Basically what Mathieu is wishing me luck for ;-) I want to create a server which I can use while in development stage, use as a main image, copy of which I can instantiate as a base image, build a apache webserver app image or a qmail mail-server image or a workgroup /db / crm image etc......upgrade to an upper instance when I feel the micro instance is too tight a fit for the given use. I don't have the resources to configure a dynamic ami to my specific requirements everytime. I'd rather create various images, spend some time everyday/week to update them, instantiate a copy of them whenever I need....just so when I save that all updates, changes to configuration etc. persist in that copy of instance. At this stage, I am just creating my infrastructure, I don't need to run any image 24 hours, just for the period I am working on it. A static server would be the best bet but can't be as cost effective as Amazon....and I am on a shoestring budget. On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 2:51 PM, Mathieu Baudier <mbaudier at argeo.org> wrote: >> physical instances. EC2 is *not* a replacement for a conventional >> static server. > > Could you please elaborate a bit? > What do you think should be left on the physical servers? > _______________________________________________ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS at centos.org > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos >