4 ms·
Seems to work for Reddit, Zynga, Dropbox and Netflix.
by JUsr 11y ago
Seems to work for Reddit, Zynga, Dropbox and Netflix.
- steckerbrett 11y agoProbably avoid using Reddit as a performance metric, they like their 500 errors.
- nly 11y agoSome of that could be Cloudflare
- hueving 11y agoNetflix had to go through a massive engineering effort to make their system reliable enough to work on AWS. If they knew what it would take in human and capital investment, they may have chosen to build their own datacenter.
- eva1984 11y agoReally? I thought they shutdown their last home-made datacenter just recently. http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/08/netflix-shuts-down-its-last-data-center-but-still-runs-a-big-it-operation/ http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/08/netfli...
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- onion2k 11y agoNetflix did have their own data centres. They moved to Amazon to get away from having them. http://arstechnica.co.uk/information-technology/2015/08/netflix-shuts-down-its-last-data-center-but-still-runs-a-big-it-operation/ http://arstechnica.co.uk/information-technology/2015/08/netf...
- stephenr 11y agoExcept when they suffer huge outages because of some upstream issue and HN/twitter/etc go stupid with "omg half the internet is offline" because everyone thinks AWS is indestructible. AWS makes even less sense at scale than it does for small companies. Once you can afford to hire competent Ops staff (and assuming you don't have developers who insist they know everything needed to run a complex system in a high traffic environment, so Ops will 'get in the way') you can get much better results with co-lo or even rented full-hardware, and largely the same Open Source software AWS is built on, but without the confusing naming and vendor lock-in.
- athrun 11y ago"Once you can afford to hire competent Ops staff" Here, that's the catch. Most companies simply can't. Competing against Amazon, Microsoft and Google for talent doesn't sound like a smart strategy.
- stephenr 11y agoPlenty of medium sized companies would work out better off overall, with a skilled Ops person to setup cost effective services > Competing against Amazon, Microsoft and Google for talent doesn't sound like a smart strategy. You don't have to compete. They are trying to make a profit. You just need to be better off, long term. That could be a mixture of lower service fees, more flexibility, improved productivity, less vendor lock in, etc. Relying on any single company's services, particularly for key/essential systems your business relies on, doesn't sound like a smart strategy.
- athrun 11y agoI don't see how a single "skilled ops person" can deliver "lower service fees, more flexibility, improved productivity". On the other hand, Cloud Computing will, by definition, let you turn on and off services based on business demands. It doesn't get much more flexible and cost effective than that. "You just need to be better off, long term." - This is a good one. Do you really think your homegrown Docker environment, Hadoop cluster and/or state-of-the-art Cassandra ring maintained by your one and only skilled Unicorn is a better long term plan than 100% managed alternatives? Let's see how well (and how secure) your in-house stuff work 2-3 years down the road and how it will then compare with the always "up-to-date" alternative. The "vendor lock-in" part is your only valid argument, in my opinion. Costs/benefits will have be weighted properly. How much do you value business agility and pace of innovation vs. increased vendor dependency? The proper answer will be different for all businesses, but I would argue that as long as a specific IT component/technology is not part of your core business, you might be better off buying it off-the-shelves instead of building it and maintaining it yourself.