this demonstrate poor planning and design , nothing more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because it's more than that.
"Cloud Computing" is a marketing architecture, not a technical one.
Incidents like this demonstrate poor planning and design, nothing more.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1350213.30778682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1350213.30779368</id>
	<title>No glitches for us at least (at Netalyzr)</title>
	<author>nweaver</author>
	<datestamp>1263573600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We use EC2 as the back-end for <a href="http://netalyzr.icsi.berkeley.edu/" title="berkeley.edu">Netalyzr</a> [berkeley.edu] (our free, applet-based network testing and debugging service), and right now are in the middle of a minor flashcrowd with our big updated release.  No recent glitches we've noticed, with long running small instances.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We use EC2 as the back-end for Netalyzr [ berkeley.edu ] ( our free , applet-based network testing and debugging service ) , and right now are in the middle of a minor flashcrowd with our big updated release .
No recent glitches we 've noticed , with long running small instances .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We use EC2 as the back-end for Netalyzr [berkeley.edu] (our free, applet-based network testing and debugging service), and right now are in the middle of a minor flashcrowd with our big updated release.
No recent glitches we've noticed, with long running small instances.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1350213.30779330</id>
	<title>Eh? EC2 might be oversubscribed?</title>
	<author>Colin Smith</author>
	<datestamp>1263573360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Uh... How else do you think they make money?</p><p>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Uh... How else do you think they make money ?
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uh... How else do you think they make money?
 </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1350213.30782826</id>
	<title>Re:still too expensive</title>
	<author>HeronBlademaster</author>
	<datestamp>1263588360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>i priced out a high memory config and it's like $6000 per year or more for 32GB RAM of memory and 8 CPU cores. In a few months Intel will ship server CPU's with 12 logical cores per socket. RAM prices are dirt cheap and at current prices a 36GB RAM HP Proliant DL 380 G6 will run around $13,000 and 72GB of RAM another $2000.</p></div><p>How much does the power drain of that 12-core HP Proliant DL with 72GB of RAM add up to every month?</p><p>How much time will you lose when $HARDWARE fails and your server is offline?  Even with 4-hour response time support, depending on what you're using the server for you could lose tons of money while it's offline - in the meantime, you can have a new EC2 instance spun up in seconds, if you even notice it die in the first place.</p><p>You can also save a lot by reserving an EC2 instance for 1 or 3 years for a one-time fee, and then during that reserved time you pay a much lower hourly rate; if your use-case is such that you can turn it off when it's not needed, you can save a boatload of money.</p><p>Point being, raw hardware cost is not a sufficiently complete comparison.</p><p>The <i>real</i> value of EC2 becomes apparent when it's not your sole host.  Say you run a website that sees occasional spikes; rather than keep enough hardware on hand to deal with the highest spike, which means a lot of your hardware is idle most of the time, you can simply automatically scale into EC2 when the load starts rising - just spin up an EC2 instance and add it to your own load balancer; you'll magically handle the spikes without a problem, and you can turn them off when demand goes away.  Instead of paying for a couple of $12000 servers to handle your occasional spikes, you can just pay for *one* $12000 server, then pay for a day or two of EC2 time per month (which, even with the high memory instances, will only cost a few hundred a year).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>i priced out a high memory config and it 's like $ 6000 per year or more for 32GB RAM of memory and 8 CPU cores .
In a few months Intel will ship server CPU 's with 12 logical cores per socket .
RAM prices are dirt cheap and at current prices a 36GB RAM HP Proliant DL 380 G6 will run around $ 13,000 and 72GB of RAM another $ 2000.How much does the power drain of that 12-core HP Proliant DL with 72GB of RAM add up to every month ? How much time will you lose when $ HARDWARE fails and your server is offline ?
Even with 4-hour response time support , depending on what you 're using the server for you could lose tons of money while it 's offline - in the meantime , you can have a new EC2 instance spun up in seconds , if you even notice it die in the first place.You can also save a lot by reserving an EC2 instance for 1 or 3 years for a one-time fee , and then during that reserved time you pay a much lower hourly rate ; if your use-case is such that you can turn it off when it 's not needed , you can save a boatload of money.Point being , raw hardware cost is not a sufficiently complete comparison.The real value of EC2 becomes apparent when it 's not your sole host .
Say you run a website that sees occasional spikes ; rather than keep enough hardware on hand to deal with the highest spike , which means a lot of your hardware is idle most of the time , you can simply automatically scale into EC2 when the load starts rising - just spin up an EC2 instance and add it to your own load balancer ; you 'll magically handle the spikes without a problem , and you can turn them off when demand goes away .
