In my last article about Amazon EC2 I outlined how a Windows server is installed in the cloud. The result of my efforts was quite unspectacular. It was a Windows Server 2003 machine with a Dual-Core AMD 2.60 GHz CPU, 1.6GB RAM and about 150GB of available disk space. I downloaded software through Internet Explorer and started it just like on an ordinary server. I also tried to install IIS, but my server wasn’t able to find a Windows CD in the cloud. I guess one needs another image for this. Apart from that it was just a common Windows machine, i.e., you won’t have a special cloud feeling when you work on it.

When people think about cloud computing, they imagine large data centers with big number crunchers having sheer unlimited computational power. The computation is mysteriously distributed over the cloud. However, in practice you just end up with a virtual server that could also run on an ordinary 500-dollar notebook. Of course, Amazon has bigger servers to offer. My point is just that the term “cloud” gives the whole thing a mysterious and gigantic touch. But the reality is that this you just run a virtual server on single host with a Xen-based hypervisor.

However, there is one thing that is different from renting an ordinary dedicated server. That is the way you pay. I checked the prices before I started. The price structure is quite complicated and so I was unsure how much it would actually cost me. You pay per hour depending on the image type, the data transferred, and for storage. But there are quite a few other factors that determine the costs. Amazon offers a tool called the Simple Monthly Calculator. Well, the meaning of the term “simple” depends on your point of view. I guess it is for EC2 experts.

I paid 47 cents for about three hours online time. This doesn’t seem to be much. But I had just the simplest configuration and only played a little with my server. If I ran this tiny server for one month I would have paid about $60. It is hard to tell what a productive server would cost. But it is quite obvious that a comparable on-premise server or a rented dedicated is much cheaper.

At first sight, it might seem attractive to pay only for the resources you actually use. But think again. Would you prefer a transfer-based rate or a flat rate for your Internet connection? I think the main reason most people prefer flat rates is because it is predictable how much you have to pay at the end of month. Nobody wants to mess with “simple monthly calculators.” Just imagine that you have to move 100 servers to the cloud and you have to calculate for each server how much you would most likely pay. I hope you don’t make a mistake here, so your CEO won’t be surprised by the bill at the end of the year.

But we all know that software and hardware costs don’t count anyway when it comes to the Total Costs of Ownership (TCO). I certainly only scratched the surface of Amazon’s cloud, but it is quite obviously a highly complex environment. I have rented virtual and dedicated servers before from various providers. It never took me so long to set up a server. However, the advantage of Amazon’s command-line-based interface is that it is very flexible and you can automate tasks. Thus if you have to manage many servers in the cloud you will come to appreciate EC2.

One thing is for sure, though. Your organization won’t be able to save payroll costs. A Windows server in the cloud has to be managed like any other server. As admin you know that once Windows is installed the real work begins. So I don’t see how EC2 can help your organization to reduce the number of Windows admins. You might be able to send home the guys who install the hardware in your server racks. But depending on the number of your servers you probably will have to hire a couple of additional EC2 admins. EC2’s flexibility comes at a price. You need specialists who are able to manage it.

Nevertheless, it is fun to play in the cloud. It is possible that I will use EC2 every now and then for testing purposes. The fact that you can rent a server for only a couple of hours can be useful sometimes. You just have to make sure that you don’t forget to shut it down when you don’t need it anymore. However, when it comes to more complex test environments I prefer VMware Workstation. You can create snapshots with just a mouse click, work with linked clones, you have virtual switches, and most important, you can manage your images with a powerful GUI. EC2 command line interface is also quite powerful, but I suspect Linux admins will feel more at home than Windows administrators.

I am sure that Amazon’s cloud will expand over time. But, in my opinion, at the moment it can’t be considered as an alternative to on-premise servers.