4 ms·
> Oh, did you know you can do the same thing at other providers for cheaper? :| https://www.stormondemand.com/servers/baremetal.html https://www.stormondemand.
by fweespeech 11y ago
> Oh, did you know you can do the same thing at other providers for cheaper? :|
https://www.stormondemand.com/servers/baremetal.html https://www.stormondemand.com/servers/baremetal.html
32/64GB - $0.75/hr
https://www.linode.com/pricing https://www.linode.com/pricing
20/64GB - $.96/hr and bandwidth
http://aws.amazon.com/ec2/pricing/ http://aws.amazon.com/ec2/pricing/
16/64GB - $1/hr + bandwidth costs @ [varies]
Even if you take your premise at face value, AWS is literally the most expensive option.
Personally, I've never seen a real world use case where you dropped below 33% capacity. In practice, you can get hourly billing for cheaper than AWS anyway with providers large enough to meet most customers needs.
- tracker1 11y agoLinode, and most alternatives, don't have S3/Blob storage as a service.. also missing are distributed key-value storage as a service and sql as a service. Generally, with any given service as you can scale it makes sense to run your own instances.. but realistically someone who knows insert-tech better than AWS/Azure admins is a pretty rare breed, and having to in-source those specific skills costs in terms of time and money, redundancy even more so. If you have a team of 3-5 people, you can do far more with AWS or Azure than you can most alternatives... Employees aren't free.