Instead of paying for a couple of $ 12000 servers to handle your occasional spikes , you can just pay for * one * $ 12000 server , then pay for a day or two of EC2 time per month ( which , even with the high memory instances , will only cost a few hundred a year ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i priced out a high memory config and it's like $6000 per year or more for 32GB RAM of memory and 8 CPU cores.
In a few months Intel will ship server CPU's with 12 logical cores per socket.
RAM prices are dirt cheap and at current prices a 36GB RAM HP Proliant DL 380 G6 will run around $13,000 and 72GB of RAM another $2000.How much does the power drain of that 12-core HP Proliant DL with 72GB of RAM add up to every month?How much time will you lose when $HARDWARE fails and your server is offline?
Even with 4-hour response time support, depending on what you're using the server for you could lose tons of money while it's offline - in the meantime, you can have a new EC2 instance spun up in seconds, if you even notice it die in the first place.You can also save a lot by reserving an EC2 instance for 1 or 3 years for a one-time fee, and then during that reserved time you pay a much lower hourly rate; if your use-case is such that you can turn it off when it's not needed, you can save a boatload of money.Point being, raw hardware cost is not a sufficiently complete comparison.The real value of EC2 becomes apparent when it's not your sole host.
Say you run a website that sees occasional spikes; rather than keep enough hardware on hand to deal with the highest spike, which means a lot of your hardware is idle most of the time, you can simply automatically scale into EC2 when the load starts rising - just spin up an EC2 instance and add it to your own load balancer; you'll magically handle the spikes without a problem, and you can turn them off when demand goes away.
Instead of paying for a couple of $12000 servers to handle your occasional spikes, you can just pay for *one* $12000 server, then pay for a day or two of EC2 time per month (which, even with the high memory instances, will only cost a few hundred a year).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1350213.30779108</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1350213.30779300</id>
	<title>Re:Missed Opportunity</title>
	<author>Lord Ender</author>
	<datestamp>1263573240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Some part of "cloud computing" does involve over-selling of server resources. Google's App Engine is so over-sold it can take 20 seconds for a page to load. However, Amazon's service allows you to reserve dedicated hosts for a premium price.</p><p>And, really, being over-sold isn't a problem so long as things are managed right. A project on the scale of Amazon's should be able to afford the best engineers so that such things are managed properly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Some part of " cloud computing " does involve over-selling of server resources .
Google 's App Engine is so over-sold it can take 20 seconds for a page to load .
However , Amazon 's service allows you to reserve dedicated hosts for a premium price.And , really , being over-sold is n't a problem so long as things are managed right .
A project on the scale of Amazon 's should be able to afford the best engineers so that such things are managed properly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some part of "cloud computing" does involve over-selling of server resources.
Google's App Engine is so over-sold it can take 20 seconds for a page to load.
However, Amazon's service allows you to reserve dedicated hosts for a premium price.And, really, being over-sold isn't a problem so long as things are managed right.
A project on the scale of Amazon's should be able to afford the best engineers so that such things are managed properly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1350213.30779056</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1350213.30813070</id>
	<title>IMHO the issue is number of cycles/sec</title>
	<author>bensch128</author>
	<datestamp>1263811740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Amazon's instance types (http://aws.amazon.com/ec2/instance-types/) doesn't seem to indicate the number of cycles/sec you are guaranteed to use per type.</p><p>They sell instance types based on the physical hardware specs which is worthless in a cloud architecture.<br>What they should really be doing is indicating the number of cycles/sec an instance type will be GUARANTEED and then enforce it.<br>If the customer doesn't use that number of cycles/sec, then fine put the idle cycles up for bidding.</p><p>Just my $0.02<br>Ben</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Amazon 's instance types ( http : //aws.amazon.com/ec2/instance-types/ ) does n't seem to indicate the number of cycles/sec you are guaranteed to use per type.They sell instance types based on the physical hardware specs which is worthless in a cloud architecture.What they should really be doing is indicating the number of cycles/sec an instance type will be GUARANTEED and then enforce it.If the customer does n't use that number of cycles/sec , then fine put the idle cycles up for bidding.Just my $ 0.02Ben</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Amazon's instance types (http://aws.amazon.com/ec2/instance-types/) doesn't seem to indicate the number of cycles/sec you are guaranteed to use per type.They sell instance types based on the physical hardware specs which is worthless in a cloud architecture.What they should really be doing is indicating the number of cycles/sec an instance type will be GUARANTEED and then enforce it.If the customer doesn't use that number of cycles/sec, then fine put the idle cycles up for bidding.Just my $0.02Ben</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1350213.30778974</id>
	<title>The culprit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263571260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They found the person responsible - a stuffed bear covered in soot that had hovered under the honey tre via a balloon while singing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They found the person responsible - a stuffed bear covered in soot that had hovered under the honey tre via a balloon while singing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They found the person responsible - a stuffed bear covered in soot that had hovered under the honey tre via a balloon while singing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1350213.30783250</id>
	<title>Re:Staged DDoS?</title>
	<author>Dalroth</author>
	<datestamp>1263547200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What happens is eventually they add enough capacity and enough customers that the data centers themselves have no yearly peak.  Amazon may peak in December, but NBC may peak in August during the Olympics.   Over the course of the year, everybody's peaks average out to no peak.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What happens is eventually they add enough capacity and enough customers that the data centers themselves have no yearly peak .
