Automated infrastructure deployments with CloudFormation

If you are like me (and many other people in the industry), I am sure you can relate to this: You get your hand on a new toy (like CloudFormation) and just want to get going. Therefore you ignore all the on-line help material that is kindly written and published by a myriad of technical writers. Instead you just ‘borrow’ a number of existing scripts (or templates in this case) from the web and tweak them for your purpose. Until you hit a dead end. Where something doesn’t work as expected and you need to start to debug the work you have done borrowed.

This is likely the time where you wish you had a better understanding of the inner workings of a tool. I have used CloudFormation for quite some time now. Looking back at my path of enlightenment I do remember a number of items I wish I had understood better or paid some more attention at the time. For that reason I would like to share a few nuggets that will provide new starters on the topic a somewhat flattened learning curve and provide an outlook on the opportunities and challenges that follow on your first discoveries with CloudFormation templates.

Open your mind to automation

From the standpoint of new adopter of AWS cloud services you may be tempted to disregard CloudFormation templates as a time waster: Automating the deployment of a vanilla EC2 instance with CloudFormation doesn’t save you any time over the manual provisioning of the resources through the AWS Console.
However, we need to be careful to not cheat ourselves here. In the ‘old’ days, when did you ever have to provision a bare metal server containing the core operating system only? Never! One always had to touch the machine to install or at least configure the application stack, database environment, etc. You name it. At this time it was also commonly accepted that the process of ‘crafting’ a new server instance was taking days if not weeks. And this doesn’t even include the time for ordering and delivery.

Also, when was the last time that you only ever needed one of each type? That must have been at one of our side projects where development, test and production was all based on a single code base running on a server hidden somewhere in the attic. Today you tend to require at least four environments to facilitate the software development life cycle. For good measure you probably also want to add one more for a BlueGreen Deployment.
This is the time where you (should) start to manage your infrastructure as code. And at the same time automation becomes the king of the kingdom.

AWS provides a good variety of helper scripts that come pre-installed with all Amazon provided machine images or as executables for the installation on your own images.
In combination with the instructions you provide within the stack templates those automation scripts enable you to deploy an entire infrastructure stack with the click of a few buttons – unless of course you even automate this bit through the use of the CloudFormation API.
Understanding the interdependencies and differences between the various sections of the template and automation scripts helps you with the successful development your stack.

CloudFormation init (cfn-init)

The most commonly used script, aside from cloud-init (but more on this in a later post) would unarguable be cfn-init (CloudFormation init).
CloudFormation init (cfn-init) reads and processes the instructions provided insight the instance metadata as part of the CloudFormation template.
To run cfn-init you need to call it from insight the user data instructions or as part of any of the start-up processes of your own image.

You might like to know that the user data instructions are ‘magically’ executed by cloud-init. Cloud-init is an open source package that is widely used for the bootstrapping of cloud instances and we can dive deeper into this tool set in another post.

Cfn-init accepts a number of command line options. As a minimum you need to provide the name of the CloudFormation stack and the name of the element that contains the instance metadata instructions.

/opt/aws/bin/cfn-init -v --stack YourStackName --resource YourResourceName

This either is the launch configuration or an EC2 instance definition inside the CloudFormation template.
It is important for you to understand that the instance itself does not get ‘seeded’ with the template instructions as part of the launch. In fact: the instance itself has no appreciation of the fact that its launch was initiated by CloudFormation. Instead, the cfn-init script reaches out to the public CloudFormation api endpoint to retrieve the template instructions. This is important to realize if you are launching your instance inside a VPC that has no connectivity to the internet or provides the connectivity via a proxy server that requires explicit configuration.

