3 ms·
If you have VMs, AWS is not necessarily the answer if you have a relatively static workload. You are lighting money on fire by the buckets if you pay AWS for a
by hueving 10y ago
If you have VMs, AWS is not necessarily the answer if you have a relatively static workload. You are lighting money on fire by the buckets if you pay AWS for a fixed amount of always on instances.
- toomuchtodo 10y agoBut Netflix! /s
- closeparen 10y agoNetflix serves an evening rush concentrated in the 4 US time zones; they actually use elasticity.
- vidarh 10y agoNetflix is also almost certainly far into the "contact us" price tiers, so they're a useless example for cost-effectiveness of AWS unless/until they actually publish what they pay. If it's anything near the listed tiers, they're being ripped off, based on what little I know of the kind of discounts much smaller players have negotiated.
- sytse 10y agoI agree that for just static VMs AWS is not a good deal. I meant that if you're still stuck with a VM architecture (using Chef/Puppet instead of a container scheduler) in many cases it makes sense to pay for AWS services (such as running a database for you) instead of doing it yourself. I think container schedulers will change that balance for many companies, making self managed service attractive for smaller organizations than before.