4 ms·

> most expensive Not really. Like any hosting platform, if you know how to tune it properly costs can be kept low. We cut our infra costs in half moving to GAE

by spyspy 9y ago

> most expensive Not really. Like any hosting platform, if you know how to tune it properly costs can be kept low. We cut our infra costs in half moving to GAE. YMMV.

scurvy 9y ago
They're already in Google Cloud. One could argue that's preventing them from keeping costs low. Google Cloud is tremendously expensive in op-ex at Snap's scale. You're paying Google instead of having a good ops team(s). Dropbox did the math and found they could do better on their own. Only time will tell who is right.
- speedplane 9y ago
  I use Google Cloud. Love it's simplicity and design. It's definitely cheaper on the lower to even medium end. But once you're spending six figures per month, it's probably only ~10% cheaper than buying the equipment and hiring three people to manage it. Not sure why anyone would be on Google Cloud (or any cloud really) and spend 7 figures a month, unless you got a sweet deal from them.
  - drchickensalad 9y ago
    Not for a very bandwidth-focused business like snap.
  - scurvy 9y ago
    This is the first I've heard that Google Cloud is cheaper than doing it yourself. All of the conversations I've had (and some pricing I've seen) say otherwise. Do they actually give 85% discounts, because that's what it would take to make Google Cloud equal to the cost of running my business.
    - speedplane 9y ago
      It's not for everyone, but I don't think you're including the cost of employing someone to manage the hardware. If you're a scrappy startup that is willing to do whatever it takes to keep costs down, or a giant company that already has an in-house hardware team, then it's more expensive.
speedplane 9y ago
I'll also add that they've come quite a way making it more modular. It's clear GAE will eventually become more a collection of parts rather than a locked-in stack. You can already run GAE in a Docker container using app engine flexible.

by spyspy 9y ago

> most expensive Not really. Like any hosting platform, if you know how to tune it properly costs can be kept low. We cut our infra costs in half moving to GAE. YMMV.

scurvy 9y ago

They're already in Google Cloud. One could argue that's preventing them from keeping costs low. Google Cloud is tremendously expensive in op-ex at Snap's scale. You're paying Google instead of having a good ops team(s). Dropbox did the math and found they could do better on their own. Only time will tell who is right.

speedplane 9y ago
I use Google Cloud. Love it's simplicity and design. It's definitely cheaper on the lower to even medium end. But once you're spending six figures per month, it's probably only ~10% cheaper than buying the equipment and hiring three people to manage it. Not sure why anyone would be on Google Cloud (or any cloud really) and spend 7 figures a month, unless you got a sweet deal from them.
- drchickensalad 9y ago
  Not for a very bandwidth-focused business like snap.
- scurvy 9y ago
  This is the first I've heard that Google Cloud is cheaper than doing it yourself. All of the conversations I've had (and some pricing I've seen) say otherwise. Do they actually give 85% discounts, because that's what it would take to make Google Cloud equal to the cost of running my business.
  - speedplane 9y ago
    It's not for everyone, but I don't think you're including the cost of employing someone to manage the hardware. If you're a scrappy startup that is willing to do whatever it takes to keep costs down, or a giant company that already has an in-house hardware team, then it's more expensive.

speedplane 9y ago

I'll also add that they've come quite a way making it more modular. It's clear GAE will eventually become more a collection of parts rather than a locked-in stack. You can already run GAE in a Docker container using app engine flexible.