4 ms·
>It's, however, really bad if you sell CPU cycles for a living. Who really sells CPU cycles? Cloud providers sell instances priced per core. So the real hit is
by ktta 9y ago
>It's, however, really bad if you sell CPU cycles for a living.
Who really sells CPU cycles? Cloud providers sell instances priced per core. So the real hit is by the customers since they have to shell out for more instances for the same amount of computing power.
The hit I see is by providers of 'serverless' computing, since they charge per request and have their margins reduced.
- zedpm 9y ago> The hit I see is by providers of 'serverless' computing, since they charge per request and have their margins reduced. AWS, Azure, and GCP all bill serverless with a combination of per-request fees and compute (GB-seconds), so I'd expect the entire hit to be passed on to the user since this will cause increased compute time for each request. N requests that used to average 300ms each will now be N requests that average, say, 400ms, so the per-request billing remains the same and the compute billing will increase by approximately 30%.
- ktta 9y agoI don't understand what exactly you're saying. All of those services have serverless services, but they also have server based instances which abstract compute to amount of cores and RAM rather than CPU cycles. And most use is out of the services which aren't serverless.
- TotallyHuman 9y agoThen it's because you don't know how modern cloud works.
- ktta 9y agoI now see that my misunderstanding was about who exactly the users were and who the provider was. My opinion of provider was only GCE, AWS, etc. while the commenter I believe when talking about providers included users of those services (who again were providers of serverless services).
- user5994461 9y agoA lot of companies do, including many ycombinator startups. Think of anything that's analytics, data science, data warehouse or advertising related. The costs to run their service just took a hit.