t2.small

the T series is more suitable for non-performance-verified test environments

No description

the T series is more suitable for non-performance-verified test environments

T2 is a burstable instance type If you run out of CPU credits, CPU is throttled and performance degrades

In general, when using VPC CNI, the maximum amount of pods that can be run per node has been dependent on VPC CNI settings as described in the "Calculate max pods" section here. You can get the maxmium number of available IPs for pods per node - from the amazon-vpc-cni-k8s github repo.

I just found an email dated May 2022 stating "Expiration of Free Tier Subscription on your account." However, I'd never set up OpenSearch until last week, and nothing I'm seeing online would suggest OpenSearch "free tier" promises only apply to first-time AWS users.

This blog post explains AWS EC2 instance types and categories as well as provides come recommendations to help you make the right decision when you need to run an instance in the Amazon cloud.

I think the discrepancies can be attributed to the choice of the t-style instances. They are generally over committed.

Aren\'t \'t\' instances burst instances? They need to be under constant load for a long time before their burst credits for CPU, memory, network and EBS run out, after which they fall back on their baseline performance.

I think the discrepancies can be attributed to the choice of the t-style instances. They are generally over committed.

Aren\'t \'t\' instances burst instances? They need to be under constant load for a long time before their burst credits for CPU, memory, network and EBS run out, after which they fall back on their baseline performance.

Thank you for this article. We have T instances for EC2 and RDS and we are expecting some very strange performance behavior. Do you have plan to test RDS?

This is super well documented by aws themselves and if you understood how they work before creating the article then you probably would not have written it. Please do research before writing scare articles just for clicks. That’s just lame brother.

Thank you for this article. We have T instances for EC2 and RDS and we are expecting some very strange performance behavior. Do you have plan to test RDS?

This is super well documented by aws themselves and if you understood how they work before creating the article then you probably would not have written it. Please do research before writing scare articles just for clicks. That’s just lame brother.

I think the discrepancies can be attributed to the choice of the t-style instances. They are generally over committed.

Aren\'t \'t\' instances burst instances? They need to be under constant load for a long time before their burst credits for CPU, memory, network and EBS run out, after which they fall back on their baseline performance.

T2 instances do not have Unlimited mode turned on by default. Without Unlimited mode turned on, once the CPU credits have been exhausted, the server goes into a shallow resource usage state. Its CPU performance and network performance are lessened considerably until the CPU credits have accumulated again. We've seen this first hand on quite a few occasions now, even causing production outages.

Thank you for this article. We have T instances for EC2 and RDS and we are expecting some very strange performance behavior. Do you have plan to test RDS?

This is super well documented by aws themselves and if you understood how they work before creating the article then you probably would not have written it. Please do research before writing scare articles just for clicks. That’s just lame brother.

You can count t2 as upgrade of t1. In general t2 offer faster access to memory and disk compared to t1.

Similarly, if an application or database needs lots of CPU to serve individual requests with low latency, but idles between requests, then a T2 is advantageous too.

The credit balance assigned to each instance varies. So while two micros could provide double the performance of small during burst, it will only be able to do so for half as long.

They're perfectly adequate for many cases where your just need _a_ server (or HA pair) continuously up. The 2 hours of full burst that a t2.micro can sustain (or ~5 for small/medium) are plenty of time to react automatically to sustained load. They are also perfect where workloads are moderate and disk or network I/O bound. t2.micro/medium hosts especially make the best Jenkins servers.

Everything about the three classes (except the core, in micro vs small) multiplies by two as you step up: baseline, credits earned per hour, and credit cap.

I will go with 30GB initially and if required will upgrade to 50GB. I hope that should be enough for now.

Upgraded from t2.micro to t2.small and now everything is working great.

I will go with t2 small for now.

I don't have any bottlenecks and it runs pretty fast. Just curious if it will run faster.

I will go with t2 small for now.

Upgraded from t2.micro to t2.small and now everything is working great.

I will go with 30GB initially and if required will upgrade to 50GB. I hope that should be enough for now.

I don't have any bottlenecks and it runs pretty fast. Just curious if it will run faster.

We’ve recently migrated a number of services to T2 instances. For some, we’re now running more than 50% more EC2 instances than before, but paying roughly 30% less in equivalent on-demand cost.

Compared to the previous instances, we’re enjoying all the benefits of great peak performance for these services, such as reduced request latency.

For the price of an old m1.small, you can run three t2.micro instances and each has approximately 3x the peak processing power.

* Any applications and databases powering our internal tools which have relatively low traffic.

* Our Jenkins build server, that takes care of [building, testing and deploying](https://www.gosquared.com/blog/deploys-at-gosquared) all our other services – T2s are particularly brilliant here, because it sits idle between builds but the high peak CPU performance means our builds are really fast.

* Most of the instances serving our front-end applications (everything you see on [gosquared.com](https://gosquared.com)) – these instances typically spend most of their time either idle between requests or waiting on network activity to other services.

For example, here\'re some use cases that we\'ve found work really well on T2 instances: * Our email-sending service uses a **lot** of CPU on-the-hour, every hour. We send out daily traffic reports in different timezones but it sits mostly idle in-between those times.

For example, consider running one service that maxes out the whole CPU but only does it 10% of the time, in that situation a t2.micro instance is perfect.

This is false information. Instance retirement event is just host maintenance event. NOT THE replacement process.

So, there is no specific date to end support for older instance type, they are retired gradually and we are only notified through scheduled events?

For detailed information on the process and implications of instance retirement, please refer to the following resource: [Understanding Instance Retirement on AWS](https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AWSEC2/latest/UserGuide/instance-retirement.html). Additional [Scheduled events for your instances](https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AWSEC2/latest/UserGuide/monitoring-instances-status-check_sched.html)

That's a great news! Thank you for the link

As sktan mentioned, T2, T3a and T3 are burstable, which means you don't get to use 100% of the CPU all the time. If your job is CPU-bound, I doubt a burstable instance will be cost effective.

The difference between t2 and c6g instances is the burstable nature of the t2 instance. A t2.micro is cheap because of the way the credit system works, where you can't always use 100% of your CPU and can only burst there periodically.

As sktan mentioned, T2, T3a and T3 are burstable, which means you don't get to use 100% of the CPU all the time. If your job is CPU-bound, I doubt a burstable instance will be cost effective.

The difference between t2 and c6g instances is the burstable nature of the t2 instance. A t2.micro is cheap because of the way the credit system works, where you can't always use 100% of your CPU and can only burst there periodically.

As sktan mentioned, T2, T3a and T3 are burstable, which means you don't get to use 100% of the CPU all the time. If your job is CPU-bound, I doubt a burstable instance will be cost effective.

The difference between t2 and c6g instances is the burstable nature of the t2 instance. A t2.micro is cheap because of the way the credit system works, where you can't always use 100% of your CPU and can only burst there periodically.

As sktan mentioned, T2, T3a and T3 are burstable, which means you don't get to use 100% of the CPU all the time. If your job is CPU-bound, I doubt a burstable instance will be cost effective.

The difference between t2 and c6g instances is the burstable nature of the t2 instance. A t2.micro is cheap because of the way the credit system works, where you can't always use 100% of your CPU and can only burst there periodically.

As sktan mentioned, T2, T3a and T3 are burstable, which means you don't get to use 100% of the CPU all the time. If your job is CPU-bound, I doubt a burstable instance will be cost effective.

The difference between t2 and c6g instances is the burstable nature of the t2 instance. A t2.micro is cheap because of the way the credit system works, where you can't always use 100% of your CPU and can only burst there periodically.

As sktan mentioned, T2, T3a and T3 are burstable, which means you don't get to use 100% of the CPU all the time. If your job is CPU-bound, I doubt a burstable instance will be cost effective.

The difference between t2 and c6g instances is the burstable nature of the t2 instance. A t2.micro is cheap because of the way the credit system works, where you can't always use 100% of your CPU and can only burst there periodically.

As sktan mentioned, T2, T3a and T3 are burstable, which means you don't get to use 100% of the CPU all the time. If your job is CPU-bound, I doubt a burstable instance will be cost effective.

The difference between t2 and c6g instances is the burstable nature of the t2 instance. A t2.micro is cheap because of the way the credit system works, where you can't always use 100% of your CPU and can only burst there periodically.

If you have an application that needs to run with some basic CPU and memory usage, you can choose t3. It also works well if you have an application that gets used sometimes but not others.

