TechCrunch: "Cloudkick Now Managing 1 Million Servers"<p>Cloudkick Blog: "...we've just hit 1,000,000 servers registered all-time in Cloudkick."<p>Those statements aren't even close to equivalent. The HN guidelines say it well:<p><pre><code> Please submit the original source. If a blog post
reports on something they found on another site,
submit the latter.
</code></pre>
<a href="https://www.cloudkick.com/blog/2010/oct/14/one-million-servers/" rel="nofollow">https://www.cloudkick.com/blog/2010/oct/14/one-million-serve...</a>
I'm currently using Cloudkick's 1 server developer plan.<p>I would really love to use them to monitor all of our servers but their current plans don't work for us. We use lots of tiny instances and virtual machines. This means for us the cost of Cloudkick for each VM would be around the actual monthly cost of that VM.<p>If you have are in a different position to myself and are using larger instances then I would recommend you give them a try!
Cloudkick looks nice and I have great respect for the tech team behind it, but it's seriously overpriced.<p>I don't mind paying for Saas (and pay many thousands a month for all sorts of services), but this is ridiculous:<p><a href="https://www.cloudkick.com/pricing/" rel="nofollow">https://www.cloudkick.com/pricing/</a><p>I love how the page suggests that the $949/month plan is somehow the 'default'. :)
Great PR but probably misleading. For instance, we signed up initially and didn't find it too useful (although they've added a lot of features since then). We didn't delete our account until just now and when we logged in (again just now) we had 6k notifications from instance startup/shutdown. Never once did we "manage" any of these instances on cloudkick.
I am sure if I get it. We use Nagios to monitor our EC2 servers (CPU, etc.) and then AlertFox for external transaction monitoring.<p>What advantage would switching to CloudKick give us???