> just rear Glacier horror stories

In Amazon's defense, their pricing is pretty clear and straightforward except for Glacier, which even they admit doesn't follow their pricing model for all the other services.

Google's is still the best though -- they automatically give you "bulk discounts" instead of having to buy them in advance like AWS, and their general philosophy is "your cheapest option should be to finish your workload as quickly as possible", as opposed to AWS, where you have to do some acrobatics to fit into their pricing models efficiently.

You'd think Microsoft would be the go-to provider for SQL Server workloads, but Azure SQL is terribly expensive for some (many?) workloads. For read-intensive SQL Server workloads you'll be paying upwards of $465/mo (Premium P1 [1]) for something that can be easily handled by a beefy VM for a fraction of the price. Also, the Azure SQL pricing model links performance ('eDTUs') to storage which skews the billing model even further.

[1] https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/pricing/details/sql-databa...

[Disclosure: I work for Microsoft]

One thing to keep in mind for Azure SQL: you are getting a guaranteed SLA [1], business continuity and full point-in-time backups (up to 30 days) [2] for that price. To compare effectively you would need to price out a comparable Always-On cluster, domain controllers, SAN storage (for replication), and backup solution + storage.

[1]: https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/support/legal/sla/sql-data... [2]: https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/documentation/articles/sql...

Precisely.

I highlight a similar pricing breakdown with their IoT / MQTT service and their price inanities as well. As far as I can tell, this insane pricing is for the idea of "Can't go wrong with purchasing Microsoft Services".... when in actuality, you can go very much wrong.

I find the prices pretty straightforward mostly, the portal will give you an estimate of the monthly cost for all your current services. The problem is the data transfer pricing. Say you have a website that has 5000 visits a day, it is really hard to estimate your IN/OUT GB, then do the same for blob storage or other services.

Also, isn't AWS billing per utilization/hour? For small projects this means it is many times cheaper than Azure. Azure is more focused to enterprises than to individual devs.

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 messages a day (!second, typo) with a cap of 4k? Seriously? That's just 4.6 messages a second, WITH a data restriction that MQTT itself doesn't have.

I routinely load pictures with motion to "house/frontdoor/motion/" topic in the form of a jpg. MQTT specifies nothing about said data ~ I could even store a dvd VOB for video in a topic.

And this offering is for a max data of 48GB/month. To put this in perspective, a dialup modem(!) Gets a top speed of 5.2KB/s , which sustained across a 30 day month = 43.2GB

I can (and have!) bought a cheap-shit VPS server and installed Mosquitto on it. I can use MQTT as the spec indicates, including Websockets and storing picture data. And it's more on the price range of $40/year, not $600/yr

source: https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/pricing/details/iot-hub/

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

(13.48 GB)

I can only blame the... uhh..err.. uhmm... The Windows Calculator! Blast it all!

:)

Not in Azure SQL

Azure is per minute