It would be nice to have a column for a 30.44 day cost (average month).
EC2 is ridiculously expensive, considering the prices at Linode, Hetzner, DigitalOcean, OVH, LeaseWeb and 100tb.
Easy Amazon EC2 Instance Comparison
21–30 of 45 posts
Re: Easy Amazon EC2 Instance Comparison
#22Here's a different service I made that includes other regions, continously updated spot instance prices, and a few other nice features: http://ec2pricing.iconara.info/
It's also available as an API: http://ec2pricing.herokuapp.com/api/v1/eu-west-1/
Re: Easy Amazon EC2 Instance Comparison
#23It would be nice to have a column for a 30.44 day cost (average month). EC2 is ridiculously expensive, considering the prices at Linode, Hetzner, DigitalOcean, OVH, LeaseWeb and 100tb.
Just having checked out the companies you mentioned, they are cheaper for small-midsize hosting solutions.
For running large memory and bandwidth hungry servers they just can't deliver. On Amazon you can get 256GB of ram with dedicated 10GBps clustered networking. None of the options you listed can go above 1GBps and it won't be dedicated (you'll get a 1GBps port onto a shared network, and you'll be at the mercy of the traffic conditions inside their data center.)
Amazon also has a huge amount of cloudy solutions which is not to be sneezed at.
Re: Easy Amazon EC2 Instance Comparison
#24I can't select any of the menu options on my phone.
Re: Easy Amazon EC2 Instance Comparison
#25These costs don't include the cost of provisioned IOPS, right? Without provisioned IOPS, the I/O performance is going to range from "very low" to "low", not "low" to "very high".
Re: Easy Amazon EC2 Instance Comparison
#26It would be nice to have a column for a 30.44 day cost (average month). EC2 is ridiculously expensive, considering the prices at Linode, Hetzner, DigitalOcean, OVH, LeaseWeb and 100tb.
Just having checked out the companies you mentioned, they are cheaper for small-midsize hosting solutions. For running large memory and bandwidth hungry servers they just can't deliver. On Amazon you can get 256GB of ram with dedicated 10GBps clustered networking. None of the options you listed can go above 1GBps and it won't be dedicated (you'll get a 1GBps port onto a shared network, and you'll be at the mercy of t…
This one allows up to 384GB RAM:
http://www.hetzner.de/hosting/produkte_rootserver/dx290
And it costs a fraction of EC2, which would cost you $2556 for 30.44 days.
I could get 10 servers with 1 Gbit each, and it will still be cheaper than EC2.
Re: Easy Amazon EC2 Instance Comparison
#27Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I still don’t understand this industry’s obsession with predefined fixed limits on unrelated resources. 1. It keeps their billing simpler. They would have to (or otherwise make it up elsewhere) charge different rates for different resources, making it relatively confusing + increasing support costs. 2. Much easier to forecast resources. If you know that you can fit X instances of type Y on a box, or W instances of…
It's more of a capability thing. If you're running, say, Piston cloud you're using ceph over ethernet to back your disks, so you can easily decouple disk usage and ram usage. If you're stuck using local disks (ie. rackspace/joyent/linode/amazon to a point/etc.), then it's a lot harder to provide that sort of product. That being said there are providers out there that sell it, and have been for years.
I’m very aware there are, and we use one of them.
How is it harder (technically. I realise billing is more complex)? You have some software that provisions a VPS with the requested resource limits.
Re: Easy Amazon EC2 Instance Comparison
#28I still don’t understand this industry’s obsession with predefined fixed limits on unrelated resources. Just because I want lots of RAM, why do I necessarily need lots of disk and/or lots of transfer? Or vice versa, why do I need to pay for lots of tranfer and RAM to get lots of disk? I get that AWS has separate billing for data, but they still tie CPU, RAM and Disk space together, as do most “traditional” VPS hosts.…
> I still don’t understand this industry’s obsession with predefined fixed limits on unrelated resources. 1. It keeps their billing simpler. They would have to (or otherwise make it up elsewhere) charge different rates for different resources, making it relatively confusing + increasing support costs. 2. Much easier to forecast resources. If you know that you can fit X instances of type Y on a box, or W instances of…
That’s the thing - they DO exist, its just that the “big” players don’t offer them.
I almost get why big companies (Rackspace, MT, etc) don’t offer it - if you can make a schmuck pay $X hundreds and hundreds of GB of disk he will never use, just because he needs 4GB of RAM or a lot of transfer, in theory you can over provision the hardware.
What I really don’t get though, is the technically savvy people that think they’re somehow getting a reasonable service?
Re: Easy Amazon EC2 Instance Comparison
#29The question is, why would you use EC2 instead of DigitalOcean?
AWS has a lot of managed infrastructure components like RDS, EMR, S3.
ELB, CloudFront, SQS, SES ... it’s nice to have those things at your disposal even though alternatives exist. Consolidated billing, fewer accounts to log into (admin overhead) etc.
Re: Easy Amazon EC2 Instance Comparison
#30There is also http://www.awsnow.info/, now with RESTful access to pricing.