Hacker News Reader

Comment by FireBeyond | Hacker News Reader

That seems off. It's been 2 or so years now, but I worked for a company that had a five digit monthly bill from both Rackspace and AWS, and our costs to migrate from one to the other were within 15% when we did the math.

90% seems way off. AWS is known for not being cheap (neither is Rackspace), but I highly doubt that Rackspace was ten times the price of Amazon.

View on HN

Refactor code to handle spot loss and then go with much larger spot instances??

I could see that true. I forgot that my (now ex-) employer was for whatever reasons averse to reserved, let alone spots.

To clarify, in all liklihood - you would be doing top tier on spot, and then 2nd and third via other methods... but there are ways to get a system to really handle spot loss...

There are MANY applications that simply are too complex to handle such an arch... so, - do so, when you can, but know when that's just stupid.... stacks are like snowflakes, we LOVE them to death, or we love them to DEATH...

Uh, AWS is absolutely known for being cheap. I'm in the hosting business as well and our AWS offerings are a fraction of the cost of other solutions, especially when you consider what you get.

>Uh, AWS is absolutely known for being cheap.

Not if you need always-on instances.

Agreed. Digital ocean and other hosts are better for always-on instances, though some of the T2 instances with burst credits are decent on AWS.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com