Amazon may peak in December , but NBC may peak in August during the Olympics .
Over the course of the year , everybody 's peaks average out to no peak .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What happens is eventually they add enough capacity and enough customers that the data centers themselves have no yearly peak.
Amazon may peak in December, but NBC may peak in August during the Olympics.
Over the course of the year, everybody's peaks average out to no peak.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1350213.30778878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1350213.30778950</id>
	<title>Easy solution</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263571080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Amazon needs to move their cloud into space.  Yes, space!  It's the next big frontier beyond clouds, and you heard it here first.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Amazon needs to move their cloud into space .
Yes , space !
It 's the next big frontier beyond clouds , and you heard it here first .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Amazon needs to move their cloud into space.
Yes, space!
It's the next big frontier beyond clouds, and you heard it here first.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1350213.30779024</id>
	<title>Cloud computing reliability!</title>
	<author>DaemonKnightVS</author>
	<datestamp>1263571620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><tt>Wouldn't want any of my important data stored on a system which has performance issues...<br><br>Or having to wait significantly longer than I would storing my data locally!</tt></htmltext>
<tokenext>Would n't want any of my important data stored on a system which has performance issues...Or having to wait significantly longer than I would storing my data locally !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wouldn't want any of my important data stored on a system which has performance issues...Or having to wait significantly longer than I would storing my data locally!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1350213.30778682</id>
	<title>Missed Opportunity</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263569700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why not say "Yes, we're way too popular.  We're adding capacity as quickly as we can, but people are just lapping up our service!"</p><p>This seems like a missed marketing opportunity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why not say " Yes , we 're way too popular .
We 're adding capacity as quickly as we can , but people are just lapping up our service !
" This seems like a missed marketing opportunity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why not say "Yes, we're way too popular.
We're adding capacity as quickly as we can, but people are just lapping up our service!
"This seems like a missed marketing opportunity.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1350213.30779902</id>
	<title>Re:still too expensive</title>
	<author>dsouza42</author>
	<datestamp>1263576360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It certainly costs more than owning your own hardware, but you're paying for convenience.
If you have your own hardware, the actual cost is not only of the hardware itself. You can go ahead and double that cost to have redundancy (while in EC2 you don't give a crap when a server fails. Just restart the instance... if that). When it does fail you have to send someone out to the server's location to maintain it. You also have to worry about hardware upgrades and internet link upgrades.
And that's if you're in the US. I live in Brazil and my company is switching to a cloud-based provider. Since server hardware and internet links are considerably more expensive here than in the US we'll be saving a ton of money every month. Our estimate is that our monthy costs with server maintenance and internet bandwidth will go from today's $2000/month down to around $500/month. (not counting the reduction in down time we'll have).
If we needed a huge infrastructure with hundreds or thousands of servers we'd probably be better off having our own stuff, but in our case (and in the case of many others too) it's worth it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It certainly costs more than owning your own hardware , but you 're paying for convenience .
If you have your own hardware , the actual cost is not only of the hardware itself .
You can go ahead and double that cost to have redundancy ( while in EC2 you do n't give a crap when a server fails .
Just restart the instance... if that ) .
When it does fail you have to send someone out to the server 's location to maintain it .
You also have to worry about hardware upgrades and internet link upgrades .
And that 's if you 're in the US .
I live in Brazil and my company is switching to a cloud-based provider .
Since server hardware and internet links are considerably more expensive here than in the US we 'll be saving a ton of money every month .
Our estimate is that our monthy costs with server maintenance and internet bandwidth will go from today 's $ 2000/month down to around $ 500/month .
( not counting the reduction in down time we 'll have ) .
