Amazon bares its computers

Re:Amazon bares its computers by chaz on Sunday November 17, 2013 @06:24PM (#6751538)

I use DO and AWS for different projects because they meet different needs. Of course there are going to be places where one is better suited than the other in both performance and price.

For example, one of my projects requires 1TB of drive space. At DO, I have no choice but to go to the $960/mo 1 TB plan. But I don't need the SSD speed, 96 GB of RAM, 24 cores, or the 10 TB of monthly transfer. But with EC2, I can just use EBS @ $100/mo/TB and pair it with the right-size EC2 instance for the jobs at hand. As an aside, the real question for me is to decide whether I want to invest in a proper dedicated server where I can get good performance and online storage at a lower cost.

DO has done a fantastic job at finding a spot in the VPS market, which is why I'm one of their customers. It doesn't mean Amazon is doing it wrong.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Amazon bares its computers by vidarh on Monday November 18, 2013 @05:01AM (#6753569)

> But with EC2, I can just use EBS @ $100/mo/TB

If all you're after is the storage, that is very expensive unless you keep moving your storage tiers up and down very rapidly. E.g. Hetzner has servers at 49 euro (ca. 66 USD) per month for 2TB.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Amazon bares its computers by erichocean on Sunday November 17, 2013 @11:57PM (#6752642)

I have a similar need for memcached, but I'm still using DO. I'm running the $5 instances running Twitter's fatcache. For $250/month, I can cheaply get 1TB of memcached storage online and available in our cluster (out of NY2).

Thrown in a some consistent hashing and I can scale up/down as needed. Fatcache is completely kick ass.

[ Parent | on HN ]