Home/ Questions/Q 290865
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Asked: 2026-05-12T06:02:12+00:00

I’m building some AMIs from one of the basic ones on EC2. One of

  • 0

I’m building some AMIs from one of the basic ones on EC2. One of the instance types is running Tomcat and contains a lot of Lucene indexes; another instance will be running MySQL and have correspondingly large data requirements with it.

I’m trying to define the best way to include those in the AMIs that I’m authoring. If I mount /mnt/lucene and /mnt/mysql, those don’t get included in the AMI generated. So it seems to me like the preferred way to deal with those is to have an EBS for each one, take snapshots and spin up instances which have their own EBS based on the most recent snapshots. Is that the best way to proceed?

What is the point of instance storage? It seems like it will only work as a temporary storage area – what am I missing? Presumably there is a reason Amazon offer up to 800GB of storage on standard large instances…

Share

Leave an answer

You must login to add an answer.

Need An Account,

1 Answer

  1. Editorial Team

    Instance storage is faster than EBS. You don’t mention what you will be doing with your instances, but for some applications speed might be more important than durability. For an application that is primarily doing data mining on a large database, having a few hundred gigs of local, fast storage to host the DB might be beneficial. Worker nodes in a MapReduce cluster might also be great candidates for instance storage, depending on what type of job it was.

    • 0