Paul

My feedback

  1. 230 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    21 comments  ·  Virtual Machines  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    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...

    Paul supported this idea  · 
  2. 23 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    8 comments  ·  Virtual Machines  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    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?

    Paul supported this idea  · 

Feedback and Knowledge Base