3 ms·

For about the same monthly cost, Amazon has a dual-core machine with >3x the memory, 7.5 vs 2GB.

• ericd 17y ago
  How did you come to that conclusion? From what I'm seeing, the large instance is $0.34/hour, or $244/month. It looks like for a bit less ($199), one can get a 2x quad-core xeon with 6 gigs memory with the other deal.
  • lsc 17y ago
    moreover, you should expect to pay more for a physical server. It's more expensive to run a physical server than a slice of a virtual (at least until the physical servers start getting bigger than 32 or 64GiB) Physical servers provide more value to the user, too; if you split a disk to 8 VMs, in times of contention, each vm gets significantly less than 1/8th of the disk's maximum performance. See, sharing the disk means that during times of contention, what would otherwise be sequential access become random access, and disk, especially cheap sata disk, is not any good at random access. I wrote a bit about it here http://wiki.xen.prgmr.com/xenophilia/2010/03/forward-looking-statements.html http://wiki.xen.prgmr.com/xenophilia/2010/03/forward-looking... when I was trying to track down a problem that pinboard was complaining about. (turns out the problem was actually a debian xen bug and not actually the problem I was describing. But what I say above is still true; virtualization is not any good at all for disk I/O)