Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Keeping Your Cloud Costs Under Control

samzenpus posted about 2 years ago | from the where-it's-going dept.

Cloud 85

Tech writer David Strom offer this in-depth article on keeping your cloud costs suppressed. He writes: "Some cloud providers don’t make pricing available until you sign up for their service. Others hide pricing schedules behind complex formulae. And therein lies the challenge for an IT manager who wants to try to find the best-priced cloud: you have to read the fine print, and make sure you understand what is billable, how it is measured and priced, and when the meter starts (and stops) running. Let’s look at where you can get more precise cost information, as well as examine a few of the growing number of third-party comparison services that can help you get more control over your cloud costs."

cancel ×


Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Just don't use Cloudera (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40517141)

Just don't use Cloudera and you can double your number of nodes.

Not with Amazon's EC2 (4, Informative)

mysqlbytes (908737) | about 2 years ago | (#40517147)

Head on over to their monthly calculator [] to work out how much you'll be spending with them if you decide they are right. Would you go to do your grocery shopping and only find out how much each item you have bought is at the cashier? I think not...

Re:Not with Amazon's EC2 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40517281)

You mean the same Amazon EC2 that is the first example in the linked article?

Re:Not with Amazon's EC2 (1)

Richard_at_work (517087) | about 2 years ago | (#40517377)

Would you go to do your grocery shopping and only find out how much each item you have bought is at the cashier? I think not...

I thought thats exactly what happens in most of the US, what with sales tax etc added at the till?

Azure also has a cost calculator, here []

Re:Not with Amazon's EC2 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40517501)

I work in IT so I can go shopping without having to count the cost of every item before I get to the checkout. Fortunately though my brain seems to do all this for me as I shop, kind of like an inbuilt calculator application running in the background.

Let's all complain about clouds. All of the comments below will achieve 0%...

Re:Not with Amazon's EC2 (1)

sjames (1099) | about 2 years ago | (#40518751)

Unlike pricing cloud services, you can apply a simple multiplier to the listed item cost to come up with the checkout price.

If grocery shopping was like cloud computing, you'd have to work out the can charge (unit cost * can units where 1 can is more than one can unit and is affected by size and weight of the can), stocking charge, checkout charge (per unit as affected by product weight and can units). Don't forget to compute the cart charges and floor wear (based on cart weight and feet traveled). Thankfully, the lighting charge is a constant hourly rate, but the air conditioning rate is a complex table based on outside temperature.

I understand why it's that complex, but that doesn't make it any easier to deal with.

Re:Not with Amazon's EC2 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40521545)

Except you can't. Many states have differing laws about how they handle food in regards to tax. Some charge tax for prepared items, some charge no tall on all food items, some charge tax on all items, some charge tax on non-food items (for when you pick up paper towels too)

Re:Not with Amazon's EC2 (1)

PerfectionLost (1004287) | about 2 years ago | (#40517579)

Coincidentally, the Amazon cloud was down most of this weekend as their datacenter in West Virginia was impacted by this storm on the east coast. The datacenter I work in (also on the east coast) was not down. I've seen the amazon cloud go down quite a bit over the years. This is another thing you have to consider when picking your host.

Re:Not with Amazon's EC2 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40517605)

No, a part of Amazon's cloud was down. Much of it was still available. And it's in Virginia, near DC, not West Virginia.

Re:Not with Amazon's EC2 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40517909)

in the USiA we do for healthcare, hurray for price obfuscation!

Re:Not with Amazon's EC2 (1)

mrmeval (662166) | about 2 years ago | (#40522291)

I just wanted to host an instance for a low storage, low bandwidth website and I could not trust that calculator. I could not trust the drone I spoke with on the phone. Since I didn't need the alleged power I now have a virtual server with capped cpu, memory and bandwidth on a host at a fixed price per month. I can't be charged more but the website could go dark during the month unless I approve the continuing charges for bandwidth. I feel good in avoiding the clowd clowns. It's cheaper than the price I was getting from Amazon by a large margin.

