undefined | Better HN

0 pointsmotorest1y ago0 comments

> The article is about – saving 30% by switching from Spot to 70% more expensive VMs. It's the opposite of what you're talking about here.

I don't think those values hold any meaning, specially after no concrete details are actually listed. For example, if hypothetical spot instances have a lower unit cost but your system needs to be over provisioned to account for systematic cold starts and cluster chatter, does it make any sense to say they are cheaper?

> This information is wrong.

Is it? Forward your complains to Google, then.

https://cloud.google.com/compute/docs/instances/committed-us...

0 comments

3 comments · 1 top-level

rdsubhas1y ago· 2 in thread

Yes, that's what the article is about.

And yes, the comment is confidently wrong as said in that page.

motorestOP1y ago

> Yes, that's what the article is about.

Not really. Hand-waving over hypothetical unit costs means nothing. In fact, I wonder if that's why the article lists no specifics on the cost structure of the spot instance based approach, and why the cloud 101 approach is spun to be such a surprise.

> And yes, the comment is confidently wrong as said in that page.

You're literally trying to gaslight when all it takes to verify your claim is a single click. Wild.

rdsubhas1y ago

I had asked: In which cloud do you see CUDs being 70% cheaper for standard machines?

And the article has the standard machine spec, and the page shows clearly your information is blatantly wrong.

Fitting a different content into your own pre-set wrong mental model is not worth engaging over.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse