4 ms·
> Also, you get more CPU bang for your buck. I'm not sure this is necessarily true. We did a recent study and found RAX costs almost double for our example web
by akh 14y ago
> Also, you get more CPU bang for your buck.
I'm not sure this is necessarily true. We did a recent study and found RAX costs almost double for our example web app: http://blog.shopforcloud.com/2012/02/holy-cow-rackspace-uk-cloud-would-be.html http://blog.shopforcloud.com/2012/02/holy-cow-rackspace-uk-c...
- dagw 14y agoDid you run any actual tests? I recently needed to crunch a big bunch of numbers and, instead of simply comparing specs, I actually benchmarked various EC2 and rackspace configurations to find actual calculations per $. The end result was that using Rackspace (4GB instance) would end up about 30% cheaper than EC2 for my particular work load.
- akh 14y agoGood point, we didn't actually run the tests. We're planning on expanding our focus beyond just cost to include performance and features of the clouds as well.
- asharp 14y agoBe careful with that on rackspace. If I recall correctly, they use a credit scheduler with burst capacity. You need to be sure that you're not just getting a bunch of burst capacity and factoring that in with your cost calcs.