Amazon LightSail: Simple Virtual Private Servers on AWS

Post by chrisper » Wed, Nov 30, 2016, 6:22 PM UTC

Veratyr wrote: post #166

zzzcpan wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Curious, why don't you compare with known "non-cloud" hosting companies too, that provide vps services, like ovh, hetzner, leaseweb, etc.? EDIT: Anyone cares to explain his reasons behind a downvote?

Possibly because (except for Leaseweb), they're all European and of limited usefulness as a result. Linode, Vultr, DO and AWS all have numerous regions around the world. They're also typically leased for at least a full month and can't be spun up/down on demand like you can with these services. Plus they focus on large (>16GB) dedicated servers.

Post by tomschlick » Wed, Nov 30, 2016, 6:23 PM UTC

neves wrote: post #58

anilshanbhag wrote: post #18

Here is a comparison of $20 instances across DO, Linode and LightSail All have 3TB transfer Linode(Best): 4GB RAM, 2 Core, 48 GB SSD DO: 2GB RAM, 2 Core, 40 GB SSD LightSail(Worst): 2GB RAM, 1 Core, 40 GB SSD I use this exact instance on Linode for my site https://dictanote.co ; that one extra core makes a lot of difference when you want to take a backup of db or something intensive like that.

Your are not considering the servers location. If you aren't in the USA, and your site isn't resource intensive, how near the server is from your users will make the greatest difference in access speed.

Post by ryanSrich » Wed, Nov 30, 2016, 6:25 PM UTC

ffk wrote: post #68

akerl_ wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think that actually holds up. There are certainly some people that want "ironclad guarantees", but the reality of cost here is pretty close: you pay $5/mo max for the server. The things that can cost more are either overages on bandwidth/dns (and here, 1TB of bandwidth on the low end is included, eliminating a lot of the flux from EC2), or things you choose to initiate, like snapshots. It feels like the large…

I personally don't use AWS for personal projects because of the lack of a cap. I would rather see my system suspended rather than continue to pay beyond my budget.

Post by ProblemFactory » Wed, Nov 30, 2016, 6:26 PM UTC

johnqpub wrote: post #38

Someone1234 wrote: post #3

Just to be clear: This service is offered by Amazon/AWS themselves, it isn't a third party. That's a question I had when I first clicked, which is why I am answering it here. One big "gotcha" for AWS newbies which I cannot tell if this addresses: Does this set or allow the user to set a cost ceiling? AWS have offered billing alerts since forever. They'll also occasionally refund unexpected expenses (one time thing).…

>I'd welcome an account suspend instead of bill shock. The big question here is what to do with stateful data. Would you accept an immediate deletion of all of your S3 data? RDS instances and snapshots?

Post by Someone1234 » Wed, Nov 30, 2016, 6:28 PM UTC

xeromal wrote: post #169

arcticfox wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

100%. I can't stand it. It's unlimited liability for anyone that uses their service with no way to limit it. If you were able to set hard caps, you could have set yours at like $5 or even $0 (free tier) and never run into that. One of my services had a Google BigQuery "budget" set at $100. One of our test machines went haywire and continuously submitted a bunch of jobs. The "budget" turned out only to be an alarm, an…

I'm pretty sure Azure had that the last time I used it.