4 ms·
For pay by the hour services where you can scale up a ton of instances, then destroy them when you're done and only pay for time used, then yeah it's more cost
by RyanKearney 15y ago
For pay by the hour services where you can scale up a ton of instances, then destroy them when you're done and only pay for time used, then yeah it's more cost effective to do it that way. However, this is about a monthly payment of nearly $1000 for a server you're supposed to have for a long time (there's no order it for 3 hours, then kill it and only pay for 3 hours of time used). If we were comparing EC2 instances to purchased hardware then yeah, that argument would be better suited.
- cschmidt 15y agoI don't think that's right. Their website says this: For your convenience, all Storm on Demand services are billed hourly. This flexibility allows you to create and destroy Storm Servers as you need them, and only pay for the time you need. https://www.stormondemand.com/servers/whystorm.html https://www.stormondemand.com/servers/whystorm.html It would appear you can bring up a server for 3 hours, and just pay for that.
- RyanKearney 15y agoAh, I knew they offered pay as you go (I tried them out before) but I assumed this was a sort of "dedicated only" server type that required you to pay monthly since I didn't see the hourly rate anywhere, just "$xxx / month".