t4g.small

the T series is more suitable for non-performance-verified test environments

Amazon EC2 T4g instances are powered by Arm-based custom built AWS Graviton2 processors and deliver up to 40% better price performance over T3 instances for a broad set of burstable general purpose workloads.

the T series is more suitable for non-performance-verified test environments

It\'s the same for t4g.

I contacted AWS Support who confirmed your answer.

Additionally, t4g is an ARM-based processor, and it may not support some of the programs or scripts that you already have.

Thank you ! Do you know if it\'s optimized for ECS ?

I think the key thing to understand here is that with little to no traffic, it absolutely will not make a difference and thus you should go with the cheapest (in this case t4g) option available.

General purpose workloads with moderate CPU, memory, and network utilization.Save up to 40% over T3 instance pricing

T4g instances feature the same credits system, AWS Nitro System, and Burstable mode as T3 instances.

AWS re:Invent 2020: Reduce cost with Amazon EC2’s next-generation T4g and T3 instance types

Thank you. I was nearly clueless.

Ok. I\'ll check.

Here is a documentation page that you can add to your answer with more details on AMI, included ECS optimized Amazon Linux 2 : docs.aws.amazon.com/fr_fr/AmazonECS/latest/developerguide/… Unfortunately arm64 AMI for Amazon Linux 2 is not available in all regions.

Thank you ! Do you know if it\'s optimized for ECS ?

I think the discrepancies can be attributed to the choice of the t-style instances. They are generally over committed.

Aren\'t \'t\' instances burst instances? They need to be under constant load for a long time before their burst credits for CPU, memory, network and EBS run out, after which they fall back on their baseline performance.

It\'s the same for t4g.

So that would mean Unlimited is not a setting available for T4g (ARM instance) and therefore _may_ explain inconsistent behavior in the ARM instance.

I think the key thing to understand here is that with little to no traffic, it absolutely will not make a difference and thus you should go with the cheapest (in this case t4g) option available.

The next-generation T4g instances, powered by AWS Graviton2, enable up to 40% higher performance than T3 for times when you need performance as well as 20% lower cost.

I think the discrepancies can be attributed to the choice of the t-style instances. They are generally over committed.

Aren\'t \'t\' instances burst instances? They need to be under constant load for a long time before their burst credits for CPU, memory, network and EBS run out, after which they fall back on their baseline performance.

It\'s the same for t4g.

So that would mean Unlimited is not a setting available for T4g (ARM instance) and therefore _may_ explain inconsistent behavior in the ARM instance.

I think the key thing to understand here is that with little to no traffic, it absolutely will not make a difference and thus you should go with the cheapest (in this case t4g) option available.

Ok. I\'ll check.

Thank you. I was nearly clueless.

Here is a documentation page that you can add to your answer with more details on AMI, included ECS optimized Amazon Linux 2 : docs.aws.amazon.com/fr_fr/AmazonECS/latest/developerguide/… Unfortunately arm64 AMI for Amazon Linux 2 is not available in all regions.

I think the key thing to understand here is that with little to no traffic, it absolutely will not make a difference and thus you should go with the cheapest (in this case t4g) option available.

Thank you ! Do you know if it\'s optimized for ECS ?

Additionally, t4g is an ARM-based processor, and it may not support some of the programs or scripts that you already have.

In my experience, t4.large offers slightly higher performance than t3.large and is also more cost-effective.

Thank you for this article. We have T instances for EC2 and RDS and we are expecting some very strange performance behavior. Do you have plan to test RDS?

Thank you for this article. We have T instances for EC2 and RDS and we are expecting some very strange performance behavior. Do you have plan to test RDS?

I think the key thing to understand here is that with little to no traffic, it absolutely will not make a difference and thus you should go with the cheapest (in this case t4g) option available.

Additionally, t4g is an ARM-based processor, and it may not support some of the programs or scripts that you already have.

I think the discrepancies can be attributed to the choice of the t-style instances. They are generally over committed.

It\'s the same for t4g.

