5 ms·

This is a common misrepresentation. Given a unit, reserved instances might be price competitive, but that unit won't be performance competitive. Even with reser

by latch 13y ago

This is a common misrepresentation. Given a unit, reserved instances might be price competitive, but that unit won't be performance competitive. Even with reserved instances, you're talking about 2-4x worse price/performance at the minimum (much, much worse if SSDs are involved). Not to mention the upfront cost... Using reserved instances is the exact opposite of what anyone should be doing. The only way to get price competitive with EC2 is to go the absolute other direction: establish a baseline with dedicated/colo and use spot instances for tasks or to handle peaks.

vacri 13y ago
Speaking of misrepresentation, 'Not to mention the upfront cost'? What are you talking about? All the pricing proposals by AWS include clear references to it, and amortise the cost over the life of the plan. It's not a hidden cost. It's not an 'extra' cost on top of 'the monthly payment you thought you were making'.
- latch 13y ago
  I'm not, in any way, suggesting that the pricing structure isn't 100% transparent. I'm pointing out that there's an upfront component (say $1614 for a m3.2xlarge) to the reserved instance pricing - which is likely of interest to startups. Amazon calls this an "upfront payment"...I don't think "upfront cost" is a misrepresentation. This cost tends to be better than buying hardware, but it's much higher than what you pay for dedicated (often $0 upfront...or $25-$200).
  - sciurus 13y ago
    "I'm pointing out that there's an upfront component ... which is likely of interest to startups." Yes, this. When you're worried about cash flow, overpaying every month can seem safer than paying the upfront cost to reserve instances.