4 ms·
It seems they value developer productivity and innovation over machine performance. I find this enlightening.
by retreatguru 10y ago
It seems they value developer productivity and innovation over machine performance. I find this enlightening.
- qeternity 10y agoCompute is cheap. People are expensive.
- dominotw 10y ago> Compute is cheap. Not on AWS.
- exhilaration 10y agoWord on Hacker News is that Netflix is one of AWS' premiere showcase customers and gets discounts that we couldn't dream of.
- djb_hackernews 10y agoIf you have dynamic workloads, need to be HA, scalable and multi region, AWS is worth every cent. If you are running a webapp and a database with a known workload, not so much.
- 1_2__3 10y agoThe refrain of shitty developers everywhere.
- randomthoughtss 10y agoSeems fine for server-side development. For client-side, please don't kill my battery.
- radicalbyte 10y agoPerformance has never mattered. That's why Internet Explorer's map access implementation was exponential instead of logarithmic (to the size of the map). That one piece of lazy coding held back Javascript on their platform for years, and I'd argue that it as the most significant cause of their browser's market share plummeting (or at last tied with lack of adblockers).
- nailer 10y agoI value developer productivity over machine performance too, but they're doing the opposite here: developer productivity is not helped with an unnecessary second layer of containment. With containers on top of VMs, you now have to manage which containers run on which VMs (and the cloud provider worries about physical boxes), with a pure container solution you just spawn containers (and the cloud provider worries about physical boxes)
- jhall1468 10y agoIt is helped if the second layer further automates deployment. I would imagine Netflix is better at understanding its velocity than we are.
- nailer 10y agoYep but Netflix also has a decade of large scale arch wielded to AWS that we don't. They might not be deploying containers on VMs on bare metal because they want to, but because they /have/ to.
- brendangregg 10y agoMind quantifying this overhead you assume containers-on-metal vs VMs will solve?
- nailer 10y agoIt's not assumed, it's widely known VMs have poor IO performance, that one of the main points for containers in the first place. Short ver: GIYF.
- brendangregg 10y agoIf you can't provide numbers, then please talk about what technologies you're assuming are involved that create this overhead.
- 10y ago