4 ms·

Compare to setting up a Lambda application with a DynamoDB or Aurora database. Very simple, has limitations but you get a scalable distributed system for (almos

Compare to setting up a Lambda application with a DynamoDB or Aurora database. Very simple, has limitations but you get a scalable distributed system for (almost) no time investment.

kazen44 8y ago
well, this is mainly because the hard part is abstracted away from you by amazon.
pas 8y ago
You can buy hosted k8s, one click, and your cluster is ready. https://cloud.google.com/kubernetes-engine/ https://cloud.google.com/kubernetes-engine/
- hedora 8y ago
  But that’s expensive. Plugging in numbers for my $1000 synology, which runs a half dozen dockers, a vm, and is off-site backed up (for $120/yr), it tells me that I’ll pay $135/month to run comparable kubernetes at google. Even if you pretend my $75/month broadband connection is only used by the synology, and include power costs, the synology still wins by $10’s/month. (I included 3TB of storage for kubernetes, and 6TB usable for synology, with 3TB used, and sized for the high-memory 4 core machine, since dram is the synology bottleneck, even with a low wattage cpu. The synology is intentionally over-sized and is basically idle, so “but scalability!” isn’t a valid complaint.) Also, the 9’s I’ve observed were trouncing amazon for a while, though they may be catching up, thanks to comcast...
  - pas 8y ago
    Yeah, it is. But that wasn't the question. MS Office SaaS or Adobe Creative Cloud is expensive too. AWS/GCloud is already quite pricey as it is, and every cloudified thing they roll out is just a money pump for people who don't know better. But if you want to roll your own, then you can, it's FOSS after all. kubeadm works very well. Comparing Synology with anything Google is silly, but useful. You can rent dedicated machines easily. Leaseweb is nice. And then you can build your infrastructure for cheaper.
manigandham 8y ago
What is your point? You just randomly compared several different technologies. Yes, different things are different levels of complexity, and using a managed service means paying someone else to handle it.

Compare to setting up a Lambda application with a DynamoDB or Aurora database. Very simple, has limitations but you get a scalable distributed system for (almost) no time investment.

kazen44 8y ago

well, this is mainly because the hard part is abstracted away from you by amazon.

pas 8y ago

You can buy hosted k8s, one click, and your cluster is ready. https://cloud.google.com/kubernetes-engine/ https://cloud.google.com/kubernetes-engine/

hedora 8y ago
But that’s expensive. Plugging in numbers for my $1000 synology, which runs a half dozen dockers, a vm, and is off-site backed up (for $120/yr), it tells me that I’ll pay $135/month to run comparable kubernetes at google. Even if you pretend my $75/month broadband connection is only used by the synology, and include power costs, the synology still wins by $10’s/month. (I included 3TB of storage for kubernetes, and 6TB usable for synology, with 3TB used, and sized for the high-memory 4 core machine, since dram is the synology bottleneck, even with a low wattage cpu. The synology is intentionally over-sized and is basically idle, so “but scalability!” isn’t a valid complaint.) Also, the 9’s I’ve observed were trouncing amazon for a while, though they may be catching up, thanks to comcast...
- pas 8y ago
  Yeah, it is. But that wasn't the question. MS Office SaaS or Adobe Creative Cloud is expensive too. AWS/GCloud is already quite pricey as it is, and every cloudified thing they roll out is just a money pump for people who don't know better. But if you want to roll your own, then you can, it's FOSS after all. kubeadm works very well. Comparing Synology with anything Google is silly, but useful. You can rent dedicated machines easily. Leaseweb is nice. And then you can build your infrastructure for cheaper.

manigandham 8y ago

What is your point? You just randomly compared several different technologies. Yes, different things are different levels of complexity, and using a managed service means paying someone else to handle it.