Invisible wrote:
> Well now... It seems that even if you store some absurd amount of data 

> like 1GB (think how many years that would take to upload...) it costs 
> less than 50p/month. Which is nothing. (I currently pay £5/month.)


Yep. I think my last bill was seventeen cents.

> On the other hand, 30 days of instance time on EC2 is almost 80$. 
> Exchange rates vary, but this compares wildly unfavourably with my 
> current hosts' demands of £15/month.

Is that for a machine where you can install your own OS and such? Or is t
hat 
for just a web host, where you're (for example) sharing an Apache server 

with others?

> The verdict: S3 is very, very cheap. EC2 is absurdly expensive. (If 
> you're a company, the reliability guarantees and lack of initial outlay
 
> could make sense. But for an individual, it's a no-brainer: don't do it
!)

It's also designed for you to rent it briefly, not for a long time. I.e.,
 if 
your needs aren't "elastic", it might not make sense. If you need six 
machines today, three tomorrow, and one next week, it makes more sense. I
f 
you want to rent a machine for three hours to do a render, it makes a lot
 of 
sense.

> For about £200 you could *buy* a half-decent PC. If you leave it r
unning 
> for 1 year, it will have cost you [slightly more than] £200.

Well, you would need the connectivity too, which I understand is pretty 
expensive where you are. :-)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Why is there a chainsaw in DOOM?
   There aren't any trees on Mars.

Post a reply to this message