Oh, and yes, I too would charge based on resident storage (and yes we
have that data available). Charging on resident storage would make
things like current WAS polling show up as expensive as it really is -
it ensures Linux doesn't easily page out. And then it would be cheaper
for the chargee to use smaller virtual machines, focusing your users on
minimizing the resource requirements.
Scott Rohling wrote:
Just a quick note that one thing I see missing from most billing schemes
is memory usage. How much memory is assigned to the guest can have more
of an impact on the system than CPU, depending on the environment. It's
also easier to monitor as the virtual machine guest size stays fairly
static. So I would include the memory as part of the billing scheme..
charge a fair amount per 1G of memory to discourage apps from grabbing
large chunks of it 'just because'.
Scott
