Another day brings another Amazon Web Services price cut, yielding another frantic bout of spreadsheet-hammering among the Microsoft and Google accountants trying to work out just how low their companies' margins can go, we imagine. Thursday's price cut sees Amazon go after Microsoft's Windows Azure cloud by reducing the cost of …
By my calculations
Amazon have slashed the cost of Cloud hosting so many times in the past 12 months, they should in fact now be paying customers rather than charging them.
Re: By my calculations
Worth noting that Azure has significantly faster benchmarked average storage and compute performance than Amazon when comparing 'like' instances between the 2. And that Amazon have had worse outages than Azure.
One good thing about Azure for small businesses is you can back up Server Essentials 2012 to it super simply.
I don't think it is a problem for Microsoft or Google really they can both play at this game.
(Microsoft will get more some new tricks when Dell goes private in exchange for those $2 billion. Might even things easier for them than anyone else).
you may be able to back up your server...
In the event of a DR exercise how long will it take to pull all that data back? Hours, Days, Weeks?
Just because it can doesn't mean you should.
@h3 Until you see the pricing for backing up to Azure that is. S3 is significantly cheaper and a copy of Cloudberry makes it ever so easy.
Actually Azure is almost exactly the same cost. And is significantly faster.
50,000 GB of locally redundant storage on Azure EU is $0.065 per GB / month
on Amazon S3 EU reduced redundancy storage is ~ $0.064 per GB.
Ah - I guess you mean Amazon Glacier which is about 20% of the cost of standard storage. However it takes up to 6 hours from requesting a restore to being able to start downloading data! That might work for home users, but not for most enterprises...
Re: you may be able to back up your server...
"how long will it take to pull all that data back?"
Is that not one of the critical issues about 'cloud services' in the sense of how easy can you migrate providers if/when the cloud provider starts tightening the financial screws?
Microsoft now offer similar for £0.15 / GB / month without having to wait 6 hours to start downloading your data....
The thing that both Azure and Google seem to miss is the availability of Spot Instances on Amazon, I run a small instance on EC2 that would normally cost ~$40 a month, but instead costs ~$5 a month.
Sure it reboots every so often, but if you've configured it right, it just means an hour or so downtime a month.
Re: Spot Instances
Yup, Spot Instances and Reserved Instances are *so much* cheaper than standard instances if you know you are going to need the capacity in the future (and you will normally know for the bulk of your workload).
Can we please have an updated table in the article above adding in, at the least, Reserved Instances? It will be a bit of an eye opener.
@SaveMefromeejits: If you use Spot Instances, go register for http://aws.amazon.com/ec2/spot-labs. It currently gives access to Spot Notifications, a feature that sends you notifications via Amazon Simple Notification Service (SNS) for Spot Instance provisioning events (which is very useful).
hard battle voor microsoft
Microsoft tries to get a piece of the action (remember their cloud presence is almost like their phone's) with higher prices than their biggest competitor? Good luck! Because I can see no compelling reason that one has to buy Microsoft in the cloud. Cloud == web and web based stacks on Linux are hot while Microsoft's stack is not. The only reason is some old-fashioned enterprise app that requires windows. There are a lot off them, but I hardly see any new load coming to Windows.
Re: hard battle voor microsoft
"remember their cloud presence is almost like their phone's"
Almost like their phone's what? Remember that Microsoft run some of the largest cloud operations on the planet on Azure including Xbox live, Hotmail.com, Office365, etc.
"and web based stacks on Linux are hot while Microsoft's stack is not."
Microsoft's web stack is far more secure and much less likely to get hacked than a LAMP or similar stack, and currently has 20% market share - not bad for a premium product that charges versus 'free'. Plus the underlying Hyper-V hypervisor on Azure currently scales better than anything as yet available on Linux - e.g. capable of 1 million+ IOPS from a single VM. And you can automatically move VMs to / from the cloud with App Manager....Azure has a number of compelling features for the enterprise wanting IAAS versus Amazon.
- Just TWO climate committee MPs contradict IPCC: The two with SCIENCE degrees
- 14 antivirus apps found to have security problems
- Feature Scotland's BIG question: Will independence cost me my broadband?
- Apple winks at parents: C'mon, get your kid a tweaked Macbook Pro
- FTC to mobile carriers: If you could stop text scammers being jerks that'd be just great