back to listing index

New T3 Instances – Burstable, Cost-Effective Performance | Hacker News

[web search]
Original source (news.ycombinator.com)
Tags: aws rumor
Clipped on: 2018-08-21
Image (Asset 1/2) alt=


Image (Asset 2/2) alt=
9 points by jaytaylor 2 hours ago [-]

When I first read this headline I had a flashback to the late 90's / early 2000's. It was a time when the term "T3" unambiguously meant only one thing: a blazing fast, very expensive, dedicated network connection!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-carrier

Then a few years later the even fatter optical pipes came along - OC1 and OC3 lines.

My, how times change! ..Well, some things do. If you want a T3 line, they're still available, and today will cost you in the neighborhood of $3,000USD/month (down from $10-15K/month around Y2K).

What a bargain :)

https://www.google.com/search?q=how+much+does+a+t3+line+cost


Out of curiosity, is there any reason to get a T3 today? I assume anywhere that it is available you can also get DSL for two orders of magnitude less.

Wow, 45-90Mbps for $3k-$6k/mo.

It's not only about the throughput, it's also about the SLA and sustainable throughput.

I had the same exact thought except OC192 popped into my head =)

>If the instance runs at higher CPU utilization for a prolonged period, there will be an additional charge of $0.05 per vCPU-hour.

This seems to be the same as the T2 unlimited instances. Interesting that it's now the default and only (?) option.


I'm not sure I understand, they're basically selling you less than one continuous CPU thread and upcharging if you use a full core? So suppose the machine has 56 cores and they're putting 3 customers on each vCPU. What happens in the case that everyone needs to burst to the full performance of each thread they're paying for (56 * 3)? I imagine they'd price that as if you utilized 100% but give you degraded performance due to hardware limitations.

Please correct me if I'm wrong but this sounds like "unlimited shared hosting for people who can SSH" (except you pay extra instead of unlimited)


What happens in the case that everyone needs to burst to the full performance of each thread they're paying for (56 3)? I imagine they'd price that as if you utilized 100% but give you degraded performance*

There's no reason to assume that. The hypervisor can track how much time each VM actually executed and subtract credits appropriately. AWS pricing is generally high enough that they don't need to use undocumented gotchas.

I would say it's more like shared hosting with full AWS API and ecosystem compatibility. Shared hosting for people who can SSH is Digital Ocean.


T2 and T3 use live migration to get around this, but it's not public knowledge.

It's not the only option - it can be disabled, the same as on T2 instances.

https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AWSEC2/latest/UserGuide/t2-unlim... has documentation on disabling it.

(Disclosure: I work at AWS, not posting in an official capacity)


I'm very glad they changed the default to unlimited. The old default behavior of throttling was a just an outage waiting to happen, and it was more painful to opt into unlimited via Cloudformation than it should have been.

Looking at 1yr reserved fully upfront pricing, the price cuts were ~9% across the board (except 10% for micro and 7% for nano).

This seems like a big improvement for nano, micro, and small which now have 2 vCPUs and the same credits and memory as before.

However, the larger instances are stuck with the same vCPUs and memory, but less than half the CPU credits!


Does 2 vCPUs on the nano get us twice the CPU cycles for multi-threaded workloads?

Regretting my 3-year non-convertible t2.nano reserved instances.


So what would be the benefit of running a T3 nano instance over a T2 nano instance? The price is almost the same. Is T3 faster?

How does this compare price wise with t2 instances?

It specifies how cheap the t3s can be but not the difference between t2 and t3.


You can find pricing details at https://aws.amazon.com/ec2/pricing/on-demand/

Pricing varies from region to region, on-demand vs. reserved instance, etc.

The general answer is they are cheaper than the same sized t2 version.

(Disclosure: I work at AWS, not posting in an official capacity)


Will these be available for RDS?

The blog post mentions this:

> If the instance runs at higher CPU utilization for a prolonged period, there will be an additional charge of $0.05 per vCPU-hour.

But that (rather important detail) seems to have been omitted from the pricing page?


Farther down the page it talks about T2 Unlimited pricing, which is the same thing here. It does look like it needs to be updated to include details for T3 as well, however.

I'll submit some feedback to the documentation team about getting that updated.

(Disclosure: Not posting in an official capacity)


Baseline pricing looks about 10% cheaper for workloads that won't trigger lots of bursting. This looks like a good a choice for services that aren't CPU bound.

I hope this gets Google Cloud to expand their burstable offering.

AWS nets $20+ million a day in profit so these new machines will probably help us save like Amazon warehouse workers save on toilet breaks by pissing in bottles.



Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: