Hacker News Reader

Rubbish. Why is there even a section describing its methodology when it's comparing $40 and $50 instances against $20 ones? I can see why they might compare the $62 EC2 instances against other vendors' cheaper ones as that is the point of their investigation, but the challengers should be on a level playing field. Seems to me that they wanted DO to 'win'.

View on HN

If you would read the paragraph directly after the list of instances tested you would see this was directly addressed. This test wasn't meant to mislead and was simply exploring the best options for us. This isn't the same for everyone, which is why we open-sourced the tool we made so that you can run your own tests as well.

> Even though neither Linode nor Vultr offer a CPU optimized tier, we wanted to test the options we would actually be using if we went with each provider.

This is the part that doesn't make sense. They basically chose one type from each vendor, before benchmarking. If there are clearly instance types at twice the cost and still lower than types from other vendors, the results were stacked. How can you see this any other way?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com