←back to thread

DigitalOcean App Platform

(pages.news.digitalocean.com)
646 points digianarchist | 1 comments | 06 Oct 20 14:59 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
onion2k ◴[06 Oct 20 15:38 UTC] No.24698869[source]▶
Like all DigitalOcean products, the App Platform provides predictable, easy-to-understand pricing that allows you to control costs to prevent surprise bills.

I can't see any features listed that enable me to control costs to prevent surprise bills. If a site got submitted to HN and hugged to not-to-death-because-it-autoscales then I'd wake up to a bunch of alerts and massive outbound bandwidth bill. I don't want that. I want something that stops that happening.

replies(3): >>24698927 #>>24700146 #>>24700352 #
pomatic ◴[06 Oct 20 17:35 UTC] No.24700352[source]▶
This is laughable - billing is logically separated from droplet use, so unlike other providers DO charges for the potential to use a capability, rather than actual use, regardless of whether it is consumed. I got stung badly by this - charged for X droplets capability when zero droplets capability was being used for several months. Explained the misunderstanding to DO, got no sympathy & no refund. Won't touch them again, don't trust them further than I could throw them.
replies(2): >>24700752 #>>24700952 #
WrtCdEvrydy ◴[06 Oct 20 18:19 UTC] No.24700752[source]▶
This is what makes "the cloud" profitable.

If your droplet isn't using all of it's resources (CPU, RAM, DISK), they are able to oversell their capacity.

replies(1): >>24700828 #
pomatic ◴[06 Oct 20 18:26 UTC] No.24700828{3}[source]▶
To be clear, I had no deployed resources, but was still charged as if I had. As it turns out, it's impossible to cancel the "standing charge" without recourse to support.

There's a difference between load balancing of shared resources and (what I believe must be) deliberately deceptive practices. A customer-centric company would send an email to notify you of this kind of over-charging.

It's premeditated and dispicable.

replies(2): >>24701054 #>>24701109 #
1. WrtCdEvrydy ◴[06 Oct 20 18:49 UTC] No.24701054{4}[source]▶
I didn't say it wasn't a shitty outcome, but this is what people advocate for when there's a push "for the cloud" or "how aws is doing great things"