3 ms·

In high-end servers they blow the competition away on price. I did a comparison recently and they came out over 4x cheaper than Rackspace for two 256GB of RAM s

by eloff 13y ago

In high-end servers they blow the competition away on price. I did a comparison recently and they came out over 4x cheaper than Rackspace for two 256GB of RAM servers + heavy bandwidth.

vidarh 13y ago
Blowing Rackspace away on price is trivial - they're one of the most expensive hosting options I've ever looked at.
adventured 13y ago
This isn't even remotely accurate. I could give you a dozen examples, but one will suffice. From a hosting provider I've used for many years, WebNX. Here are two example configurations from them: E5-1650v2, 64gb ram, 4x 450gb SAS 15,000 rpm enterprise drives and hardware raid 10 with battery backup, 20tb of bandwidth - $289 / month, no setup fee Dual 2690v2, 256gb ram, 6x 600GB 15k sas raid 10 w/ 2x SSD Cache - $950 / month, no setup fee The bandwidth alone would cost you $2,300 at Amazon. And 20tb is nothing these days, countless quality providers offer 100mbps standard with $150 machines. The AWS cr1.8xlarge with just 20tb of bandwidth is $5,134 per month. A one year locked in contract gets it down to $2,815 ($7,200 up front) - three times more expensive. And there are far cheaper providers than WebNX. AWS is almost interesting, if you never need any bandwidth.
- eloff 13y ago
  That's also an over-simplification. For example at AWS you can get a fully bidirectional 10gbps link, regardless of what other tenants are doing on the network. Nobody else that I'm aware of can match that. And you'll quickly find that 20TB of bandwidth at those network speeds are nothing, you can cross into petabytes without breaking a sweat (1 petabyte at 50% of bandwidth 24x7 for a month for just one server.) At that kind of network volume bandwidth costs dominate everything (about $65K for an petabyte of bandwidth at Amazon.) I challenge you to beat that anywhere. Also if you have bursty traffic patterns, AWS comes out a lot cheaper because it's designed around quickly scaling up and down capacity. In the end it depends on matching a provider to your particular needs because they vary wildy in strengths and weaknesses and costs.

by eloff 13y ago

In high-end servers they blow the competition away on price. I did a comparison recently and they came out over 4x cheaper than Rackspace for two 256GB of RAM servers + heavy bandwidth.

vidarh 13y ago

Blowing Rackspace away on price is trivial - they're one of the most expensive hosting options I've ever looked at.

adventured 13y ago

This isn't even remotely accurate. I could give you a dozen examples, but one will suffice. From a hosting provider I've used for many years, WebNX. Here are two example configurations from them: E5-1650v2, 64gb ram, 4x 450gb SAS 15,000 rpm enterprise drives and hardware raid 10 with battery backup, 20tb of bandwidth - $289 / month, no setup fee Dual 2690v2, 256gb ram, 6x 600GB 15k sas raid 10 w/ 2x SSD Cache - $950 / month, no setup fee The bandwidth alone would cost you $2,300 at Amazon. And 20tb is nothing these days, countless quality providers offer 100mbps standard with $150 machines. The AWS cr1.8xlarge with just 20tb of bandwidth is $5,134 per month. A one year locked in contract gets it down to $2,815 ($7,200 up front) - three times more expensive. And there are far cheaper providers than WebNX. AWS is almost interesting, if you never need any bandwidth.

eloff 13y ago
That's also an over-simplification. For example at AWS you can get a fully bidirectional 10gbps link, regardless of what other tenants are doing on the network. Nobody else that I'm aware of can match that. And you'll quickly find that 20TB of bandwidth at those network speeds are nothing, you can cross into petabytes without breaking a sweat (1 petabyte at 50% of bandwidth 24x7 for a month for just one server.) At that kind of network volume bandwidth costs dominate everything (about $65K for an petabyte of bandwidth at Amazon.) I challenge you to beat that anywhere. Also if you have bursty traffic patterns, AWS comes out a lot cheaper because it's designed around quickly scaling up and down capacity. In the end it depends on matching a provider to your particular needs because they vary wildy in strengths and weaknesses and costs.