aws is silly expensive. Why didnt you build this on top of digitalocean? Digitalocean is so awesome right now. They dont even charge for bandwidth overages.
Digitalocean is silly expensive. Why don't you look at Atlantic.net they are so awesome and charge way less than overpriced digitalocean. Why not run it on your laptop which you've already paid for, that would be even cheaper than overpriced atlantic.net!
DO's "most popular plan" is $10/mo [1]
AWS's t2.micro in us-east is ~$10.30/mo with a standard 8GB disk [2]
Both VMs are single core, 1GB RAM. DO gives you 30GB SSD, but AWS has a freely adjustable disk size. Upscaling from 8 to 30GB is another $2 - but how many single-core low ram instances use double-digit GB?
In the middle, DO has 8 core, 16GB for $160/mo, AWS has 4 core 16GB for 185/mo + storage.
At the top end of the DO offerings, DO's 20-core 64GB machine in $640/mo, and AWS's 16-core 64GB machine is $725mo + storage (not much). The difference in pricing is not that crazy, and you get a crapload of extra free features on AWS.
Those AWS prices are with the "On-Demand pricing". If you're willing to lock-in for a year, reduce by 1/3. The argument that DO is "OMG cheaper" than AWS is no longer valid.
You seem to make the implicit assumption that a DO $10 VPS is equal in performance to a AWS t2.micro instance, which is not the case. For an example, check out:
DO 1GB instance at $10/month has a UnixBench of 1041 [1], to beat that with AWS you have to spend $374/month.
Also, with the t2.micro you get an EBS disk, whose I/O you have to pay in addition to the instance cost. You also have to pay for the bandwidth out of the chosen AWS region. This is not the case on DO.
AWS complicated pricing makes comparison like yours very difficult and error-prone: I would suggest to go with AWS only if you need the particular features (like ELB, SQS, VPC, etc.) that DO doesn't offer.
"But they'd be wrong! Truth is, I thought it mattered. I thought that [the marginal hosting costs between cloud service providers] mattered. But does it bollocks. Not compared to how [developer productivity and costs] matter."[0]
Yes, and going with AWS kills productivity because you have to learn AWS specific APIs, you're locked into their system and then you have to re-work your stuff to be hosted elsewhere when you outgrow AWS.
More than one startup has been killed purely by AWS hosting costs in the past 5 years.
DO is great for a lot of things, but it's not AWS. You can't allocate extra disk to a droplet, for example. AWS is a _much_ more complete offering than DO.
Agreed... AWS and Azure both offer a lot of services beyond just VPS hosting. Hosted database services, and extended blob/s3 storage are pretty valuable in and of themselves.
DO/Linode don't offer the equivalent, which means maintaining your own.. which is fine, but if you're relatively small, or a single person... time you dedicate to operations tasks is time you aren't developing features and/or fixing bugs. One's business is paramount... technology is just a tool to serve that.
serferfish|10 years ago
dubcanada|10 years ago
https://www.vultr.com/pricing/ is 20% cheaper right now at least.
vacri|10 years ago
Both VMs are single core, 1GB RAM. DO gives you 30GB SSD, but AWS has a freely adjustable disk size. Upscaling from 8 to 30GB is another $2 - but how many single-core low ram instances use double-digit GB?
In the middle, DO has 8 core, 16GB for $160/mo, AWS has 4 core 16GB for 185/mo + storage.
At the top end of the DO offerings, DO's 20-core 64GB machine in $640/mo, and AWS's 16-core 64GB machine is $725mo + storage (not much). The difference in pricing is not that crazy, and you get a crapload of extra free features on AWS.
Those AWS prices are with the "On-Demand pricing". If you're willing to lock-in for a year, reduce by 1/3. The argument that DO is "OMG cheaper" than AWS is no longer valid.
[1] https://www.digitalocean.com/pricing/ [2] http://aws.amazon.com/ec2/pricing/
quicksilver03|10 years ago
http://serverbear.com/compare?Sort=Host&Order=asc&Server+Typ...
DO 1GB instance at $10/month has a UnixBench of 1041 [1], to beat that with AWS you have to spend $374/month.
Also, with the t2.micro you get an EBS disk, whose I/O you have to pay in addition to the instance cost. You also have to pay for the bandwidth out of the chosen AWS region. This is not the case on DO.
AWS complicated pricing makes comparison like yours very difficult and error-prone: I would suggest to go with AWS only if you need the particular features (like ELB, SQS, VPC, etc.) that DO doesn't offer.
[1] http://serverbear.com/1989-1gb-ssd--1-cpu-digitalocean [2] http://serverbear.com/240-extra-large-amazon-web-services
peteretep|10 years ago
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3tFZxhVaXo
MCRed|10 years ago
More than one startup has been killed purely by AWS hosting costs in the past 5 years.
virulent|10 years ago
Also, OP required Redshift. DO does not offer that.
davidbanham|10 years ago
tracker1|10 years ago
DO/Linode don't offer the equivalent, which means maintaining your own.. which is fine, but if you're relatively small, or a single person... time you dedicate to operations tasks is time you aren't developing features and/or fixing bugs. One's business is paramount... technology is just a tool to serve that.