On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 7:55 PM, Jeff Schnitzer <j...@infohazard.org> wrote: > On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 11:15 AM, Stephen <sdeasey+gro...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 7:04 PM, Jeff Schnitzer <j...@infohazard.org> wrote: >>> >>> This is not too surprising; if you look at the rest of the cloud >>> industry, almost all services are priced by the amount of RAM used and >>> make no mention of how much CPU is allocated. >> >> http://aws.amazon.com/ec2/instance-types/ >> >> CPU/RAM ratio seems pretty linear. > > http://www.linode.com/index.cfm > http://www.rackspace.com/cloud/cloud_hosting_products/servers/pricing/ > http://www.slicehost.com/ > http://prgmr.com/xen/
I wonder if the above don't mention cpu because it is ample and nobody cares, or they are skimping and don't want to highlight it. Seems like they divide the box according to ram, and whatever portion that is, you get a similar portion of the box's cpu. If they're buying the same boxes as everyone else it probably works out the same. Anyway, if Google's primary concern is ram the new pricing scheme still discriminates against efficiency. Sure, charging by instance uptime accounts for large idle instances, but many Python apps manage with 15MB where as an Enterprise Java app might need 75-100MB. Maybe they should charge for ram? Greg: Q: You seem to be trying to account for RAM in the new model. Will I be able to purchase Frontend Instances that use different amounts of memory? A: We are only planning on having one size of Frontend Instance. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google App Engine" group. To post to this group, send email to google-appengine@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to google-appengine+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine?hl=en.
