Optimal EC2 Instance to handle/edit PDF files
So I have two applications that are processing PDF files:
The first one combines two files and then captures digital signature and fingerprint to then return a single file with the images of the captures.
The second one is a cloud-signer that inserts qr codes for all of the pages of the pdfs and then digitally signs the document placing also some bar codes and legend. This application will eventually receive requests with 100 documents.
The applications both work now with t2.micro instances (some operations take a while e.g. signing 200 docs around 4 minutes) but I would like to know the optimal type to go smoothly without trouble, would M or C instances make a significant difference?
Which one do you recommend, M, C or other?
Thanks,
Felipe
pdf amazon-ec2
asked Nov 14 '18 at 19:28
FelipeFelipe
1
add a comment |
So I have two applications that are processing PDF files:
The first one combines two files and then captures digital signature and fingerprint to then return a single file with the images of the captures.
The second one is a cloud-signer that inserts qr codes for all of the pages of the pdfs and then digitally signs the document placing also some bar codes and legend. This application will eventually receive requests with 100 documents.
The applications both work now with t2.micro instances (some operations take a while e.g. signing 200 docs around 4 minutes) but I would like to know the optimal type to go smoothly without trouble, would M or C instances make a significant difference?
Which one do you recommend, M, C or other?
Thanks,
Felipe
pdf amazon-ec2
asked Nov 14 '18 at 19:28
FelipeFelipe
1
add a comment |
So I have two applications that are processing PDF files:
The first one combines two files and then captures digital signature and fingerprint to then return a single file with the images of the captures.
The second one is a cloud-signer that inserts qr codes for all of the pages of the pdfs and then digitally signs the document placing also some bar codes and legend. This application will eventually receive requests with 100 documents.
The applications both work now with t2.micro instances (some operations take a while e.g. signing 200 docs around 4 minutes) but I would like to know the optimal type to go smoothly without trouble, would M or C instances make a significant difference?
Which one do you recommend, M, C or other?
Thanks,
Felipe
pdf amazon-ec2
asked Nov 14 '18 at 19:28
FelipeFelipe
1
So I have two applications that are processing PDF files:
The first one combines two files and then captures digital signature and fingerprint to then return a single file with the images of the captures.
The second one is a cloud-signer that inserts qr codes for all of the pages of the pdfs and then digitally signs the document placing also some bar codes and legend. This application will eventually receive requests with 100 documents.
The applications both work now with t2.micro instances (some operations take a while e.g. signing 200 docs around 4 minutes) but I would like to know the optimal type to go smoothly without trouble, would M or C instances make a significant difference?
Which one do you recommend, M, C or other?
Thanks,
Felipe
pdf amazon-ec2
pdf amazon-ec2
asked Nov 14 '18 at 19:28
FelipeFelipe
1
asked Nov 14 '18 at 19:28
FelipeFelipe
1
asked Nov 14 '18 at 19:28
FelipeFelipe
1
asked Nov 14 '18 at 19:28
FelipeFelipe
1
asked Nov 14 '18 at 19:28
FelipeFelipe
1
1
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
t-type instances are "burstable performance" which means you cannot really utilize them 100% over a long period of time.
I worked on a project where I extracted text from a PDF and it seemed that it was pretty much a CPU-bound task, so c-type instances may be a good choice. However, what you really should take in the account (especially if the workload will be uneven let's say during the day) is elasticity.
It may take some effort, but let you consider using either lambda functions or an auto-scaling groups so you can start more servers when you need it and stop them later. Actually, it may be a significantly more work, but it may save lots of money if you will use this function for a long time.
Also, I would invest some time to make it simple to deploy with various parameters. For example if you create a CloudFormation template and you need only occasionally sign 200 documents fast, you can deploy 24 t2.micro and run them over the period when you need it (like 1 hour) and then shut them down. It will cost you about the same money as running 1 t2.micro the full day.
One service which may help with it is SQS - you can put documents into it and then just let the machines pick up a document, sign it and put it to its destination.
answered Nov 14 '18 at 20:56
petrchpetrch
32626
I agree that converting to use AWS Lambda functions would be a much better architectural design, and would also make it cheaper and more scalable. Simply trigger one function per document (or per batch).
– John Rotenstein
Nov 15 '18 at 5:53
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function ()
StackExchange.using("snippets", function ()
StackExchange.snippets.init();
);
);
, "code-snippets");
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "1"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53307498%2foptimal-ec2-instance-to-handle-edit-pdf-files%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
t-type instances are "burstable performance" which means you cannot really utilize them 100% over a long period of time.
I worked on a project where I extracted text from a PDF and it seemed that it was pretty much a CPU-bound task, so c-type instances may be a good choice. However, what you really should take in the account (especially if the workload will be uneven let's say during the day) is elasticity.
It may take some effort, but let you consider using either lambda functions or an auto-scaling groups so you can start more servers when you need it and stop them later. Actually, it may be a significantly more work, but it may save lots of money if you will use this function for a long time.
