Rackspace has increased server costs twofold, and nobody has noticed.

Re:Rackspace has increased server costs twofold, and nobody ... by applebug60 on Tuesday February 05, 2013 @04:29PM (#5173334)

RS is only used by those that haven't found the beauty that is EC2.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Rackspace has increased server costs twofold, and nobody ... by trocker on Tuesday February 05, 2013 @04:40PM (#5173406)

sure, github, thenextweb & countless others ovelooked the beauty that EC2 was.Right?

There are countless differences between EC2 & Rackspace for example CPU - rackspace's performance is way better than EC2. You should benchmark your scripts on both & then compare.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Rackspace has increased server costs twofold, and nobody ... by toomuchtodo on Tuesday February 05, 2013 @08:09PM (#5174350)

The only benefit Rackspace provides is their customer support; if I want infrastructure, I'm going to Amazon, and then building out my colo when a load profile has been established.

If you've got the staff to build out a web property, you've got the staff to man a rack of equipment.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Rackspace has increased server costs twofold, and nobody ... by applebug60 on Tuesday February 05, 2013 @07:15PM (#5174177)

They're both using the same virtualization. What's your use case that requires that much CPU? I'd bet spot instances would be a better fit in most cases.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Rackspace has increased server costs twofold, and nobody ... by trocker on Tuesday February 05, 2013 @09:56PM (#5174658)

Yup, spot instances would surely fit. And yes EC2 is awesome too. No point in changing the thread to a different discussion altogether. Even if Rackspace is #2, this is not what was expected of it, right? Changing the provider to EC2 is an option that everyone has but that has enormous overhead too!

[ Parent | on HN ]