230 votesunder review · AdminAzure IaaS Engineering Team (Azure IaaS Engineering Team, Microsoft, Microsoft Azure) responded
This is something that we are evaluating now for a future Azure update.Paul commented
"Hibernate and deallocate" - I like the idea! In fact, I think resource allocation to stopped and hibernated servers should be optional on a per-VM basis, not mandatory. I've been burned by stopped/allocated machines, thinking I was not being charged, and it leaves a sour taste in the mouth...
Great feedback. We will work on making this more clear!!Paul commented
This STILL needs to be more clear. I just racked up a bill based on me still thinking -- and who can blame me -- that shutting the machine down means it's actually stopped, and stopped means it's not using any resources, and not using resources means it shouldn't cost me anything.
My question is this: I think I can understand the need for larger users to keep resources provisioned, "booked" as it were, ready for use so that machines can be fired up at a moment's notice. But for smaller users (the hardest hit when mistakes like this are made), why is "Stopped (but still Allocated)" even an option?
Perhaps users should be able to choose on a machine-by-machine basis on setup whether to keep resources allocated when a machine is shut down?