3 ms·
That title is a little deceptive about scale? 39m requests a month works out to 14/s, then half of that is cached? Why did it cost over $10,000 to begin with? S
by tayo42 9y ago
That title is a little deceptive about scale? 39m requests a month works out to 14/s, then half of that is cached? Why did it cost over $10,000 to begin with? Seems like a simple workload. 2 small vms could handle that
- pfg 9y agoIt's definitely not quite an apples-to-apples comparison. The article mentions the old API used to do things like storing the results in a database which "[...] had grown to store a massive slice of the internet", while the new service appears to be stateless, aside from the cache. Not needing a couple of large database servers alone is going to save a lot of money. That's not to say Lambda was the wrong choice here, the overall cost is pretty low and it's hard to argue that maintaining their own servers would end up being less than that.
- squeaky-clean 9y agoI feel like every article about "X request rate for Y cheap price" ends up being "And then we added caching, and it reduced our load by 80%!".