Live data from Hacker News

Amazon LightSail: Simple Virtual Private Servers on AWS

amazonlightsail.com

231–240 of 631 posts

Re: Amazon LightSail: Simple Virtual Private Servers on AWS

#231
post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The pricing is on par with these alternatives in the VPS space. Linode offers the double of the RAM for the same price for $10, $20 and $40 VPSs.

A lot of people, myself included, don't seriously consider Linode anymore given their security problems (March 2012, 2013) and infrastructure problems (Dec-Jan 2015-16).

The biggest show stopper for me is the lack of block storage, while both DO and Vultr have it.

Re: Amazon LightSail: Simple Virtual Private Servers on AWS

#232

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.

Such comparisons are nearly meaningless. - What kind of SSD? - What kind of "core"? - How much are you over-provisioned on the physical hardware? People are treating cloud resources like they're commodity, but they are not (cloud service providers make it very hard to compare apples to apples). You can have first-class PCIe SSDs on RAID 10 underneath that virtualized storage, or you can have consumer-grade non-RAIDed…

[deleted]

Re: Amazon LightSail: Simple Virtual Private Servers on AWS

#233
post #8
post #4

I have a growing list of cloud / vps providers I like to kick the tires on. I'll be adding this to the list as well.

What are your thoughts on Vultr?

Support isn't the best. I was attempting to restore a very large database and they shut down my instance for using excessive disk and CPU. I didn't get any response of what sort of limits to stick under.

Otherwise they are very similar to DO but with more data centres. The only complaint otherwise is their instances start a little slower. The API is very easy to use though.

Re: Amazon LightSail: Simple Virtual Private Servers on AWS

#234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Leaseweb is in Amsterdam.

It's also in the US, Germany, Hong Kong and Singapore: https://www.leaseweb.com/platform/data-centers

Re: Amazon LightSail: Simple Virtual Private Servers on AWS

#235
post #57

Price breakdown vs DigitalOcean, VULTR and Linode. Of course all things are not equal (i.e. CPUs, SSDs, bandwidth, etc). Provider: RAM, CPU Cores, Storage, Transfer ---------- $5/mo LightSail: 512MB, 1, 20GB SSD, 1TB DO: 512MB, 1, 20GB SSD, 1TB VULTR: 768MB, 1, 15GB SSD, 1TB ---------- $10/mo LightSail: 1GB, 1, 30GB SSD, 2TB DO: 1GB, 1, 30GB SSD, 2TB VULTR: 1GB, 1, 20GB SSD, 2TB Linode: 2GB, 1, 24GB SSD, 2TB --------…

I closed my VULTR account after getting this email from them ----- Dear Vultr Customer, Including pending charges, your account is carrying a $5.94 balance. In order to cover your current balance and your estimated monthly costs, our billing system will automatically deposit $275.00 from your payment method on file in 24 hours.

That's ridiculous, regardless of your username.

Re: Amazon LightSail: Simple Virtual Private Servers on AWS

#237
Quick feedback for the AWS team:

* First, this is great. The simplified interface vs EC2 is terrific. This is the direction EC2 (and RDS and S3 and basically everything) needs to be going.

* Instances you start in LightSail don't show up in your EC2 console. I would expect there to be some kind of data sharing there.

* Similarly, creating a "static IP address" doesn't show up in your elastic IP list. I'm not sure if this is intentional, but to manage two different views of products that you're billing me for is... troublesome.

* Last, if I could migrate elastic IPs from EC2 to LightSail I'd be migrating all of my instances immediately. The bandwidth savings are massive. (Related: when is the 2TB limit for a t2.small going to be migrated over to EC2?)

Re: Amazon LightSail: Simple Virtual Private Servers on AWS

#238

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 pre-paid for 3 years of service but 1 year in they sent notification that the server farm would moved and I had 30 days to relocate my servers. Was pretty busy at the time so was an inconvenience to move everything, but I did.

Then I get the next months invoice and it's not using my pre-paid services but instead is billing for full CPU usage - no reserved instances.

After emailing support several times they say it's my own fault for not using the correct instance type, even though it's identical to the one I pre-paid for. It may well be my error but it was caused by them since I never asked for my servers to be moved. It's been an expensive and time-wasting experience -- will never use them again.

Am currently evaluating GKE (even more expensive) and DigitalOcean.

Re: Amazon LightSail: Simple Virtual Private Servers on AWS

#240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They say on the FAQ: >For every Lightsail plan you use, we charge you the fixed hourly price, up to the maximum monthly plan cost. Wording implies the monthly pricing is a 'maximum' price.

Traffic is the big item that can add additional charges: > Data transfer overages above the free allowance are charged at $0.09/GB. On the $5 instance the second TB (at $90) is 18 times as expensive as the instance itself with the first TB included.

I'm pretty sure AWS only charges on traffic out.

Edit: just did some research, there are many cases this isn't true

Post reply on HN