Unit of time (1)

StripedCow (776465) | about 2 years ago | (#40517159)

I noticed that Amazon charges per hour, but I'm wondering if this is wall-clock time, or CPU-usage time? In other words, do I pay if the virtual instance is running but the CPU is idle?

Re:Unit of time (1, Informative)

OverlordQ (264228) | about 2 years ago | (#40517253)

Well, lets go look []

Pricing is per instance-hour consumed for each instance, from the time an instance is launched until it is terminated. Each partial instance-hour consumed will be billed as a full hour.

Man, that was hard.

Re:Unit of time (1)

nine-times (778537) | about 2 years ago | (#40517323)

Yeah, but people think "the cloud" is supposed to be free, or nearly so. They see something that says $0.12/hour, and they think it means they're going to get charged $0.12.

Re:Unit of time (1)

StripedCow (776465) | about 2 years ago | (#40517345)

Great, now besides grokking this complicated pricing model, I need to think of stuff to do in the idle-time of my instance to get the most bang for my buck.

Re:Unit of time (1)

Skapare (16644) | about 2 years ago | (#40517503)

You could help crack the password to my laptop.

Re:Unit of time (1)

davester666 (731373) | about 2 years ago | (#40518131)

That wasn't so hard: password

Re:Unit of time (1)

Skapare (16644) | about 2 years ago | (#40519633)

Nope. Close. But 1 letter off.

Re:Unit of time (1)

CadentOrange (2429626) | about 2 years ago | (#40518251)

If your instance has a significant amount of idle time, you're likely better off with an on-demand instance and powering it off when it's not in use.

Re:Unit of time (1)

StripedCow (776465) | about 2 years ago | (#40518339)

So how about a (nontrivial) web-service that needs to be available 24/7, but is accessed on average only a few times a day?

Re:Unit of time (1)

stoborrobots (577882) | more than 2 years ago | (#40523711)

Or similarly, a process which is required to do something every brief once every 15/30/60 minutes...

Re:Unit of time (1)

CadentOrange (2429626) | more than 2 years ago | (#40525079)

Do what I do. Reserve a micro instance on a 3 year plan. 1 time fee: $100 Monthly fee: $3.66 * 36 Total: $231.76 Averaged over 36 months: $6.44 That's slightly more expensive than some shared hosts, but the upshot is that you full access to a VM that's under your control to install whatever you please. I've got a blog, VPN and photo gallery and once you factor in bandwidth and Amazon S3 storage costs it's still under $7 a month.

Re:Unit of time (4, Interesting)

QuantumRiff (120817) | about 2 years ago | (#40517383)

Plus bandwidth (incoming, between regions, etc), plus storage. Plus database size (if you use hosted one) plus dedicated IO for certain databases.. Plus Load balancers.. plus DNS queries.. Plus extra for their internal network with IPSec. minus some amounts if you purchase a "reserved instance". Then throw in just how much CPU is a "high CPU" Instance. And how does your needs map to that..

But your right. a witty one line answer to make the previous guy feel dumb is all you really need. Its that simple.

Re:Unit of time (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40518375)

same old same old .... if ur a medium user ur better in a colo and ur own 'cloud' - you should see how many VMs (even with good I/O!) we can fit in a 2U space these days

Re:Unit of time (1)

sjames (1099) | about 2 years ago | (#40518789)

Don't forget the storage and network charges.

Re:Unit of time (3, Informative)

Mr. Sketch (111112) | about 2 years ago | (#40517349)

It's wall-clock time. Even if your virtual instance is in the 'running' state but idle and doing nothing, you're still getting billed for it.

You're billed from when you do 'start-instance' to when you do 'terminate-instance'.