Configuration sets

CloudFormation init instructions can be grouped into multiple configuration sets.
I strongly suggest you take advantage of this functionality to support the separation of concerns and enable reuse of template fragments.
With its procedural template instructions, CloudFormation doesn’t necessarily support DRY coding practices – and neither is it supposed to do so.
However, if your set-up requires a common set of applications or configurations installed and configured on each instance (think anti-virus, compliance or log forwarding agents, etc.), you are well placed to keep those parts separated in their own configuration set. In combination with a centralised source control management system or an advanced text editor like sublime or notepad++, you can then fairly easy maintain and quickly re-use those common parts of your stack.
Bear in mind though that this isn’t the only solution to ensure common components are always rolled into the stack. In a previous post I have written about the advantages and trade-offs for scripted launches of instances vs the use of pre-baked, customised machine images.
Above solution doesn’t scale well for larger environments. If you want to automate your infrastructure across tens or hundreds of templates, you will soon hit the limits. As your environment requires patching, and you start re-factoring your code fragments, you need to ensure that every stack in your environment is kept up-to-date.
Once you have reached that point, you will start to investigate the use of continuous integration solutions that hook into AWS for a more automated management of stacks across multiple environments.

Be mindful of alternatives

Which leads me nicely to my closing words. I am sure everyone is aware of the popular saying that goes along the line of:

‘if all you have has a tool is a hammer,
everything looks like a nail’.

Rest assured that your infrastructure and deployment solution is subject to the same paradigm. When I started with scripted deployments in AWS I made good use of the user data script. I partioned the various steps within my script and made it re-usable. I split it up into individual bash or powershell scripts that I deployed them to the instances and called them from within the user data or cascaded them amongst each other. And felt very clever! Until my fleet of instances started increasing. Therefore I discovered that a lot of the effort managing the fleet could be saved in using CloudFormation. As part of this the instance definitions moved to CloudFormation Init metadata and provided me with additional flexibility. CloudFormation Init then allowed me to define in a declarative way what actions I wanted to perform on an instance and in which order – much alike the YAM based cloud-init configuration, but at the scale of a whole stack, not just a single instance. No longer did I have to navigate to a specific directory, download a RPM package using wget or curl, install it using the package manager, ensure the application is started at boot time, and so on. Instead I can just provided declarative instructions inside one or more of the 7 supported configuration keys.
As discussed earlier, I yet again felt very smart, I started to organise my individual declarative instructions in configuration sets, managed them in a central repository for re-use, etc. Until, well, you can probably already guess it by now: until I discovered that it is worth considering the use of AWS Opsworks and Elastic Beanstalk resources inside CloudFormation stack. AWS Opsworks abstracts your configuration instructions further away from the declarative configuration in the init metadata. Using a managed Chef service you have access to a large variety of pre-defined recipes for the installation and configuration of additional components of your system.
Since those recipes are continuously maintained and updated by the wider community you don’t need to re-invent the wheel over and over again.
While I do have to admit that the re-invention of the wheel has served humankind quite well to date (imagine our cars would still use stone wheels), it is quite obvious that the wisdom and throughput of a whole community can be much higher then the capability of an individual.
The same can be said about Elastic Beanstalk. Where OpsWorks helped you to accelerate the deployment of common components, Elastic Beanstalk allows you to automate the resilient and scalable deployment of your application into the stack without you even having to describe or configure the details for load balancing and scaling.

In summary

The point I would like to make is that in a world where “the slow eats the fast”, we can never settle at a given solution at any given time. Our whole community, including AWS, is constantly evolving to allow organisations to innovate, develop and ship features at an ever increasing rate. This is achieved in the continuous abstraction away from the core underlying infrastructure and services and the combination of traditional features with new functionality and innovation.
To stay on top of the game as an IT professional there is the need to constantly challenge the status quo and, where applicable, make the leap of faith to investigate and learn new ways of doing our business.

