Skip to content

Comments

Clarify DO hibernation billing language#28118

Merged
elithrar merged 1 commit intoproductionfrom
opencode/issue25869-20260205213540
Feb 6, 2026
Merged

Clarify DO hibernation billing language#28118
elithrar merged 1 commit intoproductionfrom
opencode/issue25869-20260205213540

Conversation

@ask-bonk
Copy link
Contributor

@ask-bonk ask-bonk bot commented Feb 5, 2026

Here's a summary of the changes made across two files:

durable-objects-pricing.mdx (pricing partial, rendered on the pricing page)

Intro paragraph — Rewrote to explicitly state that DOs eligible for hibernation are not billed, even before the runtime actually hibernates them:

Durable Objects are billed for compute duration (wall-clock time) while the Durable Object is actively running or is idle in memory but unable to hibernate. Durable Objects that are idle and eligible for hibernation are not billed for duration, even before the runtime has hibernated them.

Footnote 4 — Added "and not eligible for hibernation" to the sentence about wall-clock billing:

Duration is billed in wall-clock time as long as the Object is active and not eligible for hibernation...

do-faq-pricing.mdx (FAQ partial)

Rewrote the answer to "When does a Durable Object incur duration charges?" to remove the ambiguous "as long as the JavaScript object has to be in memory" phrasing and replace it with an explicit positive statement:

A Durable Object incurs duration charges when it is actively executing JavaScript — either handling a request or running event handlers — or when it is idle but does not meet the conditions for hibernation. An idle Durable Object that qualifies for hibernation does not incur duration charges, even during the brief window before the runtime hibernates it.

The key insight from the issue: DOs do incur charges until they are actually hibernating, but the ~10-second window where a DO is idle and meets all hibernation conditions is not billed. The previous wording made it sound like any time in memory = billed, which was the source of confusion. These changes add one clarifying sentence in each location without overhauling the existing structure.

Closes #25869

github run

Co-authored-by: elithrar <elithrar@users.noreply.github.com>
@github-actions
Copy link
Contributor

github-actions bot commented Feb 5, 2026

This PR requires additional review attention because it affects the following areas:

Partials

This PR updates partial files, which are pieces of content used across multiple files in our Render component.

@github-actions
Copy link
Contributor

github-actions bot commented Feb 5, 2026

This pull request requires reviews from CODEOWNERS as it changes files that match the following patterns:

Pattern Owners
/src/content/partials/durable-objects/ @elithrar, @rita3ko, @irvinebroque, @vy-ton, @cloudflare/pcx-technical-writing

@github-actions
Copy link
Contributor

github-actions bot commented Feb 5, 2026

@elithrar elithrar merged commit 44d4bf1 into production Feb 6, 2026
12 checks passed
@elithrar elithrar deleted the opencode/issue25869-20260205213540 branch February 6, 2026 12:39
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Mention explicitly that Durable Objects do *not* incur charges when idle and hibernateable

4 participants