Make it less expensive to run my very small service on Windows Azure.
AdminMike Wickstrand
(Admin, Microsoft Windows Azure)
shared this idea
At PDC 2010 Microsoft announced the Extra Small Instance, which will be priced at $0.05 per compute hour in order to make the process of development, testing and trial easier. This will make it affordable for developers interested in running smaller applications on the platform. A beta of this role will be available before the end of 2010.
Please let us know if this addresses your needs for a more cost effective Azure offering.
129 comments
-
jinishans
commented
Public Cloud isnt going tobe sucess until providers charge for actual ram, cpu usage instead of 24x7x365 availability. Theyre not understanding even without people moving to public cloud they still have those cpu, ram & hdd keep running, then why not charge only for actual usage...!
-
Oz030
commented
A virtual server cost me 20$ a month. I would get 3 virtual servers for
- An extra small instance
- The minimum blob storage and transactions
- 1GB SQL databasesand then I have don't even have CDN, certificates, a DNS and a mail server. I really love Windows Azure and would love the see it be successfull. Windows Phone is so great as well but nobody knows because Microsoft can not convince people using this guy so PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE don't sleep! Convince us! Make it happen!
-
P Velachoutakos
commented
It is the same as using a shared server.Lot of issues might come up.We believe that it is unique for developing not for going live.
-
Gimmerank
commented
I put small sites together in one web role, which lower down the cost for each. I guess you can try the same.
-
Paul Allen
commented
I was very interested in Azure. I'm currently using 2 VM hosting boxes and thought what better than to use the Microsoft cloud based system.
I then realised that for a VM with 1/4 the processing power of my current VM it would cost me double the price per month.
I'll be sticking to my current hosts unless Microsoft changes the pricing model so you only actually pay for what you use (in web application terms, when the application is doing something). My websites are used generally for about 4 hours per day. If I was only charged when the website was using CPU time then this would be a viable alternative.
For now, Azure is a totally unreasonable prospect for small development companies such as myself. I'll not be using it at all from now on even though there is still 2 and a half months free trial left, there is no point.
-
Andy
commented
Small applications must be charged by CPU time instead of uptime to make Azure an option in those cases.
-
Richard commented
We need an alternate pricing model. When you build a small website, it needs to be available 24x7x365, but may only get < 100 hits a day. Give us a way of paying for those hits, rather than paying for it to be available. Basically, cost to enter the cloud needs to be more realistic.
-
ADEBISI Foluso A.
commented
Please support the idea of integrating Azure with source control so you can deploy via commits:: It's GREAT! Vote for the idea here:
It'll make azure better!
-
Phil Jones
commented
The extra small instances are OK but I would really want extra extra small instances designed for running one small site on.
Also SQL Azure prices are too high, step wise. A 50mb/100mb step before 1GB would be great, most sites I design when small only have say a 20mb database size!
Smaller sizes of cache as well or can you split this out and share across many clients?
-
Pravil commented
@ Jeff Jorczak:
The Extra Small instances are available now. You will get 1.0 GHz CPU, 768 MB Memory and 20 GB Intance Storage. Cost $0.05 per compute hour.For the extra-small instances, we have some pre-requisites as mentioned below:
1. You should have the Azure SDK V1.3 or later installed.
2. Visual studio tools should be installed.
3. And you should be using VS 2010.HTH!
-
Juan
commented
The cheaper the better, this is the best way to sell the platform. It should allow to setup startup projects at really low cost, (Cheaper that hosting it yourself somewhere else!). Microsoft will get the benefits from those ones that are succesful. Big companies will see the model and buy in even more to the model, as I assume most startups will compete with them, this will favour the disruption.
-
Fabio
commented
That's still $36 per month, which is a lot more then most hosting providers. Why would I choose Azure when I could host my WCF services for a fraction of the price?
-
Jeff Jorczak
commented
When will the Extra Small Instance be available? Comment says end of 2010, we are a bit beyond that now.
-
Hunter
commented
Just curious. If you include the amount per year that Amazon requires to stand up a windows server, I am not so sure that Azure costs more than Amazon Web Services.
-
Hunter
commented
The $0.05 matches Amazon Web Services Reserved Instance. If you were close, even a little bit more expensive than Amazon services across the board, you would have me in a heartbeat. When targeting consumer apps with the potential to spike, these prices are very cheap. Stay in the neighborhood of Amazon across the board and u have me. Thanks
-
Captain Dashenka
commented
Small application development is an important first step in befriending a new servce / platform. with these prices Microsoft is missing out on many potential devotees.
-
MakerOfThings77 commented
Why not offer discounts & incentives for people who commit to purchasing X compute hours per month or year. This could be similar to how the ServiceBus connection packs are billed. That way MSFT can plan based on customer commitment. On the other hand won't Facebooks Open Source Datacenter naturally drive prices down?
-
Why not offer discounts & incentives for people who commit to purchasing X compute hours per month or year. This could be similar to how the ServiceBus connection packs are billed. That way MSFT can plan based on customer commitment. On the other hand won't Facebooks Open Source Datacenter naturally drive prices down?
-
J. van Dorsten
commented
Small applications should be charged by CPU time instead of uptime, starting up is still more expensive than other hosting options. You need 2 instances to assure the 99.5% uptime wich is about $72 a month.
-
Ben Callister
commented
To expect customers to pay for resources (e.g. instances) when they are not being used goes against the very essence/promise of the cloud - only paying for what you use! It is understood that a MS VM is the most granular level of resource that MS has to offer, which explains the current pricing structure. However, this can be addressed by keeping a large pool of VMs always running, and allowing customers to essentially 'rent' cycles on them, as needed, according to customer demand. Not only does this offer customers a more affordable cloud offering and fit nicely with the cloud promise, but also it offers devs a way to have IMMEDIATE access to cloud compute nodes, rather than incuring the expense of spinning up VMs (e.g. minutes) to meet demand - which is a deal breaker for many product/platform scenarios where performance is critical and demand is highly variable.