Also, I would invest some time to make it simple to deploy with various parameters. For example if you create a CloudFormation template and you need only occasionally sign 200 documents fast, you can deploy 24 t2.micro and run them over the period when you need it (like 1 hour) and then shut them down. It will cost you about the same money as running 1 t2.micro the full day.
One service which may help with it is SQS - you can put documents into it and then just let the machines pick up a document, sign it and put it to its destination.
answered Nov 14 '18 at 20:56
petrchpetrch
32626
I agree that converting to use AWS Lambda functions would be a much better architectural design, and would also make it cheaper and more scalable. Simply trigger one function per document (or per batch).
– John Rotenstein
Nov 15 '18 at 5:53
add a comment |
t-type instances are "burstable performance" which means you cannot really utilize them 100% over a long period of time.
I worked on a project where I extracted text from a PDF and it seemed that it was pretty much a CPU-bound task, so c-type instances may be a good choice. However, what you really should take in the account (especially if the workload will be uneven let's say during the day) is elasticity.
It may take some effort, but let you consider using either lambda functions or an auto-scaling groups so you can start more servers when you need it and stop them later. Actually, it may be a significantly more work, but it may save lots of money if you will use this function for a long time.
Also, I would invest some time to make it simple to deploy with various parameters. For example if you create a CloudFormation template and you need only occasionally sign 200 documents fast, you can deploy 24 t2.micro and run them over the period when you need it (like 1 hour) and then shut them down. It will cost you about the same money as running 1 t2.micro the full day.
One service which may help with it is SQS - you can put documents into it and then just let the machines pick up a document, sign it and put it to its destination.
answered Nov 14 '18 at 20:56
petrchpetrch
32626
I agree that converting to use AWS Lambda functions would be a much better architectural design, and would also make it cheaper and more scalable. Simply trigger one function per document (or per batch).
– John Rotenstein
Nov 15 '18 at 5:53
add a comment |
t-type instances are "burstable performance" which means you cannot really utilize them 100% over a long period of time.
I worked on a project where I extracted text from a PDF and it seemed that it was pretty much a CPU-bound task, so c-type instances may be a good choice. However, what you really should take in the account (especially if the workload will be uneven let's say during the day) is elasticity.
It may take some effort, but let you consider using either lambda functions or an auto-scaling groups so you can start more servers when you need it and stop them later. Actually, it may be a significantly more work, but it may save lots of money if you will use this function for a long time.
Also, I would invest some time to make it simple to deploy with various parameters. For example if you create a CloudFormation template and you need only occasionally sign 200 documents fast, you can deploy 24 t2.micro and run them over the period when you need it (like 1 hour) and then shut them down. It will cost you about the same money as running 1 t2.micro the full day.
One service which may help with it is SQS - you can put documents into it and then just let the machines pick up a document, sign it and put it to its destination.
answered Nov 14 '18 at 20:56
petrchpetrch
32626
t-type instances are "burstable performance" which means you cannot really utilize them 100% over a long period of time.
I worked on a project where I extracted text from a PDF and it seemed that it was pretty much a CPU-bound task, so c-type instances may be a good choice. However, what you really should take in the account (especially if the workload will be uneven let's say during the day) is elasticity.
It may take some effort, but let you consider using either lambda functions or an auto-scaling groups so you can start more servers when you need it and stop them later. Actually, it may be a significantly more work, but it may save lots of money if you will use this function for a long time.
Also, I would invest some time to make it simple to deploy with various parameters. For example if you create a CloudFormation template and you need only occasionally sign 200 documents fast, you can deploy 24 t2.micro and run them over the period when you need it (like 1 hour) and then shut them down. It will cost you about the same money as running 1 t2.micro the full day.
One service which may help with it is SQS - you can put documents into it and then just let the machines pick up a document, sign it and put it to its destination.
answered Nov 14 '18 at 20:56
petrchpetrch
32626
answered Nov 14 '18 at 20:56
petrchpetrch
32626
answered Nov 14 '18 at 20:56
petrchpetrch
32626
answered Nov 14 '18 at 20:56
petrchpetrch
32626
32626
I agree that converting to use AWS Lambda functions would be a much better architectural design, and would also make it cheaper and more scalable. Simply trigger one function per document (or per batch).
– John Rotenstein
Nov 15 '18 at 5:53
add a comment |
I agree that converting to use AWS Lambda functions would be a much better architectural design, and would also make it cheaper and more scalable. Simply trigger one function per document (or per batch).
– John Rotenstein
Nov 15 '18 at 5:53
I agree that converting to use AWS Lambda functions would be a much better architectural design, and would also make it cheaper and more scalable. Simply trigger one function per document (or per batch).
– John Rotenstein
Nov 15 '18 at 5:53
I agree that converting to use AWS Lambda functions would be a much better architectural design, and would also make it cheaper and more scalable. Simply trigger one function per document (or per batch).
– John Rotenstein
Nov 15 '18 at 5:53
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53307498%2foptimal-ec2-instance-to-handle-edit-pdf-files%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
