Related

Deployment fails for Rails App with App Platform - No such file or directory - /workspace/node_modules/.bin/webpack (Errno::ENOENT) Question Question
Localization on App Platform Question Question

Question

Why is App Platform data transfer so low and only per app not container?

Posted October 10, 2020 3.7k views
DigitalOcean App Platform

I was playing with the app platform and the pricing seems weird here..

1) Why is it only 100 gig / month (pro tier)
2) Why is is based on app and not container

As stated, why is it only 100/gig a month when basic droplets offer like 5 TB.. what would cause the app platform to have such a low transfer limit in comparison to a standard droplet?

Second, why do I pay 12.00 / month per container but add another 12 / month I don’t get another 100 gig transfer.. this seems backwards, what am I paying 12 per container for if I only get computer and not the extra transfer that I would if I had 2 apps with 1 container?

Also, overage pricing seems way out of whack.. .10 / gig .. To get the same 5tb of transfer you get with a standard droplet would cost $500.00 I don’t understand this at all, you can run a standard droplet with 5tb transfer for like 10 bucks a month but on app platform you pay 500.. Am I missing something here?

Don’t get me wrong, I understand managed / unmanaged but really.. This should be changed to be closer to the droplet transfers and lower the overages, I can’t see any serious production application using app platform due to the price when you can just create a docker image and roll your own for a fraction of the cost, I mean, again correct me if I’m wrong here but based on what I can see

App Platform price : 2 containers 1gig / 1 vcpu @ 5 tb transfer = 524 / Month

Regular docker : 2 container 2vcpu / 4 gig ram @ 4tb each = 40 / Month

Am I wrong here?

Add a comment
SmallAquamarineFish
By:
SmallAquamarineFish
edited by bobbyiliev

Related

Deployment fails for Rails App with App Platform - No such file or directory - /workspace/node_modules/.bin/webpack (Errno::ENOENT) Question Question
Localization on App Platform Question Question
Add a comment
3 comments
  • Xevion October 11, 2020
    Reply Report

    I agree, the bandwidth costs makes no sense. Why do you only get 40GiB on the App Platform, when you get 1TB on a normal droplet? That’s 25 times less! It also costs 10 times more to add additional bandwidth if you consume more than you’re allowed to.

    I understand that managed services cost more to run, but this bandwidth cap is very low, especially for web applications. Getting a sudden surge of visitors from sites like Reddit can be pretty expensive.

    Not to mention the 1GiB cap for the free tier that only allows static sites. For example, Netlify offers 100GB for free and has a lot more functionality.

  • WeaponizedLego October 13, 2020
    Reply Report

    Yea, so far I really like the easy of use for the new Apps platform. But the bandwidth limitations really have me worried for launching anything for productions as I know the bandwidth will hit the limit quite quickly for my API style. The responses are larger than average. With the 1TB it wasn’t an issue, but now I’m not sure if it will be worth it. Even considering the added benefit of not having to worry about droplet security

  • levidurfee October 28, 2020
    Reply Report

    DigitalOcean is using Cloudflare for their App Platform. So, I guess they’re being charged for bandwidth usage by Cloudflare.

    Does the Bandwidth Alliance cover bandwidth overages? If it does, and I use Cloudflare, then I wouldn’t be charged for additional bandwidth, right?

    DigitalOcean already includes significant amount of bandwidth. We will be rolling out our program to waive bandwidth fees for mutual customers with Cloudflare over the subsequent months.

    https://www.cloudflare.com/bandwidth-alliance/digitalocean/

    –

    If this isn’t the case, then consider me a frustrated customer.

These answers are provided by our Community. If you find them useful, show some love by clicking the heart. If you run into issues leave a comment, or add your own answer to help others.

×
Submit an Answer
3 answers
meskinazi October 12, 2020

Hi SmallAquamarineFish,

You’re correct. Prices for bandwidth are different between App Platform and Droplets. App Platform not only manages the underlying infrastructure for your web services, but also the edge connection which includes a CDN with global coverage, automatic SSL/TLS, and DDoS protection for your app. When you use App Platform, the bandwidth price includes this services, while Droplets bandwidth only includes the connection out of the data center.

If your applications are bandwidth heavy (e.g. video streaming, VPN) Droplets/DOKS might be a better choice. On the other hand, if you’re building a web app, backend for a mobile app, APIs or static sites, App Platform will provide security, ease of use, and the ability seamlessly scale.

Best,
Moises

Reply Report
  • Xevion October 12, 2020

    “On the other hand, if you’re building a web app, backend for a mobile app, APIs or static sites, App Platform will provide security, ease of use, and the ability seamlessly scale.”

    But scaling is prohibitively expensive with the App Platform. You get 25x less bandwidth, and have to pay 10x more for each gigabyte. Web apps consume a lot of bandwidth, especially if you have any sort of media on them.

    I don’t think your pricing aligns well with the purpose of the service.

    Reply Report
    • SmallAquamarineFish October 12, 2020

      For sure it doesn’t. I don’t understand how they came up with the pricing here, you literally get nothing more for each extra running pod, other then the compute.

      As mentioned previously, the pricing should be better structured. If I’m not going to get extra bandwidth with each additional running pod then the price should reflect that.

      Additionally, if you are not using the CDN its fluff we will never use but get bundled into the cost of each pod.

      If I had to venture a guess the idea was to give the CDN, with the idea that they would compensate for the lower bandwidth but if you don’t use a CDN (APIs, websockets etc) this is just something you pay for and don’t get.

      I think pricing should be more granular, let us determine what features we want VS paying for feature we don’t / wont use

      If the base project get 100 gig transfer and its .10 per gig over (10.00 = 100 gig) then our compute is 2.00? Charge me 2.00 per running pod and we will pay the overages for the bandwidth.

      Obviously it’s not 2.00 for the compute but its not .10 /gig as well, don’t know how you can pass that off at such a high rate, unless this is look at as more a gimmicky, look you can run containers too type of offering but serious production apps should stay away because you will get hit hard on cost, it’s simply not worth it when you can just spin up a kubernetes cluster standard 3 HA setup for $60.00, this would give you 12 TB of bandwidth.. In comparison that same bandwidth on app platform would cost $1200.00!

      I mean, come on.. this is a bit outrageous when the regular droplet pricing is 900% less on the bandwidth cost .01 vs .10

      Reply Report
SmallAquamarineFish October 12, 2020

@meskinazi

I understand it does include the other features however what seems odd to me is why only the bandwidth is based on apps and not running pods.

The pricing should be tied to each pod. If you charge 12.00 per running pod I should get 100 gig per pod or, the cost for additional pods should be a lot lower.

Based on the documentation, the outbound is pooled (this is odd too if you ask me but whatever)

So if I have 3 ‘pro’ apps, I would get 300 gig egress, at a cost of $36.00 / month however 1 'pro’ app with 3 containers will cost me the same but I don’t get 100 / gigs transfer..

Do you see the disconnect here? Why am I paying the full price but getting less. The transfer should be tied to each pod, so scaling your infrastructure should scale everything, not just the compute. Again, if you align the cost better then maybe this is not a big deal but charging the same price for a new container as a new app but giving less seems backwards, making this a less attractive offer for any production use.

Reply Report
SmallAquamarineFish October 12, 2020

Would really like to get an answer from DO on this too, are there any plans to increase this or at least give some background as to why it so low?

Reply Report

Related

Looking for something else?

Ask a new question Search for more help