3 ms·
You don't get what you don't pay for. "Linode works for me" is just anecdotal. I suspect Linode has smaller margins than Amazon, though, and tries to pass savin
by wisty 15y ago
You don't get what you don't pay for. "Linode works for me" is just anecdotal. I suspect Linode has smaller margins than Amazon, though, and tries to pass savings onto their customers despite not having Amazon's economies of scale.
An Amazon small instance has 1.7 GB of memory, and 160 GB of "local instance storage" (which Amazon will wipe when your instance goes down), and "1 EC2 unit" (a single core on a 1.2 GHz 2007 Xeon processor). It will cost you about $60 a month.
A similar plan on Linode will give you 1.5 GB RAM, and 60 GB storage. They will also throw in bandwidth and persistent storage, though.
Amazon tends to give you more flexibility (on demand prices, spot prices, dedicated prices, bigger instances, smaller instances, persistent storage, cheap temporary storage, and so on). But it's not as easy to use as Linode.
Linode targets people who want a cloud server. Amazon has a number of uses.
- astrodust 15y agoAn Amazon "small" instance in no way compares to a Linode 1.5GB server. Linode beats the pants off of Amazon at every price point so badly that it's hard to even compare the two. A 4GB Linode performs faster than an 8GB EC2 "large" instance. Only the Amazon "High-CPU" instances come close, so you'd need to compare an EC2 "medium" with a Linode 2GB to make it even close to fair. The Linode also comes with 8 virtual cores, the EC2 unit with 2. The real trouble with Amazon is the erratic performance of the EBS system which can kill an otherwise fast system. Linode's I/O does seem to be much more consistent and predictable. Amazon's storage capacity and the cost of storage is unmatched, though. If you have a mountain of data, Linode will be prohibitively expensive.