Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Guidance on when to downgrade to a lower site plan to save money #8904

Closed
stevector opened this issue Mar 25, 2024 · 2 comments
Closed

Guidance on when to downgrade to a lower site plan to save money #8904

stevector opened this issue Mar 25, 2024 · 2 comments
Labels
Topic: billing Billing-related issue or PR Type: New Content Request for or PR containing new content to existing page

Comments

@stevector
Copy link
Contributor

With the updates to pricing and the improved overages policy, I've seen chatter in community channels about when and how to downgrade to a less expensive plan:

I don't want to overload the already in-progress #8886 but maybe we should add a page walking through evaluating whether a downgrade makes sense and how to do it.

@stevector stevector added the Type: New Content Request for or PR containing new content to existing page label Mar 25, 2024
@markmont
Copy link

An updated version of the spreadsheet is now available (version 1.1) at

https://websites.umich.edu/~markmont/public/pantheon-cost-analysis/

If you have version 1.01 or 1.0., please go to the URL above and make a new copy since version 1.1 corrects an error with Basic plan pricing and it should now find the lowest cost plan in all circumstances.

@rachelwhitton rachelwhitton added the Topic: billing Billing-related issue or PR label Jul 17, 2024
@stevector
Copy link
Contributor Author

overages are suspended currently. I'm going to close this one

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Topic: billing Billing-related issue or PR Type: New Content Request for or PR containing new content to existing page
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants