[develatio]

If my math is not wrong, running a single “standard” container during 1 month (non-stop) would cost ~55$.

This looks extremely expensive for anything other than a simple demo/toy project. I can’t think of a reason I’d use this for heavy services instead of using [anything else]. Maybe I’m not seeing the use-case?

[NathanFlurry]

A 1 CPU + 2 GB of RAM + 50 GB ephemeral storage on Cloudflare Containers is $74.90.

The same on Fly Machines is $31.00 (performance-1x, varies by region). Fly Machines has the same sleeping functionality as Cloudflare.

Rivet Containers also has a similar price point of $29.40, but takes a different approach to sleeping (opts for optimizing coldstarts + autoscaling over snapshotting). (I work at Rivet)

[blixt]

I think Modal, which AFAIK has a similar feature set to Cloudflare Containers, also works out very favorably price wise compared to Cloudflare Containers.

[rochoa]

Math is not wrong for the standard instance.

This is about using and abusing the _on-demand_ part.

The first example in the Getting started goes with sleepAfter = '10s'.

[Havoc]

It’s likely aimed at bursty workloads. ie not one instance but a use case that fluctuates between 1 and 100 instances.

[aiisahik]

I don't think you can calculate the cost of serverless compute this way. What containers do you have that run "non-stop"?

If the container doesn't run any workloads, it doesn't cost you anything. Most of the compute i pay for sit idle most of the time.

This is amazing pricing.

[develatio]

Say I want to deploy a service that is currently receiving 1rps at a constant rate, no upticks, no gaps. Wouldn’t that be the cost? If the answer is “yes”, then no, that is a terrible pricing.

[0xy]

And the gigantic AWS-tier bandwidth costs. This misses the mark by a lot. Classic example of pricing ruining a launch of decent technology.

It seems like always-on containers are not viable on this, so what's the point?