If we needed a huge infrastructure with hundreds or thousands of servers we 'd probably be better off having our own stuff , but in our case ( and in the case of many others too ) it 's worth it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It certainly costs more than owning your own hardware, but you're paying for convenience.
If you have your own hardware, the actual cost is not only of the hardware itself.
You can go ahead and double that cost to have redundancy (while in EC2 you don't give a crap when a server fails.
Just restart the instance... if that).
When it does fail you have to send someone out to the server's location to maintain it.
You also have to worry about hardware upgrades and internet link upgrades.
And that's if you're in the US.
I live in Brazil and my company is switching to a cloud-based provider.
Since server hardware and internet links are considerably more expensive here than in the US we'll be saving a ton of money every month.
Our estimate is that our monthy costs with server maintenance and internet bandwidth will go from today's $2000/month down to around $500/month.
(not counting the reduction in down time we'll have).
If we needed a huge infrastructure with hundreds or thousands of servers we'd probably be better off having our own stuff, but in our case (and in the case of many others too) it's worth it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1350213.30779108</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1350213.30836710</id>
	<title>How do you know there is a performance problem?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263978540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does the system just feel slow of has it been measured as such?  Which resources are being starved?  CPU? Disk? Network? Memory?  Has anyone done any benchmarking to see what the actuals vs theoretical are?  What tools are being used?  Collectl provides a pretty good high-level summary.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does the system just feel slow of has it been measured as such ?
Which resources are being starved ?
CPU ? Disk ?
Network ? Memory ?
Has anyone done any benchmarking to see what the actuals vs theoretical are ?
What tools are being used ?
Collectl provides a pretty good high-level summary .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does the system just feel slow of has it been measured as such?
Which resources are being starved?
CPU? Disk?
Network? Memory?
Has anyone done any benchmarking to see what the actuals vs theoretical are?
What tools are being used?
Collectl provides a pretty good high-level summary.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1350213.30781660</id>
	<title>Re:Missed Opportunity</title>
	<author>happy\_place</author>
	<datestamp>1263583380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I know an IT guy that works for them, and that's exactly what he says. (He says they can't install enough servers fast enough.)</htmltext>
<tokenext>I know an IT guy that works for them , and that 's exactly what he says .
( He says they ca n't install enough servers fast enough .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know an IT guy that works for them, and that's exactly what he says.
(He says they can't install enough servers fast enough.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1350213.30778682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1350213.30779108</id>
	<title>still too expensive</title>
	<author>alen</author>
	<datestamp>1263572040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>i priced out a high memory config and it's like $6000 per year or more for 32GB RAM of memory and 8 CPU cores. In a few months Intel will ship server CPU's with 12 logical cores per socket. RAM prices are dirt cheap and at current prices a 36GB RAM HP Proliant DL 380 G6 will run around $13,000 and 72GB of RAM another $2000. and that includes 5 year 4 hour response time support, some of the other extras like advanced ilo, and i forgot what else i added since it's so cheap.</p><p>
&nbsp; add in the increased bandwidth costs and the supposed cost savings vanish. it's like the ghetto people that lease a lexus or a Benz because they can't afford to buy or they like the lower monthly payments. it's like 2000 all over again. hardware is expensive to ASP's set up shop. hardware prices drop for the power you get and ASP's go out of business.</p><p>and i think this is a scam by the hardware companies. i buy an HP server i buy one machine and a few hard drives. to support me Amazon needs to buy a few servers and 5 times the raw space for DR purposes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>i priced out a high memory config and it 's like $ 6000 per year or more for 32GB RAM of memory and 8 CPU cores .
In a few months Intel will ship server CPU 's with 12 logical cores per socket .
RAM prices are dirt cheap and at current prices a 36GB RAM HP Proliant DL 380 G6 will run around $ 13,000 and 72GB of RAM another $ 2000 .
and that includes 5 year 4 hour response time support , some of the other extras like advanced ilo , and i forgot what else i added since it 's so cheap .
  add in the increased bandwidth costs and the supposed cost savings vanish .
it 's like the ghetto people that lease a lexus or a Benz because they ca n't afford to buy or they like the lower monthly payments .
it 's like 2000 all over again .
hardware is expensive to ASP 's set up shop .
hardware prices drop for the power you get and ASP 's go out of business.and i think this is a scam by the hardware companies .
i buy an HP server i buy one machine and a few hard drives .
to support me Amazon needs to buy a few servers and 5 times the raw space for DR purposes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i priced out a high memory config and it's like $6000 per year or more for 32GB RAM of memory and 8 CPU cores.