So that would mean Unlimited is not a setting available for T4g (ARM instance) and therefore _may_ explain inconsistent behavior in the ARM instance.

Aren\'t \'t\' instances burst instances? They need to be under constant load for a long time before their burst credits for CPU, memory, network and EBS run out, after which they fall back on their baseline performance.

I think the key thing to understand here is that with little to no traffic, it absolutely will not make a difference and thus you should go with the cheapest (in this case t4g) option available.

I think the key thing to understand here is that with little to no traffic, it absolutely will not make a difference and thus you should go with the cheapest (in this case t4g) option available.

Additionally, t4g is an ARM-based processor, and it may not support some of the programs or scripts that you already have.

Additionally, t4g is an ARM-based processor, and it may not support some of the programs or scripts that you already have.

I think the key thing to understand here is that with little to no traffic, it absolutely will not make a difference and thus you should go with the cheapest (in this case t4g) option available.

I think the key thing to understand here is that with little to no traffic, it absolutely will not make a difference and thus you should go with the cheapest (in this case t4g) option available.

I think the key thing to understand here is that with little to no traffic, it absolutely will not make a difference and thus you should go with the cheapest (in this case t4g) option available.

Additionally, t4g is an ARM-based processor, and it may not support some of the programs or scripts that you already have.

I think the key thing to understand here is that with little to no traffic, it absolutely will not make a difference and thus you should go with the cheapest (in this case t4g) option available.

Additionally, t4g is an ARM-based processor, and it may not support some of the programs or scripts that you already have.

In my experience, t4.large offers slightly higher performance than t3.large and is also more cost-effective.

I think the key thing to understand here is that with little to no traffic, it absolutely will not make a difference and thus you should go with the cheapest (in this case t4g) option available.

Additionally, t4g is an ARM-based processor, and it may not support some of the programs or scripts that you already have.

Are you using the AMI of the target OS? As I read this article, I thought that the only applicable OS would be Amazon Linux 2, RHEL, and SUSE Linux.

Does the t4g.small have a public IPv4 address? This now costs $0.005 per hour, so if the instance is running 24 hours per-day this would explain the 12 cents per-day in blue and marked as **VPC**

The charges look like they are related to \"EC2-Other\". This could be a number of things including EBS Volumes or NAT Gateways. You can see exactly what you are being charged for in Cost Explorer by changing the **Group By** dimension to **Usage Type** and the **Service** under Filters to **EC2-Other**.

I have two EC2 instances, one t2.nano and one t4g.small, the **t4g.small one** I just provisioned on **Feb. 22nd** of last month. I kept the t4g.small running until today while leaving the t2.nano instance I had \"stopped\". I read on one of AWS\'s pages that AWS customers will get 750 free hours per month of the t4g.small instances until Dec. 31st 2024 (Please see [t4g.small free ](https://aws.amazon.com/ec2/faqs/#t4g-instances), so I\'m not understanding the charges I incurred over the last 1 and 1/2 weeks. I understand the spike two days ago (Feb. 29th) because that is when I \"started\" the other t2.nano instance I had to work on an application.

The t3 family is a burstable instance type. If you have an application that needs to run with some basic CPU and memory usage, you can choose t3. It also works well if you have an application that gets used sometimes but not others.

I use the AWS EKS Quickstart to launch a cluster I select "t4g.small" or "m6gd.xlarge" as the instance type and "General" as the instance family. But it looks like that is incorrect, is it supposed to be "ARM"? isn't it?

I use the AWS EKS Quickstart to launch a cluster I select "t4g.small" or "m6gd.xlarge" as the instance type and "General" as the instance family. But it looks like that is incorrect, is it supposed to be "ARM"? isn't it?

I use the AWS EKS Quickstart to launch a cluster I select "t4g.small" or "m6gd.xlarge" as the instance type and "General" as the instance family. But it looks like that is incorrect, is it supposed to be "ARM"? isn't it?

The t3 family is a burstable instance type. If you have an application that needs to run with some basic CPU and memory usage, you can choose t3. It also works well if you have an application that gets used sometimes but not others.

