I’m trying to figure out if it ever makes sense to use bundled workers at scale.
For example, let’s say a worker receives 1 billion requests and every request is 50ms.
Bundled: (1,000,000,000 / 1,000,000) * $0.5 = $500
But when using Unbound, 1 billions requests costs $150, plus the memory usage.
Since every request is allotted 128 MB of memory and there’s 1 billion requests, that’s 128 billion MB of memory - or 128 million GB of memory.
We’re billed $12.50/million GB-s, but each request is only 0.05 seconds (50ms), so each million GB should only cost 12.50 * 0.05 = $0.625.
Since there’s 128 million GB being charged at a rate of $0.625 each - that comes out to $80 (128 x $0.625) in memory charges.
Unbound: $150 for requests + $80 for memory = $230
In this example, Unbound costs half the amount of Bundled. Which just seems odd to me because we used 50ms which is the max time limit for Bundled.
If I used less than 50ms, the price of Bundled would stay the same, but Unbound would decrease even more. If I used higher than 50ms, Unbound would increase in price, but that would be the only option to use anyways since Bundled maxes out at 50ms and wouldn’t be useable.
I understand that for a lot of users, the amount of free requests included each month can make a difference. But when you’re using workers at scale (+100 million), the free requests make up such a small percent. So, at scale, would it ever make sense to us Bundled instead of Unbound?
If so, could someone give me an example if it making sense to use Bundled instead of Unbound (ignoring the free requests given for each plan).
Thanks for any clarify you guys can shine on this
EDIT: After doing a bit more math and calculating in all costs (like the $5/month fee, plus the free requests for each plan), it actually looks like there’s never a reason to use Bundled instead of Unbound if you’re doing more than 14 million requests per month.