In a few months Intel will ship server CPU's with 12 logical cores per socket.
RAM prices are dirt cheap and at current prices a 36GB RAM HP Proliant DL 380 G6 will run around $13,000 and 72GB of RAM another $2000.
and that includes 5 year 4 hour response time support, some of the other extras like advanced ilo, and i forgot what else i added since it's so cheap.
  add in the increased bandwidth costs and the supposed cost savings vanish.
it's like the ghetto people that lease a lexus or a Benz because they can't afford to buy or they like the lower monthly payments.
it's like 2000 all over again.
hardware is expensive to ASP's set up shop.
hardware prices drop for the power you get and ASP's go out of business.and i think this is a scam by the hardware companies.
i buy an HP server i buy one machine and a few hard drives.
to support me Amazon needs to buy a few servers and 5 times the raw space for DR purposes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1350213.30781428</id>
	<title>Re:still too expensive</title>
	<author>Bengie</author>
	<datestamp>1263582480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Similar thing I heard. I've seen people talk up HD storage like it's dirt cheap to. It might be cheap for consumers, but not a decent hosted setup.</p><p>My company recent bought an effective 16TB of SAN storage, costed $120k. You ask someone how much they think 16TB costs, and they'll be like "hmmm.. $200 for 2TB, so $1600 for 16TB."</p><p>Some people also say memory is cheap also. It's cheap if you buy small amounts of it. a 2GB stick is a lot cheaper than an 8GB stick of ECC server grade memory. One of the server guys told me about a recent computer they built. A standard dual socket i7 with 32GB of ram and all the fixings, so ~$10k. They wanted to see the costs for upgrading to 192GB since it was an option. An extra $50k. Not only did it require much denser sticks, but it also required CPU and socket upgrades since the lower end CPUs and mobo didn't support those densities. you can't just go.. "hmmm... 6GB for $100, so $3200 for 192GB".</p><p>Now you need a failover computer, so instantly double your costs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Similar thing I heard .
I 've seen people talk up HD storage like it 's dirt cheap to .
It might be cheap for consumers , but not a decent hosted setup.My company recent bought an effective 16TB of SAN storage , costed $ 120k .
You ask someone how much they think 16TB costs , and they 'll be like " hmmm.. $ 200 for 2TB , so $ 1600 for 16TB .
" Some people also say memory is cheap also .
It 's cheap if you buy small amounts of it .
a 2GB stick is a lot cheaper than an 8GB stick of ECC server grade memory .
One of the server guys told me about a recent computer they built .
A standard dual socket i7 with 32GB of ram and all the fixings , so ~ $ 10k .
They wanted to see the costs for upgrading to 192GB since it was an option .
An extra $ 50k .
Not only did it require much denser sticks , but it also required CPU and socket upgrades since the lower end CPUs and mobo did n't support those densities .
you ca n't just go.. " hmmm... 6GB for $ 100 , so $ 3200 for 192GB " .Now you need a failover computer , so instantly double your costs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Similar thing I heard.
I've seen people talk up HD storage like it's dirt cheap to.
It might be cheap for consumers, but not a decent hosted setup.My company recent bought an effective 16TB of SAN storage, costed $120k.
You ask someone how much they think 16TB costs, and they'll be like "hmmm.. $200 for 2TB, so $1600 for 16TB.
"Some people also say memory is cheap also.
It's cheap if you buy small amounts of it.
a 2GB stick is a lot cheaper than an 8GB stick of ECC server grade memory.
One of the server guys told me about a recent computer they built.
A standard dual socket i7 with 32GB of ram and all the fixings, so ~$10k.
They wanted to see the costs for upgrading to 192GB since it was an option.
An extra $50k.
Not only did it require much denser sticks, but it also required CPU and socket upgrades since the lower end CPUs and mobo didn't support those densities.
you can't just go.. "hmmm... 6GB for $100, so $3200 for 192GB".Now you need a failover computer, so instantly double your costs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1350213.30779732</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1350213.30779120</id>
	<title>Re:Missed Opportunity</title>
	<author>bingoUV</author>
	<datestamp>1263572100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They are supposed to do basic admission control if they want to be viewed as a professional service provider. Read <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Admission\_control" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Admission\_control</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They are supposed to do basic admission control if they want to be viewed as a professional service provider .
Read http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Admission \ _control [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They are supposed to do basic admission control if they want to be viewed as a professional service provider.
