Every time I look at rack space it looks phenomenally expensive. As far as I can...

FireBeyond · on March 13, 2014

It does seem to be. We are relatively small, and admittedly have a whole bunch of data in S3, but aside from that, our $10K/mo at Rackspace (primarily VMs, some load balancing) is looking to go down to about $6K/month at AWS when we port across 40 or so VMs (then we also don't have to deal with $4K/mo of S3 data transfer, too).

mattmanser · on March 14, 2014

See, I don't get why anyone doing that simply wouldn't just go dedicated.

You know you need it, so why pay a huggggeeeeeee premium and get relatively poor performance compared to dedicated for on demand VM services?

I get the impression a significantly smaller subset of people using AWS/Rackspace/Azure should actually be using them.

Obviously I know nothing about what you're doing, so it may be that you have a perfectly good use case.

FireBeyond · on March 16, 2014

Definitely true. I've actually only been with this company five weeks as their Ops guy, so these are questions I need to get answers too - the founder freely admits Rackspace was his first choice due to good history. But AWS is probably a better fit for us, so I'm doing due diligence on all that. Dedicated is probably not going to work for us at least initially. But definitely worth investigation too.