4 ms·
> On the flip side of the coin, there are server providers such as digital oceans, GC, and Azure that can be more expensive than AWS. What gave the OP the impr
by andrenotgiant 6y ago
> On the flip side of the coin, there are server providers such as digital oceans, GC, and Azure that can be more expensive than AWS.
What gave the OP the impression that Digital Ocean is more expensive than AWS? AFAIK there is no configuration of Droplets vs EC2 where Digital Ocean is more expensive. In most cases, especially with any outbound bandwidth, it is cheaper by a large amount.
- hansvm 6y agoOff-topic: Bandwidth is still pretty costly at Digital Ocean (DO). You can rent an entire droplet along with the additional bandwidth that comes with said droplet for 50% less than just buying the extra bandwidth (and even with that 50% discount it's still prohibitive for bandwidth-intensive apps). More off-topic: I still generally like and use DO, but I dislike the policy of billing for one thing (e.g. 1vCPU) and adding hidden, fuzzy terms and conditions like "don't consume excessive CPU cycles." IMO the marketing ought to make it crystal clear that you're allowed to _burst_ to 100% use and also put in a well-defined threshold on any other resource limits like total CPU cycles so that people can plan accordingly and not be hit with surprise outages. It's similar to the complaint people have with Comcast selling XX00 Mbps packages and then tucking a miniscule bandwidth cap in the terms and conditions. That's potentially a fine policy, but it's extremely misleading to sell one thing and use fine print to shape it into a completely different offering.