11–17 of 17 posts
Curious how much of a difference it would make.
Rubbish. Why is there even a section describing its methodology when it's comparing $40 and $50 instances against $20 ones? I can see why they might compare the $62 EC2 instances against other vendors' cheaper ones as that is the point of their investigation, but the challengers should be on a level playing field. Seems to me that they wanted DO to 'win'.
I think the AWS failures on iops tests should've been examined more prior to publication, or at least explained more to the reader. AWS General Purpose EBS volumes scale based on volume size, so a purely naively-done test with a default AMI's performance could be as low as 24 iops (8GB*3 IOPS per GB) once exhausting it's burst iops quota. I think it's unfair to compare apples to oranges here, as you can make these vo…
Rubbish. Why is there even a section describing its methodology when it's comparing $40 and $50 instances against $20 ones? I can see why they might compare the $62 EC2 instances against other vendors' cheaper ones as that is the point of their investigation, but the challengers should be on a level playing field. Seems to me that they wanted DO to 'win'.
If you would read the paragraph directly after the list of instances tested you would see this was directly addressed. This test wasn't meant to mislead and was simply exploring the best options for us. This isn't the same for everyone, which is why we open-sourced the tool we made so that you can run your own tests as well.
This is the part that doesn't make sense. They basically chose one type from each vendor, before benchmarking. If there are clearly instance types at twice the cost and still lower than types from other vendors, the results were stacked. How can you see this any other way?