Regarding the partial hours, they are based on wall-clock hours as well. If you start your instance at 1:58 and stop it at 2:01, you will be billed for two hours: One hour for the 1:00-1:59 hour, and one hour for the 2:00-2:59 hour. I have a cron job that runs at :55 and checks for any instances I've started up, but I'm not using anymore and shuts them down (there is no point in shutting them down before then since I might end up needing them at some point during that hour).

what about casino time where a day starts at 3am (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40517463)

what about casino time where a day starts at 3am

Re:what about casino time where a day starts at 3a (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40517639)

Hooker Standard Time is treated exactly the same as any other time zone.

Re:Unit of time (1)

Skapare (16644) | about 2 years ago | (#40517819)

WTF does "terminate-instance" really mean? Is it equivalent to "halt -p" or is it equivalent to "dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/sda" ?

Re:Unit of time (1)

Alex Zepeda (10955) | about 2 years ago | (#40517875)

You get billed until you stop the instance. Stopping is the equivalent of powering it down. Terminating is the equivalent of deleting it

how it really works (-1, Flamebait)

slashmydots (2189826) | about 2 years ago | (#40517211)

You know what's really budget-friendly? Use a cheap, poorly managed cloud service that crashes all the time like Amazon's or Microsoft's lol. You know how expensive proper electrical backup equipment and programmers who know what they're doing are? Lol, anyway the real truth is you can look into it all day and get verified, guaranteed quotes and think you're set. Then, once they have your data and your pricing guarantee period or contract or whatever expires, there's no stopping them from raising the price to whatever they want now that they have your data. And do they have to allow you to export all your data to switch services? Hell no!

Re:how it really works (4, Insightful)

Vrtigo1 (1303147) | about 2 years ago | (#40517357)

I've been using AWS for almost a year and have been impacted by one outage so far. That's why they, you know, recommend you put things in multiple regions / availability zones, kind of just like you would before the cloud came to be.

They've had VM import for quite a while and just released VM export so you can take your EC2 instances and easily convert them into VMware images that you can download and run where ever you want.

They can certainly decide to raise their prices, but there is absolutely something stopping them from doing so: competition. In a free market you won't survive long if you are providing the same service as everyone else and charging more for it.

And as far as programmers who know what they're doing...I can see you haven't spent much time with the AWS docs or SDK. If you had, it would be obvious that they have some scary smart folks working there.

Re:how it really works (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40517549)

Wow a year? You must be a cloud expert! At least thats probably what you put on your resume.

Re:how it really works (1)

Skapare (16644) | about 2 years ago | (#40517753)

There are already employers wanting to hire people with 10 years experience managing 10000+ cloud instances.

Re:how it really works (1)

Skapare (16644) | about 2 years ago | (#40517659)

I haven't spent much time with AWS docs, either. That's because I can't seem to find what answers my questions. So far this seems to NOT be a true virtual machine, or real machine for that matter. Things I'd need to know is how I can add a bunch of packages (need root access) and my applications ... and then CLONE it. Right now, we do this on real machines in a small farm. But it takes over 8 minutes to get a new box up and running. We're looking for something faster. But our cloning method is effectively installing the WHOLE operating system. If I take a vanilla Ubuntu install and apply all the additions and changes in place, it takes over 45 minutes to set it up. That's no good for a dynamic instance expansion.

Re:how it really works (1)

Alex Zepeda (10955) | about 2 years ago | (#40517897)

With an EBS backed root volume, take a snapshot, make volumes as needed and attach volume to a new instance. Or, make an AMI of the configured instance and make your instances from that new AMI. [] []

Re:how it really works (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40518415)

When I looked at Amazon's cloud a few years back, it seemed like I couldn't get a root shell. I've been happily using Rackspace for about two years now. I do what little I need to do, for about $12 per month. (the smallest size they have, about 1.5 cents/hour)

You can certainly modify a rackspace VM, save that, then launch copies easily.

