2 min lesson
Matching commitment to workload shape
Choose two examples from the table in "Matching commitment to workload shape" and explain what each teaches you to do.
Step 1 of 2
Matching commitment to workload shapeSpot, Savings Plans, Reserved
- Pricing model
- On-demand
- Best fit
- Spiky, unpredictable or short-lived workloads
- The catch
- Most expensive per hour; fine as the flexible top layer
- Pricing model
- Spot
- Best fit
- Interruptible, stateless, replayable (batch, CI, some inference)
- The catch
- Can be reclaimed with ~2 min notice; needs graceful drain
- Pricing model
- Savings Plans
- Best fit
- Steady baseline compute you'll run regardless of instance type
- The catch
- 1- or 3-year commit; you pay even if usage drops
- Pricing model
- Reserved
- Best fit
- Stable, known instance families (often databases)
- The catch
- Least flexible; stranded if the workload shape changes
| Pricing model | Best fit | The catch |
|---|---|---|
| On-demand | Spiky, unpredictable or short-lived workloads | Most expensive per hour; fine as the flexible top layer |
| Spot | Interruptible, stateless, replayable (batch, CI, some inference) | Can be reclaimed with ~2 min notice; needs graceful drain |
| Savings Plans | Steady baseline compute you'll run regardless of instance type | 1- or 3-year commit; you pay even if usage drops |
| Reserved | Stable, known instance families (often databases) | Least flexible; stranded if the workload shape changes |
Match the commitment to the workload's shape: commit the floor, flex the peak.
The mental model is a stack: commit the predictable floor, flex the unpredictable peak.
Interactive diagram. Tab through its regions; each focused region shows its detail in the panel below.
diagram: stack
Layer pricing models by how predictable the workload underneath them is.