Read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Admission\_control [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1350213.30778682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1350213.30779336</id>
	<title>Re:Missed Opportunity</title>
	<author>slim</author>
	<datestamp>1263573360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It misses the point of the magical cloud! If the phbs learn that the magical cloud can run out of capacity, then they might have to start <i>planning</i> again.</p></div><p>The whole point is that Amazon (or, insert service vendor of choice) does the planning for you. I don't have to order extra heating gas for winter - I expect the gas company to anticipate the grid's needs. If I heated my house with gas from canisters I had to order a month in advance, I'd have to do my own planning. That's would be analogous to a traditional in-house datacentre.</p><p>It's possible that Amazon failed to provide sufficient capacity for a period. Or it's possible it did just fine - I'm not reading about any SLAs being breached. But if one service provider fails to provide sufficient capacity, that doesn't invalidate the whole business model. It just means that the vendor has to do better.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It misses the point of the magical cloud !
If the phbs learn that the magical cloud can run out of capacity , then they might have to start planning again.The whole point is that Amazon ( or , insert service vendor of choice ) does the planning for you .
I do n't have to order extra heating gas for winter - I expect the gas company to anticipate the grid 's needs .
If I heated my house with gas from canisters I had to order a month in advance , I 'd have to do my own planning .
That 's would be analogous to a traditional in-house datacentre.It 's possible that Amazon failed to provide sufficient capacity for a period .
Or it 's possible it did just fine - I 'm not reading about any SLAs being breached .
But if one service provider fails to provide sufficient capacity , that does n't invalidate the whole business model .
It just means that the vendor has to do better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It misses the point of the magical cloud!
If the phbs learn that the magical cloud can run out of capacity, then they might have to start planning again.The whole point is that Amazon (or, insert service vendor of choice) does the planning for you.
I don't have to order extra heating gas for winter - I expect the gas company to anticipate the grid's needs.
If I heated my house with gas from canisters I had to order a month in advance, I'd have to do my own planning.
That's would be analogous to a traditional in-house datacentre.It's possible that Amazon failed to provide sufficient capacity for a period.
Or it's possible it did just fine - I'm not reading about any SLAs being breached.
But if one service provider fails to provide sufficient capacity, that doesn't invalidate the whole business model.
It just means that the vendor has to do better.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1350213.30779056</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1350213.30782728</id>
	<title>App Engine Blazes if Your Code is Good!</title>
	<author>TheTyrannyOfForcedRe</author>
	<datestamp>1263588000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Google's App Engine is so over-sold it can take 20 seconds for a page to load.</p> </div><p>If you're app takes 20 seconds to deliver a page then it's your fault.  My app consistently delivers dynamic, multi-hundred kilobyte pages in 1-2 seconds anywhere in the US.  See for yourself! <a href="http://www.twitgrids.com/" title="twitgrids.com" rel="nofollow">www.TwitGrids.com</a> [twitgrids.com] </p><p>If you code for App Engine like it's Rails or Django your app will be a dog.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google 's App Engine is so over-sold it can take 20 seconds for a page to load .
If you 're app takes 20 seconds to deliver a page then it 's your fault .
My app consistently delivers dynamic , multi-hundred kilobyte pages in 1-2 seconds anywhere in the US .
See for yourself !
www.TwitGrids.com [ twitgrids.com ] If you code for App Engine like it 's Rails or Django your app will be a dog .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google's App Engine is so over-sold it can take 20 seconds for a page to load.
If you're app takes 20 seconds to deliver a page then it's your fault.
My app consistently delivers dynamic, multi-hundred kilobyte pages in 1-2 seconds anywhere in the US.
See for yourself!
www.TwitGrids.com [twitgrids.com] If you code for App Engine like it's Rails or Django your app will be a dog.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1350213.30779300</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1350213.30778878</id>
	<title>Staged DDoS?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263570780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When the news came around for EC2's DDoS around Christmas, I remembered reading how Amazon began offering their services to third parties in the first place. Turns out Amazon has a sudden peak of traffic around shopping holidays and particularly Christmas.</p><p>To prepare for that, they have added enough hardware to handle the peak, but that hardware went unused the rest of the year. So they started leasing it to third parties in the form of their web services.</p><p>This immediately makes you think, ok, what happens to their ability to handle the third party apps around Christmas, when they need a lot more hardware to handle Amazon.com's traffic itself? And then this DDoS happened, which importantly overloaded not the actual app servers, but the DNS servers pointing to the app servers. So as a result the app servers experiences lower traffic for third party sites than they would have otherwise.</p><p>It's making me think, and this is of course just speculation, this may have possibly not be a genuine attack as much as a stunt to lessen the overload of their cloud services they knew they'd experience around Christmas, while having a plausible explanation for the downtime that blames it on a malicious third party.</p><p>Reading they do indeed have had (and still have) performance issues supports that speculation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When the news came around for EC2 's DDoS around Christmas , I remembered reading how Amazon began offering their services to third parties in the first place .
Turns out Amazon has a sudden peak of traffic around shopping holidays and particularly Christmas.To prepare for that , they have added enough hardware to handle the peak , but that hardware went unused the rest of the year .
So they started leasing it to third parties in the form of their web services.This immediately makes you think , ok , what happens to their ability to handle the third party apps around Christmas , when they need a lot more hardware to handle Amazon.com 's traffic itself ?
And then this DDoS happened , which importantly overloaded not the actual app servers , but the DNS servers pointing to the app servers .
So as a result the app servers experiences lower traffic for third party sites than they would have otherwise.It 's making me think , and this is of course just speculation , this may have possibly not be a genuine attack as much as a stunt to lessen the overload of their cloud services they knew they 'd experience around Christmas , while having a plausible explanation for the downtime that blames it on a malicious third party.Reading they do indeed have had ( and still have ) performance issues supports that speculation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When the news came around for EC2's DDoS around Christmas, I remembered reading how Amazon began offering their services to third parties in the first place.
Turns out Amazon has a sudden peak of traffic around shopping holidays and particularly Christmas.To prepare for that, they have added enough hardware to handle the peak, but that hardware went unused the rest of the year.
So they started leasing it to third parties in the form of their web services.This immediately makes you think, ok, what happens to their ability to handle the third party apps around Christmas, when they need a lot more hardware to handle Amazon.com's traffic itself?
And then this DDoS happened, which importantly overloaded not the actual app servers, but the DNS servers pointing to the app servers.
So as a result the app servers experiences lower traffic for third party sites than they would have otherwise.It's making me think, and this is of course just speculation, this may have possibly not be a genuine attack as much as a stunt to lessen the overload of their cloud services they knew they'd experience around Christmas, while having a plausible explanation for the downtime that blames it on a malicious third party.Reading they do indeed have had (and still have) performance issues supports that speculation.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1350213.30779034</id>
	<title>Re:Missed Opportunity</title>
	<author>jopsen</author>
	<datestamp>1263571620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Because it may not be true... <br> - Just, a thought<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because it may not be true... - Just , a thought : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because it may not be true...  - Just, a thought :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1350213.30778682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1350213.30793370</id>
	<title>Re:Missed Opportunity</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263638760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>You haven't worked on a cloud. It's extremely expensive  to set up, all the higher ups are interested in ROI and cloud computing does NOT = ROI, despite what you may think. It just opens the doors for other products/services and getting the corporate name out there.

More users = slower, and it's a pain in the ass to bring on additional hardware to keep within budget. Sure they could add more expensive hardware, but if they sold on that hardware they'd be right back to step 1.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You have n't worked on a cloud .
It 's extremely expensive to set up , all the higher ups are interested in ROI and cloud computing does NOT = ROI , despite what you may think .
It just opens the doors for other products/services and getting the corporate name out there .
More users = slower , and it 's a pain in the ass to bring on additional hardware to keep within budget .
Sure they could add more expensive hardware , but if they sold on that hardware they 'd be right back to step 1 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You haven't worked on a cloud.
It's extremely expensive  to set up, all the higher ups are interested in ROI and cloud computing does NOT = ROI, despite what you may think.
It just opens the doors for other products/services and getting the corporate name out there.
More users = slower, and it's a pain in the ass to bring on additional hardware to keep within budget.
Sure they could add more expensive hardware, but if they sold on that hardware they'd be right back to step 1.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1350213.30778682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1350213.30779502</id>
	<title>Not about the price. Planning is the keyword</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263574260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Okay, you spend well over $10000 dollars to get a great machine. Then you need to pay for maintenance. Train or hire someone to maintain it or buy the service from third party... That costs extra. But even ignoring that... What if your company is planning a TV advertisement campaign and expects triple the strain on all public systems for a few months? Buy more hardware? Lease, perhaps? And what if there is some sort of an accident (be it fire, flooding, anything)? You need to suddenly spend over $10000 there again in addition to everything else you need to fix. (Alternatively, the server room needs to be made safe from all such hazards, which might cost extra) And what if there is a sudden large peak in the traffic? Or alternatively, your business swindles and then you have spent unnecessary much for the hardware...</p><p>Trade that all to about flat rate service that is easy to scale up or down as needed. Despite all the problems that cloud computing has, I can't say that I don't understand why many executives choose it, despite the risk that they might end up spending more in the long run.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Okay , you spend well over $ 10000 dollars to get a great machine .
