Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

New lower Azure pricing

azure.microsoft.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 108 posts

Re: New lower Azure pricing

#81

Post by trevyn »

kefka wrote: post #13
blahi wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

wat? Azure has minute billing... So does google. AWS is a mess.

Yes, and if you were doing anything with the recently killed (or soon to be) RemoteApp, billing there was a disaster. Absolute horrible disaster. Overbilled to my employer because their websites did not equal to what they quoted us. They also refuse to honor enterprise contract regarding transfer (Internet2 peer). Just horrible terrible bad no good. And their MQTT service (IoT) pricing is a joke. $50/month for 400k m…

Your dialup modem math is wrong: https://www.google.com/webhp?ie=UTF-8#q=(5.2+kilobytes%2Fsec...

(13.48 GB)

Re: New lower Azure pricing

#82

Post by bluedino »

Scirra_Tom wrote: post #43
BonoboIO wrote: post #17

Cloud Pricing is ridiculous ... made the comparison between a dedicated server and cloud offerings of microsoft, google, amazon ... rackspace (SO EXPENSIVE) and you pay 5 times in the cloud for the same.

We're moving to AWS for our next release, managed by Rackspace. Had the same philosophy as you for years, and have saved a lot of money with DIY (maybe in the tens of thousands). Turns out server admin is not my skillset, and it's caused problems, headaches and risks in the past. I consider the additional cost going forwards in effect as our next hire and an important one. For small startups looking to save money DIY…

I can't imagine Rackspace managing anything being a positive

Re: New lower Azure pricing

#84

Post by lostcolony »

greenmountin wrote: post #62

Does anyone know about Azure auto-scaling? It says "most [VM's] include load-balancing and auto-scaling free of charge", is that true and is it any more friendly to hobbyists than the other two? It was very disappointing to see the auto-scaling services for GCP and AWS basically require a $20/mo load balancer right off the bat. I have an app that is quietly puttering away on a single Digital Ocean droplet, but could…

Did you look into just using DNS load balancing with AWS and GCP? I don't have any experience in that, but Loggly used it in lieu of an ELB in AWS. https://www.loggly.com/blog/why-aws-route-53-over-elastic-lo... So as long as you have a domain somewhere...

Re: New lower Azure pricing

#85

Post by foxylad »

imaginenore wrote: post #44
Scirra_Tom wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We're moving to AWS for our next release, managed by Rackspace. Had the same philosophy as you for years, and have saved a lot of money with DIY (maybe in the tens of thousands). Turns out server admin is not my skillset, and it's caused problems, headaches and risks in the past. I consider the additional cost going forwards in effect as our next hire and an important one. For small startups looking to save money DIY…

You still need a server admin, cloud or not. It's not like there's a magic button in the cloud that replaces an admin.

Appengine (and I believe Elastic Beanstalk) are those magic buttons. I've used Appengine for years, and have loved not having to worry about patching, OS upgrades, scaling or redundancy.

If you're a small shop, this lets you concentrate on your core product instead of your systems. And by "small shop", I really mean "pretty big shop" - you're going to be a globally significant player before your Appengine charges get near a sysadmin's salary.

Re: New lower Azure pricing

#86

Post by stankal »

masta wrote: post #34
stankal wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, there's nobody to contact at Microsoft regarding Azure billing. I was prototyping some app that used App Service, Document DB, and Notification Hub and for a few months they billed at around $10 - $20, all of a sudden it's $1,200 for a month. The app was not launched, I was the only user. There's no way to figure out why other than it's a DocumentDB charge. There's no way I'd put anything in production with Azu…

Did you open a support ticket, there is a category specifically for Billing issues.

Thanks, I just did. For some reason I did not see that option before.

Re: New lower Azure pricing

#87

Post by jeffbarr »

Scirra_Tom wrote: post #43
BonoboIO wrote: post #17

Cloud Pricing is ridiculous ... made the comparison between a dedicated server and cloud offerings of microsoft, google, amazon ... rackspace (SO EXPENSIVE) and you pay 5 times in the cloud for the same.

We're moving to AWS for our next release, managed by Rackspace. Had the same philosophy as you for years, and have saved a lot of money with DIY (maybe in the tens of thousands). Turns out server admin is not my skillset, and it's caused problems, headaches and risks in the past. I consider the additional cost going forwards in effect as our next hire and an important one. For small startups looking to save money DIY…

Welcome aboard!

Re: New lower Azure pricing

#88

Post by dgemm »

dragontamer wrote: post #64
computerphage wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://aws.amazon.com/ec2/instance-types/x1/

Fair enough. I guess its time to whip out the big guns then. https://www.supermicro.com/products/system/7U/7088/SYS-7088B... 1. Eight socket R1 (LGA 2011) supports Intel® Xeon® processor E7-8800 v4/v3 family (up to 24-Core) 2. Up to 24TB in 192 DDR4 DIMM slots That's 192 cores / 384 threads with 24TB of DDR4 RAM ----------- The amount that you can vertically scale with physical servers is far above and beyond what is…

Scaling vertically only buys you time until you are forced to scale horizontally.

That and "one huge server" is rarely the best design decision.

Re: New lower Azure pricing

#89

Post by smashed »

greenmountin wrote: post #62

Does anyone know about Azure auto-scaling? It says "most [VM's] include load-balancing and auto-scaling free of charge", is that true and is it any more friendly to hobbyists than the other two? It was very disappointing to see the auto-scaling services for GCP and AWS basically require a $20/mo load balancer right off the bat. I have an app that is quietly puttering away on a single Digital Ocean droplet, but could…

Yes, Azure load balancers are free compared to aws's elbs ~20$ charge.

aws elb support http and https termination, and can even provide free SSL certs. Azure's is tcp/udp only.

And the new aws Application load balancers offer even more features.

So it depends on your use-case.

Re: New lower Azure pricing

#90

Post by [deleted] »

jamroom wrote: post #40
Someone1234 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While undeniably true, you have to look at the levels of redundancy. With a dedicated server, if the box dies you're offline, if the storage dies you may lose data, etc. Plus, there's also a premium just for access to the ecosystem/APIs. You are often paying for the theoretical convenience of being able to spawn additional instances programmatically.

Absolutely true - however, in a true "apples to apples" comparison, if you're only running a single EC2 instance (for example) and it dies you're offline as well - AWS does not "automatically" have a failover setup for you. In this case 2 dedicated instances with a load balancer is going to get you the same setup you'd get on AWS (only likely cheaper and a lot more powerful setup).

[deleted]
Post reply on HN