I know that EC2 is more flexible but more work over EMR. However in terms of costs, if using EC2 it probably requires EBS volumes attached to the EC2 instances, whereas AWS just streams in data from S3. So crunching the numbers on the AWS calculator, even though for EMR one must pay for EC2 also, EMR becomes cheaper than EC2 ?? Am i wrong here ? Of course EC2 with EBS is probably faster, but is it worth the cost ?
thanks, Matt
EMR does a lot of things for you that you won't find on standard Hadoop on EC2. Some particularly important ones include
You'll also find that the EMR S3 filesystem is faster and more reliable than the standard one packaged with Apache Hadoop. It supports Multipart upload, and streams writes directly to S3 rather than buffering to disk first. For a bit more on this, see Tip #5
Additionally, if you do decide to use EC2 directly, I'd recommend using instance-storage instead of EBS for your nodes. There's really no reason to pay the extra cost of EBS for Hadoop; you'll notice that EMR clusters all run on instance-storage nodes as well.
You are correct that EMR uses instance-store backed EC2 instances, rather than EBS. However, there's nothing stopping you from creating an instance-store based instance, packing an AMI and using it for your Hadoop cluster. Using EBS also might not represent a lot of additional costs, depending on your workload and frequency. Also, there's an added cost to the EC2 instance when using it through EMR.
I've been using EMR for two years now and I would highly recommend the service as you don't need to invest time in managing and updating your distribution. If your workload is compatible with EMR (getting data from DynamoDB or S3), I would go for EMR as opposed to EC2/Hadoop.
