[eis]

Cloudflare Containers (and therefore Sandbox) pricing is way too expensive. The pricing is a bit cumbersome to understand by being inconsistent with pricing of other Cloudflare products in terms of units and split between memory, cpu and disk instead of combined per instance. The worst is that it is given in these tiny fractions per second.

Memory: $0.0000025 per additional GiB-second vCPU: $0.000020 per additional vCPU-second Disk: $0.00000007 per additional GB-second

The smaller instance types have super low processing power by getting a fraction of a vCPU. But if you calculate the monthly cost then it comes to:

Memory: $6.48 per GB vCPU: $51.84 per vCPU (!!!) Disk: $0.18 per GB

These prices are more expensive than the already expensive prices of the big cloud providers. For example a t2d-standard-2 on GCP with 2 vCPUs and 8GB with 16GB storage would cost $63.28 per month while the standard-3 instance on CF would cost a whopping $51.84 + $103.68 + $2.90 = $158.42, about 2.5x the price.

Cloudflare Containers also don't have peristent storage and are by design intended to shut down if not used but I could then also go for a spot vm on GCP which would bring the price down to $9.27 which is less than 6% of the CF container cost and I get persistent storage plus a ton of other features on top.

What am I missing?

[chandureddyvari]

You can’t compare these with regular VM of aws or gcp. VM are expected to boot up in milliseconds and can be stopped/killed in milliseconds. You are charged per second of usage. The sandboxes are ephemeral and meant for AI coding agents. Typical sandboxes run less than 30 mins session. The premium is for the flexibility it comes with.

[eis]

I think you can absolutely compare them and there is no added flexibility, in fact there is less flexibility. There is added convenience though.

For the huge factor in price difference you can keep spare spot VMs on GCP idle and warm all the time and still be an order of magnitude cheaper. You have more features and flexibility with these. You can also discard them at will, they are not charged per month. Pricing granularity in GCP is per second (with 1min minimum) and you can fire up firecracker VMs within milliseconds as another commenter pointed out.

Cloudflare Sandbox have less functionality at a significantly increased price. The tradeoff is simplicity because they are more focused for a specific use case for which they don't need additional configuration or tooling. The downside is that they can't do everything a proper VM can do.

It's a fair tradeoff but I argue the price difference is very much out of balance. But then again it seems to be a feature primarily going after AI companies and there is infinite VC money to burn at the moment.

[freakynit]

Serously, what flexibility?

I coud easily spin-up a firecracker VM on-demand and put it behind an API. It boots up in under 200 milliseconds. and I get to control it however I wish to. And also, all costs are under my control.

I compared the costs with instances purchased from Hetzner or Contabo here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45613653

Bottomline: by doing this small stuff myself, I can save 35 times more.

[the_duke]

It doesn't really make sense to compare this to regular VM pricing I think.

This is a on-demand managed container service with a convenient API, logging, global placement in 300+ locations, ...

AWS Lambda is probably closer in terms of product match. (sans the autoscaling)

Depending on what you do , Sandbox could be roughly on par with Lambda, or considerably cheaper.

The 1TB of included egress alone would be like 90$ on AWS.

Of course on lambda you pay per request. But you also apparently pay for Cloudflare Worker requests with Sandbox...

I reckon ... it's complicated.

[ATechGuy]

Startups would build on big tech, so are likely to add their margins. Have you looked into (bulk) discounts from GCP/AWS?

[Imustaskforhelp]

Cloudflare containers feel a lot more pricey as compared to workers but I think that it could provide more streamlined experience imo but still, If we are talking about complete cost analysis, sometimes I wonder how much cf containers vs workers vs hetzner/dedicated/shared vps / gcp etc. would work out for the same thing.

Honestly, the more I think about it, my ease of sanity either wants me to use hetzner/others for golang/other binary related stuff and for the frontend to use cf workers with sveltekit

That way we could have the best in both worlds and probably glue together somethings using proto-buf or something but I guess people don't like managing two codebases but I think that sveltekit is a pleasure to work with and can easily be learnt by anybody in 3-4 weeks and maybe some more for golang but yeah I might look more into cf containers/gcp or whatever but my heart wants hetzner for backend with golang if need be and to try to extract as much juice as I can in cf workers with sveltekit in the meanwhile.

Thoughts on my stack?