4 ms·
I think you must have lost your train of thought halfway through this comment. Did you just try to show how Google's cloud service is worse than Amazon's by com
by chc 14y ago
I think you must have lost your train of thought halfway through this comment. Did you just try to show how Google's cloud service is worse than Amazon's by comparing it with a dedicated server from Hetzner? AFAIK all cloud services are more expensive pound-for-pound than Hetzner's dedicated servers.
- TillE 14y agoYeah, the Compute Engine offerings are clearly lined up against EC2, and the pricing is a bit cheaper. Still, it seems like a fairly niche product; Google suggests workloads like video encoding or scientific computing. By cutting out that lower ~$60/month tier, it's less attractive for many things people have used EC2 for.
- rorrr 14y agoI guess. AWS is still cheaper. However, Hetzner beats both by a huge margin, even though it's not a cloud offer.
- chc 14y agoNot "even though" — it beats them by a huge margin because it's not a cloud plan. Cloud plans pretty much always cost more for the same amount of power. Cloud hosts take care of managing the actual server hardware for you, to the point where you can increase your capacity a thousandfold in seconds and you're shielded from most actual hardware failures. A cloud provider handles those headaches for you, and in return you pay more to be able to focus on the software side of your app. Cloud plans can be cheaper, but AFAIK that's primarily when your capacity needs are bursty, because you can spin them up and down at will instead of maintaining a server farm that goes mostly unused half the time. (Or when your needs are very meager and the cloud is willing to sell you a tiny slice of capacity, because a cloud service's quantum of power it can sell is much smaller. On that end they compete more with traditional VPSes.)