m1 marching into obsolescence?
Retiring instance types - revisited
I’m revisiting the topic of my earlier post retiring instance types from a couple months back. You might want to check it out first. It has more pictures than this post.
Ars technica wrote about Intel’s “Powered by Intel Cloud Technology” just two days after my previous AWS post. I couldn’t find a date when this branding program was launched, but the Ars post was the earliest I could find (Intel’s blog has a post from January 15th) so I’m assuming this really was announced in January.
It is clear that AWS and Intel have been working together on this programme for a longer time. It is telling that no AWS announcement on year 2012 is more explicit about processor type than “Intel Xeon”, no announcement from year 2011 mentions processor type at all but year 2013 starts right off the bat with the announcement of the cr1 instance class giving a full lowdown on its processor specs.
There was an Intel PR announcement on September 10th 2013 about AWS’s use of Intel processors but that story does not contain reference to the “Powered by Intel Cloud Technology” program. So something was brewing already in September 2013 but it wasn’t yet given a name …
So it seems that the reason behind AWS becoming more explicit about the underlying processor hardware is due to its relationships with Intel and the “Powered by Intel Cloud Technology” program. I just wonder what kind of benefits this program gives AWS — and as Ars points out, why neither Compute Engine or Windows Azure partake in the program?
If you trawl the Internet archives you’ll also find that AWS did not specify m3’s processor type when they were first announced. The exact processor type was added to EC2 instance description sometime between September 1st 2013 and September 9th 2013.
Okay but how does this buhaha about “Intel Inside” and m3 have to do with m1?
AWS has given a lot of screen estate telling its customers how m3 instance types are cheaper and better and shinier than the old first-generation m1 instances. For example, see the announcement on m3.medium and m3.large types and availability of m3 RDS instances for a few choice words. Alternatively hear what AWS’s chief evangelist, Jeff Barr says: “You get significantly higher and more consistent compute power at a lower price when you use these instances”. Or “compared to M1 instances, M3 instances provide better, more consistent perfromance at lower prices” on the EC2 instance description page itself.
For me this seems like less-than-subtle prodding for AWS customers to move away from m1 EC2 and RDS instance types. But why? Moving your customers to a cheaper platform makes no business sense unless it generates more revenue than is lost due to lower pricing. How could this be true? A couple of possibilities exist:
New instance classes are cheaper to purchase and/or operate (cheap enough to give better operating profit than old instances). Note that the newer instance types fall under Intel’s cloud technology program whereas old ones do not.
There is a desire to obsolete old instance class for some other reason than operating profit alone. (Maybe AWS wants those racks freed for other uses?)
Following the business logic of the first case will still eventually lead to obsoletion of old instance class hardware. Whether it will lead to obsoletion of the instance class is another thing entirely. Yet it is hard to see how the “old” m1 instance class could be kept interesting to customers without reducing its price. But why do that? The only reason would be to squeeze the last cents out of EOL’ed class.
(Of course AWS has the spot market to peddle those less desirable instance types at so-called “market rates” … More on the spot market later.)
Now for the practical advise section! Now after m3.medium was announced it is clear that you should:
- Use m3.medium instead of m1.medium.
- Use m3.large instead of m1.large.
- Use m3.xlarge instead of m1.xlarge.
If you are using any other m1 type than m1.small you really really should go and evaluate m3 class instances instead. They offer better performance at lower cost. (Just don’t do it blindly. Test first. Never assume anything with instances. Trust your own numbers, not others’.)
Which makes me ponder, what of m1.small? I earlier argued that m1.small fills an important sweet price spot between t1.micro and the next type up the line (at that time either m1.large or c1.medium, now to m3.medium). This still applies. There is no m3.small.
At least not yet.
blog comments powered by Disqus