5 ms·
A factor this post doesn't mention is bandwidth cost. If you use a lot of bandwidth and negotiate competitive hardware pricing, you also save with dedicated hos
by jbyers 15y ago
A factor this post doesn't mention is bandwidth cost. If you use a lot of bandwidth and negotiate competitive hardware pricing, you also save with dedicated hosts.
Say you have 10 machines at SoftLayer and use 30TB a month. Each machine comes with 3TB and you pool your bandwidth for $25 per server so you can allocate the whole 30TB to your proxies. It's unknown what fraction of your server cost is applied to bandwidth, but we know the point where you start saving.
At Amazon 30TB of US-East EC2 bandwidth costs 10000 x .12 + 20000 x .09 = $3000.
If you estimate the bandwidth portion of your SoftLayer server cost at less than $275 you're saving money when using your full bandwidth allocation. With servers starting at $159, sub-$100 seems realistic.
In our case with dozens of servers and ~60 TB of bandwidth, we're saving thousands a month compared to EC2.
- benologist 15y agoYeah bandwidth can be insanely expensive on the cloud. Amazon at least can mitigate that if you're exclusively on their network so it's all incoming + across-their-network but as soon as you start kicking terabytes off their network you're going to feel it. Dedicateds with massive bandwidth plans are very easy to come by, on top of the perks of dedicated io and raid (which also starts very cheap).
- herbivore 15y agoWith many (if not most) reputable dedicated server providers nowadays Inbound traffic is not calculated towards your overall traffic. In other words, it's free and generally unlimited.
- benologist 15y agoI did not know that. My provider counts inbound which sucks because that's most of our traffic but we run at about 6 out of 10 terabytes per server per month so it's not a problem... for now.
- dhimes 15y agoIt double-sucks because it's not easy (AFAIK) to gzip traffic from web app to the server.
- asharp 15y agoRemember that most loads are 1:10 inbound:outbound, so unless you have a strange sort of workload it really doesn't help you much. If you do happen to have a lot of inbound traffic though, it's a nice little arrangement as the bandwidth may be almost free to the provider (Symetricity requirements) and still very useful to you.
- ridruejo 15y agoYes, that is also an issue for us, we provide a large number of downloads (virtual machines, installers) that go into the TB and it would be quite expensive to move that over to EC2. One nice feature of Amazon, if you can afford it, is the ease of use with which you can put that content on their CDN
- WALoeIII 15y agoYou can use their CDN (CloudFront) without moving your origin to EC2/S3. http://docs.amazonwebservices.com/AmazonCloudFront/latest/DeveloperGuide/index.html?CreatingDistributions.html http://docs.amazonwebservices.com/AmazonCloudFront/latest/De...
- FxChiP 15y agoBe sure to read the documentation though -- at the very least, keep in mind that they do not honor query strings, so any dynamic (I.e. behind a script) content you may want cached, you may have to do a little webserver rewrite magic for.
- asharp 15y agoDo any American clouds give you 95/5 billing?