3 ms·
At 25k servers / day one would think pulling this into real hardware and doing capacity planning would be cost effective.
by geggam 10y ago
At 25k servers / day one would think pulling this into real hardware and doing capacity planning would be cost effective.
- Turing_Machine 10y agoThat's what I was thinking. Unless they're really bursty (so they only need the 25k servers for an hour at a time or whatever), I would think that 25k servers would be well beyond the number where it makes more economic sense to build out your own data center.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- user5994461 10y ago> Unless they're really bursty Last I checked. AWS has hourly billing and Google Cloud has sub-hour billing. If they are really bursty, they are in troubles with AWS pricing model. > the number where it makes more economic sense to build out your own data center. I would think that this number doesn't exist... unless you have already built datacenters for yourselves and you have a major internal expertise in that.
- geggam 10y agoI can tell you less than 1000 servers in AWS runs around 200-300k US / month I am not sure what he is doing at 25k servers but you can see real world math puts this in a serious money range. Data centers can be built for less. I wonder if the down voters on the hardware comments actually run services at scale.
- doh 10y agoWhat kind of servers run at that price range? I've listed [0] some of the reasons why are we hosting in cloud instead of our own datacenter. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13260805 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13260805
- geggam 10y agoVarious servers, i2 for Cassandra eats most of it. Application at various levels, multi region etc etc We too are hockey sticking but not ready to go to metal .... yet. Your reasons make sense. I would grow that team soon :)
- doh 10y agoWe have some large servers, but not too many of them. We're running 32 core nodes that are holding our Postgres, but the majority is smaller.
- user5994461 10y agoTo quote another articles from that site: https://thehftguy.com/2016/11/18/google-cloud-is-50-cheaper-than-aws/ https://thehftguy.com/2016/11/18/google-cloud-is-50-cheaper-... The i2 comparisons are under "local SSD and scaling up". Google have local 400 GB SSD that can be attached to any instance. That's a lot more flexible and a hell lot cheaper when you have specific needs.
- user5994461 10y agon1-standard-1 * 25k instances = $180k per month with pre-emptibles You didn't see that coming, did you? :D That gives you 25k CPU + 83TB of memory. (Of course, that's just to give a figure, they probably don't use single core instances). Forget everything you know about AWS, it's over priced. Google is half the costs of AWS in average (down to one quarter for special cases). I'm not sure what you mean by building your own datacenters (really, the buy some land and build from scratch?). Just having a bunch of dudes in a few locations worldwide is gonna be a multi-million dollar projects. And I'm not even talking about building, power, cooling, servers, storage, network. That's the hell of an undertaking.
- doh 10y agoI answered this here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13260805 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13260805