4 ms·
> The article is about – saving 30% by switching from Spot to 70% more expensive VMs. It's the opposite of what you're talking about here. I don't think those
by motorest 1y ago
> The article is about – saving 30% by switching from Spot to 70% more expensive VMs. It's the opposite of what you're talking about here.
I don't think those values hold any meaning, specially after no concrete details are actually listed. For example, if hypothetical spot instances have a lower unit cost but your system needs to be over provisioned to account for systematic cold starts and cluster chatter, does it make any sense to say they are cheaper?
> This information is wrong.
Is it? Forward your complains to Google, then.
https://cloud.google.com/compute/docs/instances/committed-use-discounts-overview https://cloud.google.com/compute/docs/instances/committed-us...
- rdsubhas 1y agoYes, that's what the article is about. And yes, the comment is confidently wrong as said in that page.
- motorest 1y ago> Yes, that's what the article is about. Not really. Hand-waving over hypothetical unit costs means nothing. In fact, I wonder if that's why the article lists no specifics on the cost structure of the spot instance based approach, and why the cloud 101 approach is spun to be such a surprise. > And yes, the comment is confidently wrong as said in that page. You're literally trying to gaslight when all it takes to verify your claim is a single click. Wild.
- rdsubhas 1y agoI had asked: In which cloud do you see CUDs being 70% cheaper for standard machines? And the article has the standard machine spec, and the page shows clearly your information is blatantly wrong. Fitting a different content into your own pre-set wrong mental model is not worth engaging over.