Therefore, to make it all work for everyone, we start our WiredTiger offering with 4GB of storage and 1GB of RAM. That works out to $133 as your entry point.
If you have raised lots of money for your startup, that’s affordable but won’t recommend.
So does anyone know whether Mongo 3.2 is even officially supported by Meteor? I’d like to switch to one of these new, bigger plans, but if 3.2 is the minimum version I can use I don’t want to find out Meteor has issues with it!
There is no raised money, it’s bootstrapped.
No issues, see the other discussion I had exactly on this with MDG employees. I think Sashko replied last time
Do you have a link to that discussion?
And what is now an alternative for a reasonable price?
I don’t think it’s expensive. If you want, you can stay on MMAPv1. It depends on your specific use case, I guess. Compose still offers their old plan as well, that’s not being greedy, they’re simply increasing their offering. We’ll stay on MMAPv1 as it fits our use case.
1 Like
I didn’t find anything about old plan… only this:
With the MMAPV1 storage engine, your deployment contains 3 data nodes,
1GB of data and 102MB of RAM for only $31/mo and $18 per extra GB.
Shared from MongoLab looks better…
They have a MongoDB classic offering as well. Maybe that’s just for old customers?
Wow, I think there is a lot of confusion and misinformation in this thread:
- MongoDB Classic is the old offering, anyone with an existing plan is now on MongoDB Classic. It’s the same one they’ve always offered.
- MongoDB Classic is cheaper than the new offering I hear you say; yes, it is but with good reason, it only runs on 2 nodes (less resilience) and doesn’t have SSL support.
- MongoDB “New” also supports WiredTiger as an option, it is not forced upon you
For more info, please read:
https://www.compose.io/articles/composes-new-mongodb-and-what-you-need-to-know/
https://www.compose.io/articles/composes-new-primetime-mongodb/
What misinformation is there if I’m either stuck in an old version (classic) or I have to accept a 72% price increase (for the deployment I have)? For the 72% higher price I don’t even get WT.
So what’s the big difference between version 3.0.6 and 3.2.1 that is justifying this steep price increase? I’m not talking about larger RAM, more dyno’s or whatever, I mean what do I get from the database functionality itself for that price increase?
It’s like going from a small vehicle to a middle class sedan. Both cars take you from A-B, obviously the middle class costs you more and consumes more gasoline (in general). Then it’s all about increased security, some features that the small car doesn’t have.
You’re asking the wrong question in my mind… The cost implications of going from Mongo v3.0.6 to v3.2 is nil. It doesn’t cost Compose or you, anything to switch between these versions, regardless of their features, improvements and the like.
What does cost more though, is adding SSL support, an oplog solution to sharding and adding an extra server to the mix.
They are charging more because they are delivering these features to you and at a 72% price increase for the FIRST GB, after the first GB they are identical in price.
I have Oplog in version 3.0.6 as well. I don’t need SSL and I don’t understand how that will cost anything to them. I do understand that an additional server costs something but in times where Amazon has decreased their prices for cloud solution for almost 50 times now I don’t understand why the fact that they throw in an additional server (for what do I need an additional server when there is no new feature introduced?) is justifying a 72% price increase (not sure how you calculate price increases but I have to pay 1.71 x 18 USD = 30.96 USD - that’s how you normally calculate it).
Besides even if the 2nd GB costs 18 US$ as before it still means it costs more than 2GB at the classic package.
You seem you defend Compose.io a lot, may I ask if you’re in any sort of way affiliated to them?
Nope, I am not even in the slightest way affiliated with them, I just think that they provide a fantastic service at a very reasonable price, are always very transparent about the costs to them and reasons for price changes.
If you start comparing what they do to the cost of a basic EC2 instance then it like you’re comparing a supermarket to 5* restaurant. Yeah, the supermarket is cheaper but do they cook the food for you? Will they take it back if you don’t like it? If the food spoils will they give you some new unspoiled food? No.
Compose.io host it all on SSDs (so not the “cheap” EC2 instances), with automated backups, simple version upgrades, OS updates that you don’t even care about, etc. If you want to roll your own I’d be surprised if you could do it cheaper, and you’d spend all your day looking after it thereafter.
Agreed though, I somehow messed up the % increase, it is, as you say 72%… Call it fat-fingering my calculator. But that 72% is still only for the first GB. Most of us who are launching commercial apps are likely to use a lot more than 1GB, so the increase becomes less and less.
EDIT: Also, they haven’t stated anywhere that v3.2 won’t be made available to “classic” users later on (probably without WiredTiger however).
Again, I’m not discussing self-hosted vs hosted service on compose.io, I made that decision when I signed up with them and I’m happy with their service so far.
I’m just questioning the justification for their price increase, that’s all. I would do the same for any other company that I love.
Any I do disagree with you that most of us who launch a commercial app (that includes me BTW as well) are likely to use a lot more than 1GB. I’m pretty sure that the majority of Compose.io customer is below the 1GB mark (meaning there is no need to go beyond. Mongo 3.2 doesn’t unnecessary blow up your DB anymore as the older version did (at least 2.6 which is still the one that Meteor installs per default). I’m running 3.2 with WT for a while now and I’m still waiting for the DB to come anywhere close to what it quickly was with a lot less docs in it for version 2.6.
You can be sure that the guys at Compose.io are smart enough to understand where to set their price points to make more money, hence the hefty price increase for the < 1GB. The majority of their customer will be in that range.
It’s interesting how they stayed away from doing the same for the next GB’s but I guess they are afraid of being too expensive in a side-by-side comparison with their competition, even vs Galaxy.
Perhaps you are right, perhaps most customers are under a GB, and that would make sense for them. But if they release v3.2 on the “Classic” version, then effectively this argument goes away; you can pay the lower amount and get the same thing, but with less resilience and “bolt-on’s” or pay for the extra. It’ll be interesting to see if they ever offer 3.2 on “classic”.
Comparing them to Galaxy is a bit weird, they don’t offer anything like the same service; as Galaxy doesn’t offer Mongo hosting.
Hosting is often one of the biggest expenses for start ups and it is understandable that you are taking steps to control your cost now or in the near future. If you are actively looking for alternatives, you should give NodeChef a try and compare the disk usage. NodeChef’s offering is no different from compose.io and has start up friendly prices.
1 Like
Is there a way for a new customer to use the MongoDB Classic option?
I feel like labor is far and away the biggest factor in burn rate.