Re:how it really works (1)

Skapare (16644) | about 2 years ago | (#40519677)

For now I have dedicated and colocated servers. Each "instance" is a whole machine with full root access. In the case of the colocated ones I own them, and I have VNC/IP access to the KVM on them, with a flash drive plugged in, and can recover or reload easily.

If I can't get root access, then I can't run my custom app.

Re:how it really works (1)

halltk1983 (855209) | more than 2 years ago | (#40523077)

That's what A/C was saying. With Rackspace, you do get root to your environment, and the ability to image a gold master once you've got it set up the way you want. This lets you scale sideways pretty quickly, if you need extra copies of it suddenly. Or you can take an image, spin a copy, and to an upgrade to make sure it works right. That way you're only paying for the dev / staging environments when you're using them. Things like that, which are hard to do with hardware.

Disclaimer: I work in the Rackspace Cloud Department.

Re:how it really works (1)

Skapare (16644) | more than 2 years ago | (#40523619)

Is there a way to play with a Rackspace Cloud to see how those steps work, just as a test w/o cost (no public access)? And of course, lots of documentation.

It would be great if I could build my own environment (a root tree), and configure a kernel, and make a gold master of that. I'd base it on Slackware.

Re:how it really works (1)

halltk1983 (855209) | more than 2 years ago | (#40638065)

Not without cost, but a 256 MB server is only 1.5c/hr. You could spin you a standard 2 db, 2 webhead, behind a load balancer development environment to play with for just 7.5c/hr. (Don't do it with the RHEL builds, they have flat licensing fees). You can play with any of the API language bindings, or directly in curl. Our API docs are freely available to anyone, and we use a RESTful API. I wish I had seen this before, but I don't check this email often. If you're actually interested, feel free to email me at the listed email address. Make sure to put something useful in the title, so I don't discount you as spam, and I'd be more than happy to help you get started. I'm one of the stronger folks with the APIs since they interest me personally, not just professionally. Or you can check out the docs: [] Or both.

Re:how it really works (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40517537)

Are you really that stupid or are you a troll?
Go back to playing Runescape. Leave the real computing for the big boys.

Re:how it really works (1)

Skapare (16644) | about 2 years ago | (#40517783)

So they don't allow you to run rsync over ssh to make backups?

Oligopoly = Confuseopoly every time (1)

vlm (69642) | about 2 years ago | (#40517231)

There's an oligopoly and its pricing strategy is confuseopoly? There's a first (said in intensely ironic tone of voice)

Find me an oligopoly without a confuseopoly pricing system, if you can. Cell phones? Check. Automobiles? Check. Now that almost all banks are owned by a couple big new york banks... check... Long distance providers (remember those?) ... Check...

The most cost effective way... (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40517411)

Host locally and don't give up control of your stuff.

Re:The most cost effective way... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40517581)

No, that's actually one of the most cost-prohibitive ways. Doing everything yourself gives you much more flexibility and control - but it also costs more, especially when you consider that a lot of the functions you're buying hardware and hiring full-time support personnel for only REALLY need a fraction of the support, staffing, and hardware that you've purchased.

There are tradeoffs, as with anything. Trying to prescribe a single solution as a panacea for whatever ails you is the hallmark of a shit-tier engineer.

Re:The most cost effective way... (2)

Dan667 (564390) | about 2 years ago | (#40517833)

nobody cares about your data or business as much as you do.

Re:The most cost effective way... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40518257)

Not every bit of data you own or produce in the conduct of your business is mission critical and needs to be cared about to that degree.

Re:The most cost effective way... (1)

TheSunborn (68004) | about 2 years ago | (#40518259)

True, but most of the downtime for datacenters are due to external events, such as lost power/internet connection.

And you can't really make the power company restore power to you, before they restore it to Amazon.

Re:The most cost effective way... (1)

halltk1983 (855209) | more than 2 years ago | (#40523089)

If you have a bad enough data center that they aren't testing their generators and switches, and don't have multiple interconnects, you have problems. Granted, there are larger issues, like a truck crashing into the generator / electric company interconnect which cannot be foreseen, but the hallmark of a good company is one that learns from that mistake.

