2 ms·
But that is what I am saying. If there is a startup, it builds infrastructure that is easy to scale. In a year they end up having 500 servers. Are they interest
by funkyy 11y ago
But that is what I am saying. If there is a startup, it builds infrastructure that is easy to scale. In a year they end up having 500 servers. Are they interesting to AWS? Sure. Are they interested to move their infrastructure from quite good setup that works to completely new provider? Not likely.
Medium sized high growing startups cannot really afford moving to new infrastructure until they got proper funding.
I can scale Vultr from 100 servers to 1,000 in 1 day as well (most time this takes is to click things through, not sure if AWS have buy XXX servers at once but if they do, thats good then).
And once again, I am not saying about small websites/static sites. I am talking about startups. Companies that can grow XXXX% a month for first few months, companies that are very careful where they spend money and where they allocate resources.
- ersoft 11y agoGood luck scaling vultr beyond 30 servers. My company is using vultr for over 1 year and we were running about 40-50 servers during peak load. Here problems start to appear very often: - We nearly failed our launch due to failure to increase server capacity during peak traffic, Vultr didn't have any more instances in that datacenter. This happened a lot of times and support always answered "We don't know when we will add more capacity". - Periodic network partitions. In the last two months we experienced a lot of network partitions both on public and private network, some of them lasting for about 2-3 days, our fleet beeing totally partitioned in 2-3 distinct blocks. Even new instances started had private network down (100% packet loss). - Technical support. We opened a few support tickets asking when private network will be fixed. Usually they respond that everything is fine and I have a configuration issue. I reply with ping/mtr logs and finally they agree there is a problem (which can be easy tested by themselves anyway). Then, they fix the issue after 1-2 days. Good luck fixing this yourself when your external load balancers have no public network connection, and new provisioned instances don't have it, too :) - They changed instance types. The instances started months ago have a powerful CPU at 3.6Ghz which is shown in all their advertised benchmarks against DO/AWS/etc. Now they are offering 2.4Ghz CPU which is about 60% slower. When I told them about this I received an predefined template response like: "Thanks for your inquiry, we are constantly revising our hardware to meet customer needs". - They increased pricing. First, the instance pricing was 20% lower than on DO. Then, they changed the price as beeing the same as DO and added a 20% discount. Then, they removed this discount, just telling everybody that they ended the discount period, nothing about the price increase :). So, we are in the process of migrating everything to Google Cloud. We've been testing it on a staging cluster of 10 nodes and everything works smoothly, so we are in the process of moving the production cluster too. Be aware of small instance types (f1-micro and g1-small), they have very small CPU capacity for production load. Also, Google offers us a lot of hosted stuff we don't need to manage anymore: DNS, Mysql, Datastore, Object store, etc. We were using Amazon S3 before, but peering from other datacenters (eg Vultr Datacenter, DO) sucks, constantly getting network timeouts, increased latency, etc.