Hacker News Reader

Comment by mabynogy | Hacker News Reader

I quote that number because I saw a study about that. The worst was AWS (x10) and the cheapest was Google (x2).

If you still have a reference to that study, I'd be interested to have it, since all of my own cost comparisons have been done for employers, which means I haven't been able to release the details.

I'm also curious as to how Google came in 5 times cheaper than AWS. I knew intuitively (and through an occasional pricing spot-check) that GCP and Azure could be price competitive enough for certain workloads to be worth considering (assuming a spikey/elastic enough load that cloud makes sense in the first place), but I never saw that extreme a difference.

Sadly no. I tried to find it.

There is a tool to build around that.

Someone has started, at least for AWS, as this was on the front page: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17551796

Interestingly, many of the comments are asking for support for GCP, although the response seems to be that Google's tools might be better (enough) than Amazon's that it's not as urgent.

Interesting. The mockup on their homepage give some prices. With their 1610$ example, one could rent a whole datacenter (1000 i3 with 4Gb and 4Tb HDD at 1.6$ per day - 50$ per month).

I sent you a mail yesterday. Maybe it went to the spam folder.

That example corresponds to $49k monthly, which, among "Silicon Valley" tech companies is, apparently, not a huge amount.

To be fair, the machines you specify are pretty tiny and would easily fit into a half-U enclosure. Even assuming only 36U usable (after network, power, etc) per rack, those thousand would fit in 14 racks, a very small fraction of a whole datacenter.

(I did see the e-mail.. I think I have HN emails explicitly bypass spam. I'll check out your site and reply privately later today)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com