Then you need to pay for maintenance .
Train or hire someone to maintain it or buy the service from third party... That costs extra .
But even ignoring that... What if your company is planning a TV advertisement campaign and expects triple the strain on all public systems for a few months ?
Buy more hardware ?
Lease , perhaps ?
And what if there is some sort of an accident ( be it fire , flooding , anything ) ?
You need to suddenly spend over $ 10000 there again in addition to everything else you need to fix .
( Alternatively , the server room needs to be made safe from all such hazards , which might cost extra ) And what if there is a sudden large peak in the traffic ?
Or alternatively , your business swindles and then you have spent unnecessary much for the hardware...Trade that all to about flat rate service that is easy to scale up or down as needed .
Despite all the problems that cloud computing has , I ca n't say that I do n't understand why many executives choose it , despite the risk that they might end up spending more in the long run .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Okay, you spend well over $10000 dollars to get a great machine.
Then you need to pay for maintenance.
Train or hire someone to maintain it or buy the service from third party... That costs extra.
But even ignoring that... What if your company is planning a TV advertisement campaign and expects triple the strain on all public systems for a few months?
Buy more hardware?
Lease, perhaps?
And what if there is some sort of an accident (be it fire, flooding, anything)?
You need to suddenly spend over $10000 there again in addition to everything else you need to fix.
(Alternatively, the server room needs to be made safe from all such hazards, which might cost extra) And what if there is a sudden large peak in the traffic?
Or alternatively, your business swindles and then you have spent unnecessary much for the hardware...Trade that all to about flat rate service that is easy to scale up or down as needed.
Despite all the problems that cloud computing has, I can't say that I don't understand why many executives choose it, despite the risk that they might end up spending more in the long run.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1350213.30779108</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1350213.30839976</id>
	<title>Re:Staged DDoS?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263991620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, you have swallowed the bs PR story. EC2 was always conceived and planned as a completely separate infrastructure. Amazon runs exactly ZERO of it's ecommerce site on EC2 infrastructure.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , you have swallowed the bs PR story .
EC2 was always conceived and planned as a completely separate infrastructure .
Amazon runs exactly ZERO of it 's ecommerce site on EC2 infrastructure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, you have swallowed the bs PR story.
EC2 was always conceived and planned as a completely separate infrastructure.
Amazon runs exactly ZERO of it's ecommerce site on EC2 infrastructure.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1350213.30778878</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_1350213_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1350213.30779902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1350213.30779108
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_1350213_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1350213.30779214
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1350213.30778682
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_1350213_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1350213.30793370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1350213.30778682
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_1350213_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1350213.30779496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1350213.30779108
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_1350213_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1350213.30779120
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1350213.30778682
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_1350213_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1350213.30781660
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1350213.30778682
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_1350213_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1350213.30779470
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1350213.30779108
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_1350213_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1350213.30781428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1350213.30779732
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1350213.30779108
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_1350213_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1350213.30779916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1350213.30779300
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1350213.30779056
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1350213.30778682
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_1350213_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1350213.30780098
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1350213.30779056
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1350213.30778682
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_1350213_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1350213.30839976
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1350213.30778878
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_1350213_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1350213.30779034
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1350213.30778682
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_1350213_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1350213.30783250
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1350213.30778878
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_1350213_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1350213.30779502
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1350213.30779108
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_1350213_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1350213.30782826
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1350213.30779108
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_1350213_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1350213.30782728
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1350213.30779300
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1350213.30779056
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1350213.30778682
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_1350213_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1350213.30779336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1350213.30779056
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1350213.30778682
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_1350213_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1350213.30779870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1350213.30778878
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_15_1350213.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1350213.30779330
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_15_1350213.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1350213.30813070
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_15_1350213.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1350213.30778878
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1350213.30779870
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1350213.30783250
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1350213.30839976
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_15_1350213.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1350213.30778894
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_15_1350213.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1350213.30779108
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1350213.30779732
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1350213.30781428
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1350213.30779496
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1350213.30779902
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1350213.30779502
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1350213.30779470
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1350213.30782826
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_15_1350213.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1350213.30779024
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_15_1350213.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1350213.30778682
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1350213.30793370
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1350213.30781660
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1350213.30779214
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1350213.30779034
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1350213.30779056
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1350213.30780098
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1350213.30779336
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1350213.30779300
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1350213.30782728
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1350213.30779916
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_1350213.30779120
</commentlist>
</conversation>
