Skip to main content

Windows Azure Billing model - per-minute granularity tip

Windows Azure is changing. A lot of new features were released and existing one were improved. In this post I want to talk about one thing that was changed on Azure – the billing model.
Until now the paying granularity was per hour. This means that if I use a web-role for 30 minutes, then I would pay for an hour. If I use it for 1 hour and 1 minutes, then I would pay for 2 hours. Because other cloud providers offer services with per-minute granularity, Microsoft also decided to change the granularity to minutes.

This is great, you will pay only the time when you use a compute resource like web-roles, worker-roles, VMs, Mobile Services and so on). For classic application that use Azure for hosting and don’t scale (up and down) for short period of time this change will not affect the bill value at the end of the month – we will have the same flat value.
The true value of per-minute will be for application that scale up for very short period of time. For example we have a scenario where a client needs to process tens of millions of requests in a very short period of time. For example we want to process all this requests in 6 minutes – this task would repeat every day.
For this case when you need to scale for a very short period of time, a per-minutes payment solution is perfect. We can have for the same price 30 worker-roles that process the request instead of 10 or 15.
This means that if you have a 6 minute job on the instance plus 10 minutes to start the instance and deploy your solution plus maybe 1 or 2 minute to stop the machine you will end up with 17-18 minutes. Is better then paying for a full hour, but we need to take care of this aspect when we prepare a cost estimation.

In conclusion, this change is great and give us the possibility to scale more with the same cost.


Popular posts from this blog

How to check in AngularJS if a service was register or not

There are cases when you need to check in a service or a controller was register in AngularJS.
For example a valid use case is when you have the same implementation running on multiple application. In this case, you may want to intercept the HTTP provider and add a custom step there. This step don’t needs to run on all the application, only in the one where the service exist and register.
A solution for this case would be to have a flag in the configuration that specify this. In the core you would have an IF that would check the value of this flag.
Another solution is to check if a specific service was register in AngularJS or not. If the service was register that you would execute your own logic.
To check if a service was register or not in AngularJS container you need to call the ‘has’ method of ‘inhector’. It will return TRUE if the service was register.
if ($injector.has('httpInterceptorService')) { $httpProvider.interceptors.push('httpInterceptorService&#…

ADO.NET provider with invariant name 'System.Data.SqlClient' could not be loaded

Today blog post will be started with the following error when running DB tests on the CI machine:
threw exception: System.InvalidOperationException: The Entity Framework provider type 'System.Data.Entity.SqlServer.SqlProviderServices, EntityFramework.SqlServer' registered in the application config file for the ADO.NET provider with invariant name 'System.Data.SqlClient' could not be loaded. Make sure that the assembly-qualified name is used and that the assembly is available to the running application. See for more information. at System.Data.Entity.Infrastructure.DependencyResolution.ProviderServicesFactory.GetInstance(String providerTypeName, String providerInvariantName) This error happened only on the Continuous Integration machine. On the devs machines, everything has fine. The classic problem – on my machine it’s working. The CI has the following configuration:

TeamCity.NET 4.51EF 6.0.2VS2013
It seems that there …

Entity Framework (EF) TransactionScope vs Database.BeginTransaction

In today blog post we will talk a little about a new feature that is available on EF6+ related to Transactions.
Until now, when we had to use transaction we used ‘TransactionScope’. It works great and I would say that is something that is now in our blood.
using (var scope = new TransactionScope(TransactionScopeOption.Required)) { using (SqlConnection conn = new SqlConnection("...")) { conn.Open(); SqlCommand sqlCommand = new SqlCommand(); sqlCommand.Connection = conn; sqlCommand.CommandText = ... sqlCommand.ExecuteNonQuery(); ... } scope.Complete(); } Starting with EF6.0 we have a new way to work with transactions. The new approach is based on Database.BeginTransaction(), Database.Rollback(), Database.Commit(). Yes, no more TransactionScope.
In the followi…