4 ms·
OTOH, continuing to develop that infrastructure may be continuing to place money on a losing bet... If they're actually running their own infra cheaper than cl
by sdenton4 10y ago
OTOH, continuing to develop that infrastructure may be continuing to place money on a losing bet... If they're actually running their own infra cheaper than cloud would allow, they should absolutely keep going with their own. But it's foolish to keep doing something simply because it's what you're already doing.
- XorNot 10y agoThere's a fairly highly probability this is true? AWS/GCE are not cheap. They're cost-effective for certain classes of use-case, but beyond a given scale, or with certain base-level requirements, you're way better off colocating a bunch of a machines.
- mullen 10y agoAWS can be cheap if you architect right. However, bandwidth costs are going to kill you at AWS.
- notyourwork 10y agoMy understanding is Netflix uses AWS for their infrastructure. Are they not on a similar scale as twitter with similar needs? Or is there a difference I am not seeing, perhaps a different use case. (This is a serious question, I am not doubting you.)
- rchowe 10y agoI believe that Netflix mainly uses AWS because their needs tend to surge dramatically at certain times, so that if they built their own worldwide server network, it would have to be vastly over-provisioned for when people get home at 7 PM and start streaming. Plus they were a pretty early-adopter of AWS, and they have a ton of infrastructure running on it already.