Amazon S3 vs. Amazon Glacier: a simple backup strategy in the cloud

When you start out to design your first application for the hosting on AWS (Amazon Web Services) you will eventually end up considering your options for the protection of your and your customers’ data against accidental losses.
While you may have designed a highly resilient and durable solution, this does not necessarily protected you from administrative mishaps, data corruption or malicious attacks against your system. This can only be mitigated with an effective backup strategy.
Thanks to Amazon’s Simple Storage Service (S3) and its younger sibling Amazon Glacier you have the right services at hand to establish a cost effective, yet practical backup solution.

Within Amazon S3 data is managed as individual objects. This is contrary to Amazon’s Elastic Block Store (EBS) or the local file system of your traditional PC, where data is managed in a directory hierarchy.
The abstraction, away from the lower layers of storage, and the separation of data from its metadata come with a number of benefits. For one, Amazon can provide a highly durable storage service for the fraction of the cost of block storage. You also only pay for the amount of storage you actually use. Therefore you don’t need to second-guess and pre-allocate disk space upfront.

Hierarchical storage with AWS Glacier

Lifecycle rules within S3 allow you to manage the life cycle of the objects stored on S3. After a set period of time you can either have your objects automatically delete or archived off to Amazon Glacier.

AWS S3 LifeCycle

Amazon Glacier is marketed by AWS as “extremely low cost storage”. The cost per Terrabyte of storage and month is again only a fraction of the cost of S3. Amazon Glacier is pretty much designed as a write once and retrieve never (or rather rarely) service. This is reflected in the pricing, where extensive restores come at a additional cost and the restore of objects require lead times of up to 5 hours.

Amazon S3 with Glacier vs. Amazon Glacier

At this stage we need to highlight the difference between the ‘pure’ Amazon Glacier service and the Glacier storage class within Amazon S3. S3 objects that have been moved to Glacier storage using S3 Lifecycle policies can only be accessed (or shall I say restored) using the S3 API endpoints. As such they are still managed as objects within S3buckets, instead of Archives within Vaults, which is the Glacier terminology.

This differentiation is important when you look at the costs of the services. While Amazon Glacier is much cheaper than S3 on storage, charges are approximatey ten times higher for archive and restore requests. This is re-iterating the store once, retrieve seldom pattern. Amazon also reserves 32KB for metadata per Archive within Glazier, instead of 8 KB per Object in S3, both of which are charged back to the user. This is important to keep in mind for your backup strategy, particularly if you are storing a large number of small files. If those files are unlikely to require restoring in the short term it may be more cost effective to combine them into an archive and store them directly within Amazon Glazier.


Fortunately enough, there is a large variety of tools available on the web that allow you to consume AWS S3 and Glacier services to create backups of your data. They reach from stand-alone, local PC to enterprise storage solutions.

Just bear in mind that whatever third party tool you are using, you will need to enable with access to your AWS account. You need to ensure that the backup tool only gets the minimum amount of access to perform its duties. For this reason it is best to issue a separate set of access keys for this purpose. You may also want to consider the backup of your data to an entirely independent AWS account. Depending on your individual risk profile and considering that your backups tend to provide the last resort recovery option after a major disaster it may be wise to keep those concerns separated. Particularly to protect yourself against cases like Code Spaces where all services and data within the account got wiped out entirely.
For reference we have included instructions below for the configuration of dedicated backup credentials on the example for my backup tool of choice CloudBerry.

AWS Identity and Access Management

Identity and Access Management (IAM) allows you to manage users and groups for your AWS account and define fine grained policies for the access management of the various services and resources. To get started log-in to the AWS Management Console and open the link for IAM

This opens the IAM Dashboard. Once in the Dashboard you can navigate to Users and select the Create New Users option. Selecting the “Generate an access key for each User” option ensures that an access key is issued for each user at creation time. An access key can be issued at a later time as well though in case you miss that step.

After confirming the dialogue you will be given the opportunity to download the Security Credentials, consisting of an unique Access Key identifier and the Secret Access Key itself. Naturally the Access Key should be stored in a secure place.

