3 ms·

Agreed. Having your lowest tier offering priced at over $500/mo is cost prohibitive in a lot of situations. Even their "dev" tier is $130/mo for a single instan

Agreed. Having your lowest tier offering priced at over $500/mo is cost prohibitive in a lot of situations. Even their "dev" tier is $130/mo for a single instance. It would be much nicer if they just let you choose how much storage, CPU, and memory you need rather than only letting you select from a limited set of offerings.

mfreed 6y ago
The main difference on Timescale Cloud between dev (starting $115) and production is just the resource availability and slightly longer PITR recovery period for non-dev options. Both offer same full TimescaleDB experience, console, ability to upgrade/downgrade, fork your database, etc. If you do want a lower priced option, we actually recently also released a second managed cloud offering in public preview, Timescale Forge: https://timescale.com/forge https://timescale.com/forge. Timescale Cloud provides great flexibility with multi-cloud and 75+ regions, security conscious options like VPC peering and SOC2/ISO/HIPAA compliance, and a more traditional DBaaS Experience. Timescale Forge is a innovative platform with capabilities like decoupled compute and storage (so you can select yourself the exact configuration you want, starting at $49/month), instant pause/resume, native support for our Prometheus integration, and more coming...
- dkersten 6y ago
  Eek, Forge price starts at $49 but the next tier up is $166, after which it incrementally increases. That’s quite a jump. If my budget is in that price range, then such a jump is likely a huge deal for me.
  - akulkarni 6y ago
    Thanks for the feedback. I'm curious - what kind of pricing would you expect? Also, is this for an R&D workload, or for something that's already in production?
    - DenseComet 6y ago
      I think people are thinking of something similar to Digital Ocean's managed databases or Amazon's RDS, but that's quite a different class of services than what it seems timescale is trying to provide with Timescale Cloud. If people want to play around with timescaleDB for cheap, DigitalOcean claims that their managed postgres supports the timescale extension, but I've never tried it.
      - mfreed 6y ago
        Yep, Digital Ocean (as well as Azure, Rackspace, and others) offer TimescaleDB with their managed Postgres offerings, but they can only offer the Apache-2 version. So you don't get native compression, continuous aggregates, downsampling, etc., many of which make the Timescale Cloud version actually less expensive when considering capabilities (e.g., 50GB on Timescale Cloud can store akin to 1TB elsewhere and have faster queries, continuous aggs mean faster and less-CPU to run dashboards, etc).
    - dkersten 6y ago
      Just something that scales more smoothly. The price difference between the lowest (by price) and next lowest is $117, but the difference between that and the third lowest is only $19. I know that the difference isn't the same (more CPU and RAM, vs only more disk space), but it just seems like a big jump. I could very much imagine that I might outgrow the $49 option, but not to the point where I'm willing to pay triple that amount. I'm not necessarily saying you should change it, maybe its just messaging and targetting. I guess on HN you just get a load of us who are interested in using it for smaller projects (where the 49 option might be perfectly fine, of course).
      - akulkarni 6y ago
        Appreciate the feedback - thank you!
        dkersten 6y ago
        You're welcome. I've played with the OSS version of TimescaleDB in the past and am a big fan. Keep up the good work. Perhaps in time, I'll be in a position to use it more seriously.

mfreed 6y ago

The main difference on Timescale Cloud between dev (starting $115) and production is just the resource availability and slightly longer PITR recovery period for non-dev options. Both offer same full TimescaleDB experience, console, ability to upgrade/downgrade, fork your database, etc. If you do want a lower priced option, we actually recently also released a second managed cloud offering in public preview, Timescale Forge: https://timescale.com/forge https://timescale.com/forge. Timescale Cloud provides great flexibility with multi-cloud and 75+ regions, security conscious options like VPC peering and SOC2/ISO/HIPAA compliance, and a more traditional DBaaS Experience. Timescale Forge is a innovative platform with capabilities like decoupled compute and storage (so you can select yourself the exact configuration you want, starting at $49/month), instant pause/resume, native support for our Prometheus integration, and more coming...

dkersten 6y ago
Eek, Forge price starts at $49 but the next tier up is $166, after which it incrementally increases. That’s quite a jump. If my budget is in that price range, then such a jump is likely a huge deal for me.
- akulkarni 6y ago
  Thanks for the feedback. I'm curious - what kind of pricing would you expect? Also, is this for an R&D workload, or for something that's already in production?
  - DenseComet 6y ago
    I think people are thinking of something similar to Digital Ocean's managed databases or Amazon's RDS, but that's quite a different class of services than what it seems timescale is trying to provide with Timescale Cloud. If people want to play around with timescaleDB for cheap, DigitalOcean claims that their managed postgres supports the timescale extension, but I've never tried it.
    - mfreed 6y ago
      Yep, Digital Ocean (as well as Azure, Rackspace, and others) offer TimescaleDB with their managed Postgres offerings, but they can only offer the Apache-2 version. So you don't get native compression, continuous aggregates, downsampling, etc., many of which make the Timescale Cloud version actually less expensive when considering capabilities (e.g., 50GB on Timescale Cloud can store akin to 1TB elsewhere and have faster queries, continuous aggs mean faster and less-CPU to run dashboards, etc).
  - dkersten 6y ago
    Just something that scales more smoothly. The price difference between the lowest (by price) and next lowest is $117, but the difference between that and the third lowest is only $19. I know that the difference isn't the same (more CPU and RAM, vs only more disk space), but it just seems like a big jump. I could very much imagine that I might outgrow the $49 option, but not to the point where I'm willing to pay triple that amount. I'm not necessarily saying you should change it, maybe its just messaging and targetting. I guess on HN you just get a load of us who are interested in using it for smaller projects (where the 49 option might be perfectly fine, of course).
    - akulkarni 6y ago
      Appreciate the feedback - thank you!
      - dkersten 6y ago
        You're welcome. I've played with the OSS version of TimescaleDB in the past and am a big fan. Keep up the good work. Perhaps in time, I'll be in a position to use it more seriously.