Re:The most cost effective way... (1)

Dan667 (564390) | more than 2 years ago | (#40530295)

funny that is the exact same argument I would use against Amazon. When Amazon has a problem they are not going to restore you before their highest paid accounts. Hence my comment.

Re:The most cost effective way... (1)

sjames (1099) | more than 2 years ago | (#40525317)

Sometimes it costs more. It really depends on the situation. One thing it does is give you a better shot at a predictable cost month to month. Keep in mind you still need an admin for cloud services, Amazon takes care of their network and such, but someone needs to configure the virtual server once it's instantiated. If your server in the clouds gets slammed at 3 in the morning someone will have to put up another instance and replicate the configs. If the cloud goes down, someone will have to figure out that it's them rather than you and then stand by ready to get things up again once the cloud provider does their part.

Re:The most cost effective way... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40518907)

For your core network services; LDAP, VPN, Firewall and systems access control technologies, DNS, Enterprise backup, Intranet web, (to a lesser extent)Terminal services, Internet connectivity, Web Portal, HR and Payroll, Accounting, etc, those get hosted locally or outsourced intelligently. You could outsource it one day and find 50%+ packet-loss.

For your Messaging services: E-mail, IM, VOIP, etc; it really depends on who you are, what regulatory concerns exist, and what management wants. PAAS and SAAS are big here.

For your Enterprise applications that require high availability and for development and integration testing, now we have a good argument for IAAS service to save hardware, colo and BW cost.

Nobody runs 100% cloud, they run both private and non-private cloud in tandem and use the non-private to police the private.

Big selling point for execs; if your company goes out of business, does all the data go poof and with it, your ability to defend yourself from criminal charges in a court of law? Dip them into the lava, they'll want a few sysadmins on hand.

For billing:

-If a vendor hands you a contract with 50 pages, they are trying to screw you. Walk away.
-If a vendor sits down with you, hands you a 5 page contract, and it takes 3 hours for them to explain it to you, you're a fool for wasting more than 30 minutes, walk away.
-If a vendor sits down with you with 5-page well-written contract, and it takes 15 minutes for them to explain it to you, sign it.
-The only exception to the above is when dealing with a monopoly.

The cost of hardware and software is the same for all 3, but for some reason or another, vendors expect IT guys to be willing to go to the degree f-ing tax accountants go to in order to figure out a bill. The vendor needs to be doing the math, not you; that's lazy on their part and that lazyness will show on all of their offerings.

when did Slashdot become only marketting? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40517439)

fuck this, I'll just stick with subreddits.

Article misses the BIGGEST hidden Cost. (4, Informative)

Lumpy (12016) | about 2 years ago | (#40517599)

Increase in size of Internet connection to the office.

We switched to the cloud expecting it but many IT departments dont think of the impact.

5-10 people syncing to hosted services and other onlne apps is one thing, when you have all 6900 employees doing it, it will utterly CRUSH that wimpy T3 you have.

And no, you cant use the garbage DSL or Cable modems. You need a real connection. we are buying an OC3 connection here to have upstream and downstream to be 100% reliable. and luckily we have fiber to the building already and a local POP is cheap enough that we are only spending a little more than 2X of what we were spending on the T3. We do have a business class Cable service as a failover backup.

When you scale up with "cloud" you can saturate a internet connection quite fast.

Re:Article misses the BIGGEST hidden Cost. (1)

Skapare (16644) | about 2 years ago | (#40517867)

What are you transmitting over these local connections? Are you backing up the contents of your cloud instances every 10 minutes? Is your cloud instance mounting your local drive for data to deliver to the web? Or is it mounting the other way around where you are using the cloud as a file server?

