Reserved Cache Nodes for Amazon ElastiCache

Amazon ElastiCache makes it easy for you to deploy, scale, and run a cloud-based in-memory cache that is protocol-compliant with Memcached. ElastiCache improves the performance of web applications and reduces the load on your databases by retrieving data from a fast, managed, Memcached-compatible, in-memory caching system, instead of relying entirely on disk-based storage. It can significantly improve throughput for read-heavy or compute-intensive workloads including Social Networking, Mobile and Social Gaming, E-Commerce Sites, Media Sites, and Recommendation Engines.

In order to make ElastiCache an even better value, we are adding a full suite of Reserved Cache Node options -- Light, Medium, and Heavy with both 1 and 3 year terms. See the ElastiCache pricing for additional information. Reserved Cache Nodes can provide savings of up to 70% compared to On-Demand pricing. More information, including pricing, is available on our new Reserved Cache Nodes page.

You can easily migrate from Memcached to ElastiCache using our How Do I Migrate FAQ as a guide; you can also use the ElastiCache CloudFormation template to launch a cache cluster.

Finally, you'll also find useful information in the recorded version of our "Turbo-charge Your Apps Using Amazon ElastiCache" webinar:

-- Jeff;

Comments

[Jason Wieland]

Hello Jeff,
I'm might be overlooking something here. However, I'm having a hard to finding a reason why a developer would choose ElastiCache instance vs. a regular ec2 instance running memcached?

1. Its less expensive to use an ec2 instance. A small ec2 instance $.08/h vs. small elasticache $.09/h
2. You have the ability to multi purpose the ec2 machine to do other memory light functions.

The description of a small ElastiCache instance it reads:

"Small Cache Node (cache.m1.small): 1.3 GB memory, 1 ECU (1 virtual core with 1 ECU), 64-bit platform, Moderate I/O Capacity"

Why does the customer care about architecture or I/O? All that this node offers is 1.3 GB of memory cache, everything else does not significant. I understand behind the scenes you might run the cache in this configuration but it really does not factor into anything.

When I first heard about ElastiCache I was excited because I thought there would be considerable cost savings vs. an ec2 instance. Since if you dedicate an ec2 instance to function purely as a memcached you use virtually no CPU or Disk/IO. Unfortunately that was not the case, it costs more with less functionality.

It seems the "highlights" section touts the administration/management costs/hassle savings. I think most developers with experience know that memcached is one of the most stable easiest to install can configure pieces of software to setup and manage.

Just want to be clear I'm a major fan of AWS. I think its one of the 8 wonders of the internet and its fundamentally changed the ease to launch new projects. I just think ElastiCache service is underwhelming.

[Rahul Pathak]

Hi Jason,

Thanks for your detailed comment. I'm the Product Manager for ElastiCache and critical feedback like this is fantastic and helps us improve.

Although memcached is stable and easy to use, a growing number of customers find ElastiCache to be great value due to the time and money saved by not having to manage their own caching systems. This is especially true as their applications scale and cache availability becomes an important component of their user experience.

I'd love to speak with you directly to understand how you're using memcached and what other improvements you'd like to see in ElastiCache. Please drop me a line at rapathak at amazon if you're open to that.

Thanks again for taking the time to write and for the kind words about AWS overall.

Rahul