I use the AWS EKS Quickstart to launch a cluster I select "t4g.small" or "m6gd.xlarge" as the instance type and "General" as the instance family. But it looks like that is incorrect, is it supposed to be "ARM"? isn't it?

I use the AWS EKS Quickstart to launch a cluster I select "t4g.small" or "m6gd.xlarge" as the instance type and "General" as the instance family. But it looks like that is incorrect, is it supposed to be "ARM"? isn't it?

I use the AWS EKS Quickstart to launch a cluster I select "t4g.small" or "m6gd.xlarge" as the instance type and "General" as the instance family. But it looks like that is incorrect, is it supposed to be "ARM"? isn't it?

I use the AWS EKS Quickstart to launch a cluster I select "t4g.small" or "m6gd.xlarge" as the instance type and "General" as the instance family. But it looks like that is incorrect, is it supposed to be "ARM"? isn't it?

I use the AWS EKS Quickstart to launch a cluster I select "t4g.small" or "m6gd.xlarge" as the instance type and "General" as the instance family. But it looks like that is incorrect, is it supposed to be "ARM"? isn't it?

I use the AWS EKS Quickstart to launch a cluster I select "t4g.small" or "m6gd.xlarge" as the instance type and "General" as the instance family. But it looks like that is incorrect, is it supposed to be "ARM"? isn't it?

I use the AWS EKS Quickstart to launch a cluster I select "t4g.small" or "m6gd.xlarge" as the instance type and "General" as the instance family. But it looks like that is incorrect, is it supposed to be "ARM"? isn't it?

The t3 family is a burstable instance type. If you have an application that needs to run with some basic CPU and memory usage, you can choose t3. It also works well if you have an application that gets used sometimes but not others.

I use the AWS EKS Quickstart to launch a cluster I select "t4g.small" or "m6gd.xlarge" as the instance type and "General" as the instance family. But it looks like that is incorrect, is it supposed to be "ARM"? isn't it?

I use the AWS EKS Quickstart to launch a cluster I select "t4g.small" or "m6gd.xlarge" as the instance type and "General" as the instance family. But it looks like that is incorrect, is it supposed to be "ARM"? isn't it?

I use the AWS EKS Quickstart to launch a cluster I select "t4g.small" or "m6gd.xlarge" as the instance type and "General" as the instance family. But it looks like that is incorrect, is it supposed to be "ARM"? isn't it?

I use the AWS EKS Quickstart to launch a cluster I select "t4g.small" or "m6gd.xlarge" as the instance type and "General" as the instance family. But it looks like that is incorrect, is it supposed to be "ARM"? isn't it?

I use the AWS EKS Quickstart to launch a cluster I select "t4g.small" or "m6gd.xlarge" as the instance type and "General" as the instance family. But it looks like that is incorrect, is it supposed to be "ARM"? isn't it?

I use the AWS EKS Quickstart to launch a cluster I select "t4g.small" or "m6gd.xlarge" as the instance type and "General" as the instance family. But it looks like that is incorrect, is it supposed to be "ARM"? isn't it?

I use the AWS EKS Quickstart to launch a cluster I select "t4g.small" or "m6gd.xlarge" as the instance type and "General" as the instance family. But it looks like that is incorrect, is it supposed to be "ARM"? isn't it?

I use the AWS EKS Quickstart to launch a cluster I select "t4g.small" or "m6gd.xlarge" as the instance type and "General" as the instance family. But it looks like that is incorrect, is it supposed to be "ARM"? isn't it?

I use the AWS EKS Quickstart to launch a cluster I select "t4g.small" or "m6gd.xlarge" as the instance type and "General" as the instance family. But it looks like that is incorrect, is it supposed to be "ARM"? isn't it?

I use the AWS EKS Quickstart to launch a cluster I select "t4g.small" or "m6gd.xlarge" as the instance type and "General" as the instance family. But it looks like that is incorrect, is it supposed to be "ARM"? isn't it?