Re:Article misses the BIGGEST hidden Cost. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40525983)

I think you need to re-read his post, it seems you think he is talking that there is 3 people instead of the 6900 people. Or you dont understand how the internet or bandwidth works.

Re:Article misses the BIGGEST hidden Cost. (1)

nine-times (778537) | about 2 years ago | (#40518427)

Well it does depend on what you're doing "in the cloud". If you're hosting web services in the cloud instead of in your office, it may lower bandwidth usage in your office.

But yes, people forget about bandwidth. I've run into a bunch of IT guys who are starting to make the argument, "Why pay all the costs for maintaining this internal file server when I can just use cloud storage?"

"Uh... yeah, because you have 70 people constantly updating 5 TB of data, operating off of a T1. Trying to do it all live over the Internet is going to be really painful. Trying to get around that by syncing/caching stuff on local desktops is going to be a nightmare. Just stick with your internal servers for now."

Re:Article misses the BIGGEST hidden Cost. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40521041)

Finally someone else gets it, No if this would just make to all the 'Yeah Cloud' hipsters so they can understand it.

slashcloud???? (1)

million_monkeys (2480792) | about 2 years ago | (#40517641)

I looked at this and thought "this has SlashBi written all over it". Turns out it's actually part of SlashCloud [] . I must have missed the memo. When did that show up? And are we we going to get more SlashBuzzwords?

Re:slashcloud???? (3, Funny)

gman003 (1693318) | about 2 years ago | (#40517685)


Stop giving them ideas!

Re:slashcloud???? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40518665)

I want to be Editor of SlashSynergy.

Not just cloud. (2)

jellomizer (103300) | about 2 years ago | (#40517645)

It seems like anything that is somewhat expensive, you cannot find an estimate of your final price online. You need sales people to give you a quote, then you are stuck with hearing there sales pitch and them getting annoyed when you say no.

I understand that a lot of things are variable prices... However I want to know the ball park price. Am I looking at $10,000 or $100,000 or under $5,000?

For example... The following I would like to have a ball park figure on, in my area...
1. How much for Solar Panel? How much energy will they provide... On the average for an average size home.
2. How much for Geothermal?
3. How much for Central Air Conditioning?
4. How much for enterprise software?

The problem isn't just the Companies fault, it is the customer too... Most customers are too stupid to realize there are factors, and they just don't know what an estimate means, so the companies are afraid of posting their estimated prices online because too many people think the online estimate is a quote or a contactable price. Also they will have to compete with companies who give their estimates differently, difference companies may deal with different size customers. You quote for an enterprise system, company may say a mid sized company is 100 employees an other will think it is 1000 employees. so their estimates will be orders of magnitudes off. Also there is sometimes the case you get what you pay for... Too cheap you get cheap.
While I understand the complication... I would wish there was a place where I can get an honest estimate.

Re:Not just cloud. (1)

Skapare (16644) | about 2 years ago | (#40517927)

I'm the CFH (customer from hell) that the sales people hate. I can describe the particulars and factors exactly, and then I expect them to pull a price out of their arse and be legally bound to that. Imagine you are a manager at a construction company and need a truck load of sand for a job, and the supplier tells you it costs 3.2 microdollars per grain of sand.

Reality pricing is better. Give case studies of what people actually do. Describe a web site run on a cloud, and include all the particular factors for that one, and how much it costs. Repeat for several varieties of things business, people, and spammers do on the cloud. FYI, don't plan to run a mail server there since all the spammer location aware mail servers won't take mail from a cloud based source.

Re:Not just cloud. (1)

jellomizer (103300) | about 2 years ago | (#40519503)

When you are in the business, you normally know what you are going to pay. You are usually already bound to the idea you will get this work done. So you want an accurate quote, not an estimate.

The problem is in the phase if you want to do the project or not and such a project is new to you, and you have no price expectations at all. Sometimes getting an estimate (without the formal quote) is useful.

Lets use a Car Analogy. Pretend we live in a world without car commercials... Or your TiVo skills have you skipped them for a good many years. Also in this world Cars have no sticker prices.

So you want a new car... How much should you save up. Does a Car only cost $5,000 perhaps it costs $120,000, without this expectation when you actually see the price of the car at $25,000 you are supprised at the price high or low. If you had $120,000 in your mind that $25,000 will seem cheap, and chances are you will get the car at that price, without bargaining down. Or if you expect $5,000 then you will go wow that is way to expensive and walk away from buying the car.

Re:Not just cloud. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40518485)

Maybe you should be more of a do-it-yourselfer:
at least for #1, a few hours on the web will answer your questions.
Wholesale solar site gives prices, and has packages that include the components you probably need. Builditsolar site has info on doing it yourself. NREL has PVwatts that will tell you what x watts of solar panels will actually provide at your zip code. Your electric bill should tell you how much you use, and include data for the last year.

If you are looking for somebody else to put panels on your roof, well yeah, you will have to ask them about costs.

Re:Not just cloud. (1)

jellomizer (103300) | about 2 years ago | (#40519395)

But I want to determine if there is a real value to doing it yourself or just get someone else to do it. If the equipment costs $10,000 and labor cost $2,000 vs. having me do it, and risk injury. It may be worth it. However if the equipment code $10,000 and Labor costs $50,000 it may be better if I do it. But how do I know without an estimate.

just read up on mainframe problems (1)

Dan667 (564390) | about 2 years ago | (#40517815)

the same lessons still apply even if you change the name to "cloud".

Re:just read up on mainframe problems (1)

Skapare (16644) | about 2 years ago | (#40517937)

It's just a hosting provider with a few more automation scripts added on and a "gotcha" pricing model.

And So It Begins (4, Interesting)

StormReaver (59959) | about 2 years ago | (#40517949)

This is following a similar arc that the mainframe to PC story followed. Sadly, the people who are old enough to remember it are retiring, and the younger people who have not studies computing history are too ignorant to see it.

The "cloud" nonsense is repeating history, and will have easily predictable outcomes. We will eventually be heralding the arrival of the "new" technology that allows us to have control over our own computing (but with laws that have to be circumvented or repealed due to Government totalitarianism).

I can't help by shake my head in disbelief.

Agreed, 110%... apk (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40518081)

I remember the transition from "green-screen" dumb-terminals on IBM mainframes &/or midranges (VAX VMS driven ones too just before it) - the transition to Client-Server computing using MANY cheaper PC's & better equipped servers (more disk, more RAM, sometimes better CPU depending on what kind of server it was running (DB engines come to mind here on that account)) was because it was cheaper...

Now it's EXACTLY what you're stating... except that now that PC Client-Server designs beat the hell out of buying a full-blown mainframe (& possibly midranges too), they want to "centralize" it... but to save CO$T$ in ANOTHER WAY:



P.S.=> This isn't designed like "the war on drugs" people - that keeps law enforcement people @ WORK... Oh no, but this?

This "cloud computing initiative" is designed to PUT YOU TECHS OUT OF WORK, period (nobody's going to tell me otherwise, because it takes people locally to support Client-Server designs, but not as many locally, for "Cloud" computing).

By the by/lastly: The term "Cloud"? It's been used FOREVER by the IBM types... I was first exposed to it back circa 1994 or thereabouts! apk

Re:Agreed, 110%... apk (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40519187)

Thanks, APK, but what we really want to know is, can your HOSTS file solution help mitigate the impact of companies migrating to cloud services?

Re:Agreed, 110%... apk (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40519667)

The rest of us would like to know when you'll stop stalking apk and if you won't, when you'll grow a set of testicles and try it with your registered account (which, of course, you have and he thrashed you for it which is why you attempt to harass and stalk him by anonymous coward posts instead).

What old Linux geeks really want to know is ... (1)

Skapare (16644) | about 2 years ago | (#40518017)

... if it has root shell access over ssh (e.g. that command line that all the New Linux geeks hate so much).

Re:What old Linux geeks really want to know is ... (1)

Skapare (16644) | about 2 years ago | (#40518305)

It looks like they do this, but they do this BADLY. They allow firewall rules to specify which IP addresses can connect. This is bad for people on dynamic IPs. No idea, yet, if IPv6 is even supported.

What they SHOULD do is allow the user to change the SSH port number

, which is sufficient obscurity for the next few years. Hopefully, AWS will be blocking the various probers that try to dictionary attack the SSH ports, and help this situation.

Re:What old Linux geeks really want to know is ... (1)

CadentOrange (2429626) | about 2 years ago | (#40518311)

The default Amazon EC2 linux instance exposes only SSH and logs you in as a user with sudo privileges.

Re:What old Linux geeks really want to know is ... (1)

Skapare (16644) | about 2 years ago | (#40518585)

So then I do "sudo passwd root" and enter my random string a couple times?

Re:What old Linux geeks really want to know is ... (1)

CadentOrange (2429626) | more than 2 years ago | (#40525109)

Yes. Personally, I prefer to just log in as the sudo user and then do "sudo su" to become root.

The default configuration of SSH is to only allow you to log in with your private key so you're still going to muck around with to allow password logins or get the root user a public/private key pair.

Re:What old Linux geeks really want to know is ... (1)

Skapare (16644) | more than 2 years ago | (#40537745)

Actually my preference is to put my public key in "/root/.ssh/authorized_keys".

Re:What old Linux geeks really want to know is ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40518565)

Try Rackspace. (I have no relationship with them, other than being a happy customer for two years).

It will cost you a penny and a half to give it a try for an hour. (ok, you need to provide credit card details and wait an hour to get turned on)

and yes, you get root access via ssh. And they now offer cloud servers in London, which might offer a side benefit which I won't go into here.

So what you're saying is (2)

mjwx (966435) | about 2 years ago | (#40518209)

He writes: "Some cloud providers don’t make pricing available until you sign up for their service. Others hide pricing schedules behind complex formulae

So what you're saying is by going with the "cloud" your money could end up disappearing into thin air.

OK, I'll get my coat.

Re:So what you're saying is (1)

Skapare (16644) | about 2 years ago | (#40518379)

As long as they don't have a usage cap facility that YOU can set your own limits on, in either computer based technical units of usage, or by dollars (even zero for the free tier), and in time frames other than just a whole month, then yeah ... your money could end up disappearing into thin air.

I should be able to set usage restrictions to, for example, no more than $10 in any one day, $50 in any one week, and $100 in any one month. Then at least I won't have more than $100 going into thin air. I'm paying $125 for fixed bandwidth dedicated hosting, now. I can call them up and have another machine in place in an hour, and configure it in another hour. Trouble is, I have to commit a whole month for that (and I can understand that ... or pay them for work actually done). Apparently the benefit of the cloud is doing this in software (VMs I assume).

Not so cost effective. (1)

NemoinSpace (1118137) | about 2 years ago | (#40518431)

Seems to me, the cloud based business model - overcharging your customers to lose their data from your server - was fine as long as they would pony up the money.(and agree to the zero liability terms)
Now that (non)economies of scale are proving too hard to keep the pictures of last summer's vacation from vanishing into the ether, it's time to reconsider allowing the end user to buy your app and worry about their own data.

Cloud Service Providers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40524735)

These days virtualization makes provisioning cloud services easy even for the relative novice. Two co-located physical servers hosting numerous virtual machines each providing a specific service can be achieved at very low cost, primarily the cost of co-location. I control the services. I control the software installed. I control the applications and data. In fact, my co-location costs merely the price of an Internet connection at my home office and another at my office, with a third server at another location. If any service goes down I am notified via SMS and can simply update the public DNS record(s).

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?