[patwolfe]

This seems misleading. If you needed to use anywhere close to 24 hours of cpu computation per day, wouldn’t you not use a cloud provider? And most tenants will only use a fraction of that per day, so 77 days of CPU usage could take years to use.

[riknox]

I thought the point is with the new announcement/EULA terms that a day was the minimum amount of time you could rent from Amazon for. I could have misunderstood of course.

[signal11]

As far as I know, there's a minimum tenancy period of 24 hours, but after that it's like "standard" EC2 where you're billed per second.

[patwolfe]

I believe you rent a day to buy in, but that’s a day of CPU usage measured by clock time. So it expires based on your usage, not 24 hours later.

[csunbird]

I thought the EC2 pricing model is, even when the instance is shut down, you continue paying, since it is still reserved.

[api]

This is true for just about any architecture. It's usually a lot cheaper to buy your own machine and put it in a closet if you need it doing work most or all of the time.

The only time that doesn't make sense is if it's customer-facing and needs better than 99.9% uptime or needs a lot of bandwidth, as those things are better done from a data center.