Users not sure about what Cost Estimator means

[anthonysuen]

Faculty from some universities view it as a estimate of how much we are charging for the service which stops them from proceeding further. It should be explained how we are not charging for providing cloud services and that many cloud vendors give free resources to academic partners.

[yuvipanda]

I always feel queasy about the cost estimator, and still feel like we should remove it entirely from z2jh...

…

On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 11:55 AM, Anthony Suen ***@***.***> wrote: Faculty from some universities view it as a estimate of how much we are charging for the service which stops them from proceeding further. It should be explained how we are not charging for providing cloud services and that many cloud vendors give free resources to academic partners. — You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#626>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAB23hpzfZpkOUFWEHm_9imx5PUV88qKks5tknQ2gaJpZM4TD7FZ> .

-- Yuvi Panda T http://yuvi.in/blog

[choldgraf]

If we removed the cost estimator, would we just replace it with vague statements about which things cost more than others etc? The main challenge is that for many groups, "how much will it cost us?" is the most important question to them...

[yuvipanda]

I agree it is the most important question, which is why we should remove this. I think we're giving them an unnuanced, wrong and confusing answer now. IMO, no answer is better. I just did cost estimation for the edx course, so let me see if I can write down some of the principles and links.

…

On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 12:03 PM, Chris Holdgraf ***@***.***> wrote: If we removed the cost estimator, would we just replace it with vague statements about which things cost more than others etc? The main challenge is that for many groups, "how much will it cost us?" is *the* most important question to them... — You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#626 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAB23rIlxoQINPUJj_SeuPN2m_s0bVGhks5tknYagaJpZM4TD7FZ> .

-- Yuvi Panda T http://yuvi.in/blog

[yuvipanda]

To clarify, my problem is not with the current implementation of the calculator, which is a pretty awesome implementation (which @choldgraf put a lot of effort into). My problem is with the idea that we can implement something (right now, at least) that we can plug some numbers into and dynamically produce a cost that is valid for most users. Capacity planning is somewhat complex and highly contextual, and IMO we're doing users a disservice by offering this tool (despite the warnings). It also only counts for Google Cloud, and IMO we shouldn't put effort into getting it to work for all providers in the same fashion. I feel now I've derailed this issue :) How about I open another issue to expand the costs section to include capacity planning information, and Anthony / Chris / others can use this issue to talk about the original issue - which is confusion around how the estimator is worded. Apologies, Anthony / Chris :)

…

On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 12:05 PM, Yuvi Panda ***@***.***> wrote: I agree it is the most important question, which is why we should remove this. I think we're giving them an unnuanced, wrong and confusing answer now. IMO, no answer is better. I just did cost estimation for the edx course, so let me see if I can write down some of the principles and links. On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 12:03 PM, Chris Holdgraf ***@***.***> wrote: > If we removed the cost estimator, would we just replace it with vague > statements about which things cost more than others etc? The main challenge > is that for many groups, "how much will it cost us?" is *the* most > important question to them... > > — > You are receiving this because you commented. > Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub > <#626 (comment)>, > or mute the thread > <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAB23rIlxoQINPUJj_SeuPN2m_s0bVGhks5tknYagaJpZM4TD7FZ> > . > -- Yuvi Panda T http://yuvi.in/blog

-- Yuvi Panda T http://yuvi.in/blog

[choldgraf]

actually I think they're two related issues: if we say "it will cost XXX dollars for XXX users" then it'll be easier for people to assume we're charging you XXX dollars. If we just say "in general these are the things that cost the most", without committing to any specific dollar amount", I think it'll be less likely people think we're doing JHaaS. So maybe right now the solution is to remove the cost calculator and leave the section as "general principles" for cost.

[choldgraf]

How about we remove the "cost estimator" for now, until there's a more natural way to slot it back into the docs. @willingc I'd love to hear your thoughts on this as well!

[ablekh]

@choldgraf I see no problem at all. Just somewhat fuzzy wording. My advice is to just improve/fix wording and any potential ambiguity for users will disappear. For example, instead of a somewhat confusing phrase "it will cost XXX dollars for XXX users", just say "to host such cluster on your or public cloud infrastructure, it would cost your organization approximately XXX dollars for XXX users".

[willingc]

Opened a PR to add clarity on projections. I recommend moving this section to be an appendix of the administrator guide, adding the clarification statement, and adding a bit more reminders that YMMV.