41–50 of 56 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Azure support is in the works - it's also our most upvoted issue ( https://github.com/infracost/infracost/issues/64 ). Are you using VMC on Azure as well?
>Are you using VMC on Azure as well? No. we are using VMC cloud , which I believe is its own offering.
The landing page is gorgeous. Re the service: IDK, on the one side it's amazing, on the other hand, key to significant cost savings is to use Google and AWS only for must-have services, otherwise avoid them as much as possible and deploy the rest on self-managed k8s-clusters on vps farms. Latter might not work for huge deployments like Fortnite's server park but creates a very competitive performance-to-cost-ratio for small to medium deployments.[1] Not sure how this would fit in your design but just my two cents.
Also, once you fully locked-in yourself into a cloud provider real cost-savings get harder and harder. If your tool is just about forecasting for finance and controlling then it's sufficient.
[1] If your business model is so good (like Fortnite's) you shouldn't obsess about cloud costs, going all-in with AWS and Google might be the better choice.
> We’d really appreciate it if you try it out and give us feedback. The landing page is gorgeous. Re the service: IDK, on the one side it's amazing, on the other hand, key to significant cost savings is to use Google and AWS only for must-have services, otherwise avoid them as much as possible and deploy the rest on self-managed k8s-clusters on vps farms. Latter might not work for huge deployments like Fortnite's ser…
> We’d really appreciate it if you try it out and give us feedback. The landing page is gorgeous. Re the service: IDK, on the one side it's amazing, on the other hand, key to significant cost savings is to use Google and AWS only for must-have services, otherwise avoid them as much as possible and deploy the rest on self-managed k8s-clusters on vps farms. Latter might not work for huge deployments like Fortnite's ser…
Thanks, running on self managed clusters or bare metal can save costs in some circumstances, but comes with trade-offs and overheads as well. In our previous company we were managing Kubernetes on bare-metal and what we found was every team started using more and more resources until we ended up with a sprawl of over-provisioned and under-utilized services. We want to support this use case as well by allowing price b…
This can happen but already for medium deployments the costs are so much lower that you can hire a bunch of devops managing a proper centralized RBAC-based k8s cluster which isn't over-provisioned nor under-utilized. And even if, it should be still significantly cheaper than anything from Google and AWS. But again, if a company runs a strong-margin business model cloud cost optimizations are the wrong thing to think about. Whatever, your solution is definitely a big step in the right direction.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Are you using VMC on Azure as well? No. we are using VMC cloud , which I believe is its own offering.
Do you know if they have public pricing available? Or are you using negotiated rates? If so, we're looking to add support for custom price books in the future.
Also, we have a huge infrastructure group that adds a markup and conditions to the published pricing. For example, my line of business pays a different rate for using a Azure VM than the price published by Azure for the VM. Being able to plugin "lob" price as opposed the prices posted by the vendor is very useful to us.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you know if they have public pricing available? Or are you using negotiated rates? If so, we're looking to add support for custom price books in the future.
we are using negotiated rates. Also, we have a huge infrastructure group that adds a markup and conditions to the published pricing. For example, my line of business pays a different rate for using a Azure VM than the price published by Azure for the VM. Being able to plugin "lob" price as opposed the prices posted by the vendor is very useful to us.
How does this compare to the FOSS aws cost estimator for TF that's already available? https://github.com/antonbabenko/terraform-cost-estimation
I'm hoping that Infracost doesn't need the entire state file shipped to an outside service/server, like the one mentioned here does. State files should be considered secret.... $ terraform state pull | curl -s -X POST -H "Content-Type: application/json" -d @- https://cost.modules.tf/
[0] https://github.com/antonbabenko/terraform-cost-estimation/bl...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks! The site design was custom done by a friend of ours.
Do you mind plugging them? Great idea, by the way!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
we are using negotiated rates. Also, we have a huge infrastructure group that adds a markup and conditions to the published pricing. For example, my line of business pays a different rate for using a Azure VM than the price published by Azure for the VM. Being able to plugin "lob" price as opposed the prices posted by the vendor is very useful to us.
Great, thanks for the details - supporting these negotiated rates and any custom price books is definitely on our roadmap.
(not tee dee literally .. )
I will delete this post later.