|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
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
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |