4 ms·

i think this just goes to show that the DO platform is not suitable for sites that require uptime. The price point justifies the simplicity, but sometimes simpl

by brryant 13y ago

i think this just goes to show that the DO platform is not suitable for sites that require uptime. The price point justifies the simplicity, but sometimes simple isn't enough. AWS still has everything a startup needs to run their stack

vacri 13y ago
AWS recently had a 30% price drop for EC2 and a host of other things. Though they're still not as cheap as DO, but they're in a similar ballpark now. DO is starting to lose their 'killer feature', it seems. DO droplets do have more disk space for your dollar, but AWS's answer to bulk data storage is S3, which is very cheap itself.
- gabemart 13y ago
  Amazon S3 charges $0.12 per GiB for egress to the Internet. That's $120 per TiB. A $5 DO droplet comes with 1 TiB of upload per month (if they've even started enforcing these caps, which, last time I checked, they hadn't). Running my tiny ambient noise streaming website from S3 would bankrupt me.
  - vacri 13y ago
    If less than $120/month would actually bankrupt you, then yes, you have to go for the absolute cheapest option available. Sure, your particular use case very much favours DO's pricing, but if that kind of money would bankrupt you, then you have such little money that it's irrelevant what anyone but the cheapest provider costs.
    - gabemart 13y ago
      I didn't mention anything about how much bandwidth my site uses. I just pointed out you can serve > 1 TiB from a DO droplet for $5 (or 10 TiB from 10 droplets for $50, or 100 TiB for $500, and so on). The main point is that S3 egress costs are substantial for bandwidth-intensive applications.
      - vacri 13y ago
        I may have been misled by 'tiny' - I wouldn't have characterised something that throws out multiple terabytes of data per month as 'tiny'. I take your point, though this being said, it again comes down to use case. A couple of hundred dollars a month for bandwidth is nothing for a business above a certain size, but it's tons for personal use. Depending on your use case, it may be also far more effective to use S3 and simply pay the data bill, rather than architect a system distributed across a ton of droplets.
xur17 13y ago
Just to provide another data point. I've been with Digital Ocean for over a year, and I'm fairly certain that I haven't had any downtime at all. The site is used by thousands of users a day, and I've never had any complaints. Pingdom is set to a resolution of 1 minute, and hasn't reported any outages either (that weren't caused by me).
- brryant 13y ago
  We run our forums on DO as well and it hasn't caused a hiccup at all. Uptime has been great for me, but at this point there isn't enough tooling around DO for me to be comfortable with doing more than just simple web sites

by brryant 13y ago

vacri 13y ago

AWS recently had a 30% price drop for EC2 and a host of other things. Though they're still not as cheap as DO, but they're in a similar ballpark now. DO is starting to lose their 'killer feature', it seems. DO droplets do have more disk space for your dollar, but AWS's answer to bulk data storage is S3, which is very cheap itself.

gabemart 13y ago
Amazon S3 charges $0.12 per GiB for egress to the Internet. That's $120 per TiB. A $5 DO droplet comes with 1 TiB of upload per month (if they've even started enforcing these caps, which, last time I checked, they hadn't). Running my tiny ambient noise streaming website from S3 would bankrupt me.
- vacri 13y ago
  If less than $120/month would actually bankrupt you, then yes, you have to go for the absolute cheapest option available. Sure, your particular use case very much favours DO's pricing, but if that kind of money would bankrupt you, then you have such little money that it's irrelevant what anyone but the cheapest provider costs.
  - gabemart 13y ago
    I didn't mention anything about how much bandwidth my site uses. I just pointed out you can serve > 1 TiB from a DO droplet for $5 (or 10 TiB from 10 droplets for $50, or 100 TiB for $500, and so on). The main point is that S3 egress costs are substantial for bandwidth-intensive applications.
    - vacri 13y ago
      I may have been misled by 'tiny' - I wouldn't have characterised something that throws out multiple terabytes of data per month as 'tiny'. I take your point, though this being said, it again comes down to use case. A couple of hundred dollars a month for bandwidth is nothing for a business above a certain size, but it's tons for personal use. Depending on your use case, it may be also far more effective to use S3 and simply pay the data bill, rather than architect a system distributed across a ton of droplets.

xur17 13y ago

Just to provide another data point. I've been with Digital Ocean for over a year, and I'm fairly certain that I haven't had any downtime at all. The site is used by thousands of users a day, and I've never had any complaints. Pingdom is set to a resolution of 1 minute, and hasn't reported any outages either (that weren't caused by me).

brryant 13y ago
We run our forums on DO as well and it hasn't caused a hiccup at all. Uptime has been great for me, but at this point there isn't enough tooling around DO for me to be comfortable with doing more than just simple web sites