As a default, new users will not have any access to any of the resources within the account. Access is granted in attaching an IAM policy directly to a user account or in adding the user to a group with an IAM policy attached. To attach a user policy to an account, select the user and open the Permissions tab.

IAM policies allow for very granular access to AWS resources; hence I am not going into too much detail here. Policies can be defined using pre-defined templates or the policy generation tool. For the purpose of allowing your backup tool write access to your AWS S3 bucket just select the Custom Policy Option.

Below policy grants three different sets of rights:

  • Access to AWS S3 to list all buckets for the account,
  • Access to the bucket MyBucketName and
  • The ability to read, write and delete objects within the MyBucketName bucket.
  "Version": "2012-10-17",
  "Statement": [
      "Effect": "Allow",
      "Action": ["s3:GetBucketLocation","s3:ListAllMyBuckets"],
      "Resource": "arn:aws:s3:::*"
      "Effect": "Allow",
      "Action": [ "s3:ListBucket" ],
      "Resource": [ "arn:aws:s3:::MyBucketName" ]
      "Effect": "Allow",
      "Action": [ "s3:PutObject", "s3:GetObject", "s3:DeleteObject"],
      "Resource": [ "arn:aws:s3:::MyBucketName/*"]

If you don’t want to give access to list all available buckets within your account, just omit the first object within the JSON statement. In this case though the bucket name cannot be selected within the application.

      "Effect": "Allow",
      "Action": ["s3:GetBucketLocation","s3:ListAllMyBuckets"],
      "Resource": "arn:aws:s3:::*"


While this post primarily focussed on backup options for your hosted environments, it is not limited to this. Amazon S3 and Glacier are available world wide through public API endpoints.
Additionally, enterprises can make use of the AWS storage gateway to backup your on-premises data in AWS. Commonly known enterprise backup software from vendors like Commvault, EMC or Symantec also provide you with options to utilise Amazon’s cloud storage as an additional storage tier within your backup strategy.

Architecting on AWS – design for graceful service degradation

Throughout our series of posts we have already seen a variety of architectural patterns that allow us to design scalable and resilient solutions in using the capabilities provided to us by Amazon Web Services (AWS). However, even the best design can have flaws and may show signs of bottlenecks over time or as the demand on your application increases. This could be caused by additional load created by an influx of additional customers using your application or an increasing amount of data that needs indexing in your relational storage tier, to only name a couple.

As the saying goes; the devil is in the detail and your service quality can degrade for a large variety of reasons. While you may not be able to predict and detect each and every potential issue through load testing, you can use a number of architectural patterns to ensure that you continue to interact with your customers or users and therefore have a higher chance of keeping them satisfied.

No matter how well  you plan your solution, it’s unavoidable that some dependencies or processes will live beyond the control of the calling process.. A typical response to this has originally been described by Michael Nygard with the Circuit Breaker Pattern. Many sources already talk about the use of the pattern in the application development space.
The same concept can also be implemented in the AWS infrastructure layer.

Your key ingredients for this are the Route 53 managed DNS service in combination with Route 53 health checks. Route 53 allows you to create primary and secondary DNS record sets for a given record. This is best explained with an example.

Primary DNS record set

Imagine your web site is hosted on a number of web servers that are load balanced using an AWS Elastic Load Balancer (ELB). So in Route 53 you would create an alias record set that points to the ELB endpoint.

AWS Route 53 primary

We then set the routing policy to failover with a record type to Primary. This advises Route 53 to only respond with the IP address of the configured endpoint if the associated resource status is healthy.
For this to work you also need to create a Route 53 health check and associate it within the current record set.
In its most basic configuration you would point the health check to the same target as the DNS entry. Most of today’s modern web applications though are dependent on a variety of service tiers. Therefore you may want to consider the deployment of a custom health service as mentioned in my earlier post on AutoScaling. This way, the status of all sub-services contributing to the overall user experience can be included in your web site’s overall calculation.

