View Single Post
  #25  
Old 02-03-2012, 07:59 PM
tchen tchen is offline
Web Hosting Master
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Canada
Posts: 934
Thanks Robert for coming out here and adding some salient points.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudsigma View Post
You'll find you will have to over-purchase at least one of CPU/RAM/Storage and perhaps more in order to fit your requirements. This is the purchasing waste that bundling introduces for customers.
There definitely is much more flexibility in CloudSigma's provisioning. But the forced apples-to-apples comparison was just to compare relative price/performance.

There are also performance variability downsides to packing VMs of disparate sizes, which are concerns alleviated to some extent via bundling. Bundling can be both good or bad.


Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudsigma View Post
Secondly, most customers using burst are doing ad hoc computing but often re-using the same storage. It is a very rare use case that our customers use both CPU/RAM and storage both on burst. The more usual case is using storage on subscription and CPU/RAM on burst.
I think that muddles the point as a good deal of ad hoc computing is opportunistic. Keeping a volume on standby is just pure waste, especially if you're numbering in the dozens of servers. Configuration and coordination are typically left to things like Puppet or Rightscale, rebuilding the server from a base image. Hence, this is why the comparison was left as purely spot pricing.

Besides, the difference in burst storage versus a one year sub was $1.40

I think you're better served by mentioning that burst prices at CloudSigma are capped, as oppose to EC2 which goes as high as you're willing to pay - should it go higher, the instance is terminated abruptly. I much prefer CloudSigma's spot even if it is a bit more expensive.



Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudsigma View Post
Again, because most hosting providers over-provision storage in relation to CPU/RAM amounts, working backwards from AWS fixed sizes rather than working forward from your actually computing size requirements on CloudSigma introduces bias to the results.
Actually, the comparison bias was removed in this case by using EBS. Ephemeral storage would be different, and would be more skewed in EC2's favor had I included it.