You pay as much as your infrastructure and provision are running. If it's scaled down to zero, the infrastructure is not running, and you don't pay. This is a great feature. As long as some of your instances are unhealthy and fail health checks, the load balancer abandons them and spins new ones. Your prices are going up because you need more infrastructure to accommodate this disruption so that there are no more disruptions. The scalability is automatic. This means that your expenses grow automatically as much as the scale spins new instances, which is up to 25 in my case. I'm not paying for more than 25 instances running at the same time. I have also configured everything in the beginning, including telling the system how big I want the instances to be, how many CPUs I want, and what kind of memory I want. I know what to expect in terms of pricing if the scaling kicks up and goes to the upper limit, which is great. It is right-sized. Also, there is another dimension in which you should be paying. It is a very small one, but it's annoying to some of the people I've been seeing comment on the service. Each time it deploys a service that uses automatic load balancing, you pay something like a dollar or a euro on a service-by-service basis. This is another secondary dimension of your expenses. The more granular your services are, the more load balancing it should provide for you. You need to pay an initial price every time, but it's so low that it's negligible compared to the cost of running the rest of the infrastructure. Since the second dimension is so small, people complain that it shouldn't be there at all because it's annoying.
Development Platforms enable software creation, offering tools and environments for developers. They support application lifecycle stages, making complex software projects manageable and efficient.
Development Platforms support coding, testing, debugging, and deployment, ensuring cohesion and efficiency. They provide APIs, SDKs, and integrations, aiding developers in creating feature-rich applications. User feedback highlights speed, collaboration, and resource management as primary...
You pay as much as your infrastructure and provision are running. If it's scaled down to zero, the infrastructure is not running, and you don't pay. This is a great feature. As long as some of your instances are unhealthy and fail health checks, the load balancer abandons them and spins new ones. Your prices are going up because you need more infrastructure to accommodate this disruption so that there are no more disruptions. The scalability is automatic. This means that your expenses grow automatically as much as the scale spins new instances, which is up to 25 in my case. I'm not paying for more than 25 instances running at the same time. I have also configured everything in the beginning, including telling the system how big I want the instances to be, how many CPUs I want, and what kind of memory I want. I know what to expect in terms of pricing if the scaling kicks up and goes to the upper limit, which is great. It is right-sized. Also, there is another dimension in which you should be paying. It is a very small one, but it's annoying to some of the people I've been seeing comment on the service. Each time it deploys a service that uses automatic load balancing, you pay something like a dollar or a euro on a service-by-service basis. This is another secondary dimension of your expenses. The more granular your services are, the more load balancing it should provide for you. You need to pay an initial price every time, but it's so low that it's negligible compared to the cost of running the rest of the infrastructure. Since the second dimension is so small, people complain that it shouldn't be there at all because it's annoying.