Secondary DNS record set

Next we need to configure the secondary record set with the IP of your failover solution. Route 53 will respond with this target when the primary is considered unhealthy. Again, in its most basic form this could just be a public S3 bucket with a static web page that is enabled for website hosting.

AWS S3 Website

When setting up the static site, you need to ensure that the bucket has the same name as your domain as described above. When you finished configuring the static web site, you can jump back to Route 53 to associate the secondary DNS alias record for your domain. This time we are selecting the S3 bucket as the target.

AWS Route 53 secondary

In summary

We tend to stumble across a large variety of different needs in our daily work, each of which demands its own unique solution. For this reason this post can yet again only serve an appetiser.
AWS and Route 53 allows for far more complex scenarios and cascading DNS configurations that allows you to combine regional, weighted and failover records to cater for a wide variety of use cases.

Your solution can also be more sophisticated than a basic static web page that is hosted on S3. Instead you could also fail over to a secondary data centre in a different region or a secondary environment that may provide a limited set of features to the users or your site.
This again may be controlled by the logic in your health reporting service in combination with your application logic. You may, for example, still be able to take orders when the warehouse service is unavailable, though you may not be able to display real time availability information.
However, you would want to switch over to an alternative web site that is informing your customers when your web site is overloaded. The combination of an intelligent application and infrastructure design ensures that existing customers with an active transaction (e.g. a full shopping basket) can continue to check-out, while new visitor to the site are asked for a bit of patience.

As mentioned before, every solution is different. Therefore it is important for you to understand the capabilities that are provided as part of today’s Cloud offerings. This way you can start considering solutions that are beyond the limitations of your traditional infrastructure services.

DISCLOSURE: This post has originally been created for and sponsored by

Architecting on AWS: Optimising the application design

In our practice we hear a variety of misconceptions and misinterpretations in relation to the benefits of moving workloads ‘into the cloud’. You should be very vary if someone wants to make you believe that the pure migration of a traditional application to a cloud services vendor will make it any more scalable or reliable. Of course, you can scale vertically in increasing the size of your compute nodes. However, this still restricts you to the maximum size of instances available. Scaling horizontally on the other hand, in distributing your workload over multiple instances, requires special considerationswith regard to optimizing the application design.

As part of your migration strategy you should also critically review your existing application components and consider if any of the high level capabilities provided by your cloud vendor can deliver the same functionality at reduced cost, increased reliability, higher flexibility, et cetera. This story from marketing software provider Moz also serves as a timely reminder that your mileage may vary depending on the type of your workload and non-functional requirements. Therefore we can only provide a general guide as each option needs to be considered against its advantages and disadvantages against the overall solution.

Please note that we tend to angle our posts along the service catalogue of Amazon Web Services (AWS). However, most of the strategies and patterns we describe will also apply to other cloud vendors that provide capabilities with similar characteristics. With that in mind, let’s review our two tier example application from the first post in this series. To support the elasticity and reliability of our solution, we should consider a few concerns from the application perspective.

Optimizing the application design: session management

In the design we are using the Elastic Load Balancer (ELB) for the distribution of load between instances. By default, the ELB routes each request to the instance with the smallest load. This is also referred to stateless load balancing and needs to be considered in the design of your application. Unless you are having strong reasons to store your session state in memory on the web server, you should migrate to an external session provider. A common approach for this is the use of a session table within a relational database system. However, this doesn’t come without risks as the database system may be unnecessary flooded with session requests. This is potentially impacting on the overall performance of the application and causing scalability issues in the database tier.

On AWS you are better off to use DynamoDB. Amazon DynamoDB is a key-value data store (with recently added support for document data model) which delivers configurable, predictable performance. For that reason DynamoDB is an ideal candidate to consider for the management of session state. As a fully managed service you won’t even have to worry about any operational or administrative cost.

Optimizing the application design

A word on RDS and scaling

If you are an observant reader you may have already spotted a snag. If you really want your overall solution to be truly scalable, you need to ensure that this is applied to each tier of the application. This is posing a couple of issues in the traditional relational database space. While you have the ability to ‘crank-up’ the amount of provisioned IOPS for your RDS instances, there is no ability to autoscale database instances in the same fashion as EC2.

A common design pattern is the separation of write operations from read operations. By the general nature of storage systems read operations tend to be proportionally higher than database write operations. For that reason you can offload read requests to a dedicated (set of) read replicas to provide some level of scalability. Based on the underlying design limitations within the storage engines though, this cannot be provided fully automated. Amongst other limitations we also need to highlight that the support of read replicas in RDS is limited to MySQL, PostgreSQL and the new Aurora storage engines.

Alternative database technologies

All this is obviously not going to be an issue for you if you are dealing with very steady and predictable workloads. If you do have the need to deliver a scalable solution though, you will eventually get to the stage where you need to consider alternative mechanisms to reduce the load on your relational database environment. An obvious choice would be the consideration of alternative database technologies like Amazon DynamoDB or Amazon SimpleDB for the data that doesn’t require a relational structure.

Content distribution

You can also reduce the strain on your application and database services in employing caching services like Amazon CloudFront. As described earlier, CloudFront provides a large number of edge locations across the globe that act like a massive cache for web and streaming content. The cache behaviour settings allow you to optimise the cache behaviour for the unique needs of your application. As an added bonus this will also improve the overall user experience for your customers.

Optimizing the application design

Object storage

Finally we briefly want to touch on the Amazon S3 storage service. Again, many traditional application designs make us of relational or file system resources for the storage of BLOB objects. While you can certainly continue on that path, we recommend to rethink that approach for a number of reasons. For one, you obviously need to continue to provide and manage your own file system or relational database environment. You also have to ensure that the systems are always up-to-date, ensure that you have got enough available disk space available and the systems are actually available to meet your service level agreements.

If those operational reasons haven’t put you off yet, you may want to consider the actual costs for storage. Based on the figures for my ‘home’ region Sydney, the cost of storing 100 GByte of data on S3 is approximately 30% of the cost of Elastic Block Storage or RDS. And the pure cost of storage doesn’t even include the cost for utility compute to power the relational database or file system environments. So unless there is a specific need for a direct attached, high performing local disk e.g. for the hosting of a COTS solution like SAP, we strongly recommend to consider the use of the S3 object store where applicable.

With those initial teasers in mind you should start exploring the AWS service catalogue and our rich training content on CloudAcademy to consider what other services you could utilise to address the unique concerns of your solution.

DISCLOSURE: This post has originally been created for and sponsored by

Architecting on AWS: Dynamic configuration vs master AMIs

Infrastructure as a Service holds the promise of reduced costs and increased flexibility that is enabled through ease of operation and management. To seize that opportunity as IT professionals when we are architecting on AWS though, we need to adapt how we view, manage and operate today’s technology.

The desire to respond more agile to changing business needs and the ever increasing pace in innovation has helped to form the DevOps service delivery model where the development and operations domains moved closer together.
Modern cloud service providers support and continuously advance the model of coded infrastructure. As part of that they keep abstracting further away from our traditional understanding of IT infrastructure. This is reaching a point, where compute services become a true commodity similar to power or tap water.

If you are new to cloud computing and coded infrastructure, it is important for you to understand those underlying basics as we are going to built on them at the later stage as indicated in the ‘Outlook’ below.

architecting on aws

When you create a new AWS EC2 instance from one of the (admitting large variety) of Amazon Machine Images (AMIs) you will eventually require to customise certain configuration settings or deploy additional applications to tailor it for your solution. The Base Microsoft Windows Server AMI for example doesn’t have a web server pre-installed. This provides you with the flexibility to configure the web server of your choice.
While we could log-on to the machine after launch and manually deploy and configure our web server, this is obviously not going to be good enough long term. Particular not, if we eventually want to be able to dynamically scale our environment. Even if you just want to make a single instance more fault tolerant as described in our previous post in this series, you would need to employ a basic level of automation.

Architecting on AWS: the options continuum

As with any good IT problem there is more than one solution to the problem. Naturally those options are kind of on opposing ends of a scale. Your task is to weigh off the advantages and disadvantages of each option to find the optimal solution for your needs.

Dynamic configuration

The standard AWS AMIs can be instructed to perform automated tasks or configuration actions at launch time. This is enabled by the EC2Config service for Windows and cloud-init scripts under Linux. You provide those instructions as “user data” as part of the advanced launch configuration of your instances as shown in the example below.
architecting on aws

The user data instructions can either contain Microsoft script commands and PowerShell scripts on Windows or Shell Script and cloud-init directives on Linux based AMIs. The actual types of actions performed are only limited by your imagination and the total size limit of 16 kilobyte (a minor but important detail).

Pre-baked AMIs

Instead of configuring your instances dynamically at launch time, you can also create your own version of an Amazon Machine Image. Just launch a new instance, ensure that all your ‘static’ applications and settings have been applied, to finally create a new image from that instance. This is done in the AWS console using the Create Image option from the instance Actions menu or using the create-image command from the Command Line Interface.

architecting on aws


Your decision of to decide for a dynamic configuration or master image approach depends on your individual use case. Each of the options does have its advantages and disadvantages that you need to understand and assess against each other in order to find the best solution for your scenario.

One advantage of using pre-baked AMIs is the reduced time to get a new instance from ‘launch’ to ‘ready’. With all components pre-configured and applications installed, you just need to wait for the instance to launch.
This obviously comes at a cost as the image requires constant maintenance. Even if your application code is fairly static, you still need to ensure that you keep your images patched regularly to ensure the resulting instances are not exposed to any new security threats.

On the other hand the dynamic configuration provides you with a lot of flexibility. Every instance you launch can have a ever so slightly different configuration.
Since you always ever start with an AWS managed AMI your security patches are ‘reasonable’ up-to-date (i.e. usually within 5 business days after Microsoft’s patch Tuesday for Windows AMIs).
You are ‘paying’ for this additional service through the time it takes for your instance to get itself ‘ready’ while executing all launch scripts. You also need to be aware that the ID of the AMI image changes whenever AWS releases a new version of the patched image. This is particularly important to note for your scripted launches or AutoScaling configurations as described in our previous post on this topic.

Fortunately we are able to combine the two options to get the best of two worlds. For this scenario you would create an AMI image that contains the applications and configurations items that are changing infrequently (e.g. Internet Information Server, Windows update configuration, etc.). Items that are changing frequently (e.g. your own application) are then injected as part of the dynamic launch configuration.
This approach minimises the time to get a new instance to the ‘ready’ state, yet still provides you with a level of flexibility to influence the final result through the user data instructions.


While this post provided you with an introduction to the entry level functionality provided to you by AWS this is really just the tip of the iceberg to get your head into the right space towards the concept of a coded infrastructure.
Auxiliary configuration management solutions like Chef, Puppet and PowerShell DSC provide you with additional flexibility and control over your larger deployments.
Based on Chef, AWS OpsWorks also provides you with an application management solution, which is currently limited to Linux based AMIs.

At re:Invent 2014 AWS also released AWS CodeDeploy, supporting the automated deployment of code updates to your Linux and Windows environments, which is currently available for the North Virginia and Oregon regions. Knowing AWS though this is only going to be a short term limitation and we’ll be looking at this service, probably also in combination with Elastic Beanstalk and CloudFormation at a later stage. In the interim you can start to learn more about the individual AWS services using the courses that are available from CloudAcademy.

DISCLOSURE: This post has originally been created for and sponsored by