2 ms·

I know that, but I've never understood the PaaS model of just slapping X% on top of the underlying cloud cost. It just invites customers to migrate to the under

I know that, but I've never understood the PaaS model of just slapping X% on top of the underlying cloud cost. It just invites customers to migrate to the underlying cloud once they're big enough to hire and sustain a dedicated devops team and setup something like k8s. Surely the amortized costs of the Fly.io platform don't scale linearly with the power of the VMs you rent from them. A 64GiB server won't be twice as expensive to maintain as a 32GiB one. So why not create a model that e.g. consists of a cost per VM/autoscaling group/etc plus whatever the VMs cost? I'm genuinely interested, I could very well be missing something.

mrkurt 4y ago
The costs of the VMs scale linearly. The bigger they get, the more additional capacity we need to be able to launch on demand ones. It's not just RAM, though, our physical servers have a consistent ratio of RAM/CPU/disk available. You're basically just buying slivers of hardware we've already paid for. That said, our pricing isn't far off of AWS. They have much better economies of scale than we do, and can afford to do Graviton, but you get pretty close horsepower per dollar for comparable instances.