They tell you specifically how much RAM you get, and there is no confusion. They also tell you exactly how much storage you get. In this case they very specifically tell you disk read throughput.
So there are a lot of metrics that are not ambiguous. Imagine if they told you that you get a "moderate" amount of RAM, and maybe it could be 4.5GB, or maybe it's 9GB.
There would be benefits if Amazon gave SLA style promises for these sorts of instances. When they see that they are falling short, they redistribute loads or add hardware to meet the promise. Otherwise it's generally somewhat meaningless because if you can't plan on it, you can't build a plan around it.
That's the on demand pricing. You should check the math on reserved pricing and consider the TCO. Not saying you're wrong but it's at least important to accurately compare.
Can you link to this deal for an instance with similar specs as the D2.xlarge for 40 a month? that sounds like a great deal and I don't need to host in the US, but this instance type is what I've been looking for.
If you are patient, you can get it below 40 Euros there. I honestly tend to think of things at Hetzner's auction rates or Online.net's Specials because I can wait 30 days to add a new node because I use them for side projects.
If you are willing to downgrade to a Xeon E3-1245V2, they have 2 nodes for sale that are otherwise identical.
Of course, since you can buy like 4 of these nodes vs. 1 Amazon EC2 one...even on a 3yr reserve...ya. Generally, per-node, EC2 has better per-core performance than what you can pick up in the "bargain market" but the fact you can pick up X:1 nodes guarantees it to be a non-issue.
So, your position then is that Amazon is not using their size and market position to unfairly underprice the competition, and that there is still room to compete against them.
> and that there is still room to compete against them
the concept that there's no room to compete against the market mindshare incumbent is a marketer's wet dream.
in other words, amazon does an amazingly effective job at marketing to people who think they aren't affected by marketing, and then get them to pay a massive premium to boot.
I don't think think that is what he is saying, or at least, I would have made a similar post if I had gotten here first. ;)
You've basically got two groups of people:
1) Those who can capacity plan accurately and relatively stable capacity needs. For this group, Amazon is a complete and total rip off. There is a skill floor to this, admittedly, in the form of a sysadmin/devops fellow with years of experience. [Hint: A large fraction of the SaaS providers who use Amazon are likely in this group if they had someone who met the skill floor for this option. I'll admit it is a skill floor because they need to be able to deploy a 1 or 3 Datacenter HA configuration without someone holding their hand.]
2) Those who have highly variable loads [Netflix] and/or lack the necessary experienced DevOps/Sysadmin type who can do capacity planning.
It looks expensive when compared to OVH. But really everything is super expensive when compared to OVH. I mean, if you are paying more than $ 200 for cloud hosting, better just get a dedicated server at OVH.
The comparison gets closer with Softlayer or other top tier dedicated hosting providers. On the other hand, AWS bandwidth is just expensive.
It isn't just OVH although OVH/Hetzner/Online.net are the obvious examples. I can list something like 50 providers that can sell something like that [with 10TB of Bandwidth and/or 100mbit+ unmetered] for under the 3 year reserved price.
I think that OVH is the third largest hosting provider in the world. Operates its own datacenters in North America and Europe. It's at the same scale as AWS. That's why it makes sense the comparison.
22 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 56.6 ms ] threadThis ambiguity alone is the reason I and probably others will look elsewhere.
So there are a lot of metrics that are not ambiguous. Imagine if they told you that you get a "moderate" amount of RAM, and maybe it could be 4.5GB, or maybe it's 9GB.
There would be benefits if Amazon gave SLA style promises for these sorts of instances. When they see that they are falling short, they redistribute loads or add hardware to meet the promise. Otherwise it's generally somewhat meaningless because if you can't plan on it, you can't build a plan around it.
AWS really needs to get back in touch with reality.
$500 USD/mo for a server with 32G Ram and 3x2T disks is not 'affordable', it's a rip-off.
For that money you can rent 10 machines of that size at Hetzner/OVH - and they will be dedicated hardware.
I can get something like that for about 40 Euros [and guaranteed 100mb/s on 1 gbit port] with no setup fee and no lock in beyond 30 days.
Even with reserved pricing for 3 years its $5,715 = 5715/36 = ~$158/month + Bandwidth.
The TCO with Amazon is only cheap when you have a very, very high variability in load. [e.g. Netflix]
Soyoustart 8G/8T for $69: http://www.soyoustart.com/us/essential-servers/
Soyoustart 96G/4T for $84: http://www.soyoustart.com/us/essential-servers/
Hetzner EX40 32G/6T for $64: https://www.hetzner.de/hosting/produktmatrix/rootserver-prod...
LeaseWeb 16G/4T for $58: https://www.leaseweb.com/bare-metal-server/configure/18403
But honestly the best deal is generally:
https://robot.your-server.de/order/market
If you are patient, you can get it below 40 Euros there. I honestly tend to think of things at Hetzner's auction rates or Online.net's Specials because I can wait 30 days to add a new node because I use them for side projects.
If you are willing to downgrade to a Xeon E3-1245V2, they have 2 nodes for sale that are otherwise identical.
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Xeon+E3-1245+V...
vs.
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Xeon+E5-2670+v...
Of course, since you can buy like 4 of these nodes vs. 1 Amazon EC2 one...even on a 3yr reserve...ya. Generally, per-node, EC2 has better per-core performance than what you can pick up in the "bargain market" but the fact you can pick up X:1 nodes guarantees it to be a non-issue.
1 year with $0 upfront and $293 a month (i.e. $3522 a year)
to
3 years with $5195 upfront and $0 a month (i.e. $144 a month)
http://aws.amazon.com/ec2/pricing/
I think that's a positive thing.
the concept that there's no room to compete against the market mindshare incumbent is a marketer's wet dream.
in other words, amazon does an amazingly effective job at marketing to people who think they aren't affected by marketing, and then get them to pay a massive premium to boot.
they truly are geniuses in this regard.
You've basically got two groups of people:
1) Those who can capacity plan accurately and relatively stable capacity needs. For this group, Amazon is a complete and total rip off. There is a skill floor to this, admittedly, in the form of a sysadmin/devops fellow with years of experience. [Hint: A large fraction of the SaaS providers who use Amazon are likely in this group if they had someone who met the skill floor for this option. I'll admit it is a skill floor because they need to be able to deploy a 1 or 3 Datacenter HA configuration without someone holding their hand.]
2) Those who have highly variable loads [Netflix] and/or lack the necessary experienced DevOps/Sysadmin type who can do capacity planning.
http://ioflood.com/phoenix-dedicated-servers.php
It's hard to get definite numbers from anyone, but they're all in about the same league.
My personal guess would be that EC2 is much bigger than OVH in the US, while OVH is almost certainly bigger than EC2 in Europe.