The t3 family is a burstable instance type. If you have an application that needs to run with some basic CPU and memory usage, you can choose t3. It also works well if you have an application that gets used sometimes but not others.

CPU credits only apply to T2/T3 instances.

The t3 family is a burstable instance type. If you have an application that needs to run with some basic CPU and memory usage, you can choose t3. It also works well if you have an application that gets used sometimes but not others.

CPU credits only apply to T2/T3 instances. Each T2/T3 instance accumulates some CPU credits per second and also when it's in use (i.e. not "idle") it spends these CPU credits. When it runs out of credits it either slows down to the baseline performance (T2 default) or keeps running at full speed with you paying for the extra credits needed (T3 default and T2 "unlimited mode").

The t3 family is a burstable instance type. If you have an application that needs to run with some basic CPU and memory usage, you can choose t3. It also works well if you have an application that gets used sometimes but not others.

Depending on the age of the instance, "unlimited CPU" might not have been enabled.

T2 instances are very performant (better processors than m4/5). But the catch is in T2 is that they handle only certain amount of load during 24hrs period. For 24/7 usage M and C are better. But depending on the overall load during a day T2s can be better. For example if you have typical 8 hrs a day usage T2 will probably be good. T2 have daily credit system that allows certain amount of full speed usage during a day then the performance drops (needs to be constant and heavy use for many hours)

This is false information. Instance retirement event is just host maintenance event. NOT THE replacement process.

T2 instances are very performant (better processors than m4/5). But the catch is in T2 is that they handle only certain amount of load during 24hrs period.

This is false information. Instance retirement event is just host maintenance event. NOT THE replacement process.

So, there is no specific date to end support for older instance type, they are retired gradually and we are only notified through scheduled events?

For detailed information on the process and implications of instance retirement, please refer to the following resource: [Understanding Instance Retirement on AWS](https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AWSEC2/latest/UserGuide/instance-retirement.html). Additional [Scheduled events for your instances](https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AWSEC2/latest/UserGuide/monitoring-instances-status-check_sched.html)

That's a great news! Thank you for the link

So, there is no specific date to end support for older instance type, they are retired gradually and we are only notified through scheduled events?

For detailed information on the process and implications of instance retirement, please refer to the following resource: [Understanding Instance Retirement on AWS](https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AWSEC2/latest/UserGuide/instance-retirement.html). Additional [Scheduled events for your instances](https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AWSEC2/latest/UserGuide/monitoring-instances-status-check_sched.html)

That's a great news! Thank you for the link

As sktan mentioned, T2, T3a and T3 are burstable, which means you don't get to use 100% of the CPU all the time. If your job is CPU-bound, I doubt a burstable instance will be cost effective.

The difference between t2 and c6g instances is the burstable nature of the t2 instance. A t2.micro is cheap because of the way the credit system works, where you can't always use 100% of your CPU and can only burst there periodically.

As sktan mentioned, T2, T3a and T3 are burstable, which means you don't get to use 100% of the CPU all the time. If your job is CPU-bound, I doubt a burstable instance will be cost effective.

The difference between t2 and c6g instances is the burstable nature of the t2 instance. A t2.micro is cheap because of the way the credit system works, where you can't always use 100% of your CPU and can only burst there periodically.

As sktan mentioned, T2, T3a and T3 are burstable, which means you don't get to use 100% of the CPU all the time. If your job is CPU-bound, I doubt a burstable instance will be cost effective.

The difference between t2 and c6g instances is the burstable nature of the t2 instance. A t2.micro is cheap because of the way the credit system works, where you can't always use 100% of your CPU and can only burst there periodically.

As sktan mentioned, T2, T3a and T3 are burstable, which means you don't get to use 100% of the CPU all the time. If your job is CPU-bound, I doubt a burstable instance will be cost effective.

The difference between t2 and c6g instances is the burstable nature of the t2 instance. A t2.micro is cheap because of the way the credit system works, where you can't always use 100% of your CPU and can only burst there periodically.

As sktan mentioned, T2, T3a and T3 are burstable, which means you don't get to use 100% of the CPU all the time. If your job is CPU-bound, I doubt a burstable instance will be cost effective.

The difference between t2 and c6g instances is the burstable nature of the t2 instance. A t2.micro is cheap because of the way the credit system works, where you can't always use 100% of your CPU and can only burst there periodically.