5 ms·

The systems at Amazon are too large to leverage autoscaling. When I was there (in Marketplace) it was generally estimated that Amazon used about 80X the capacit

The systems at Amazon are too large to leverage autoscaling. When I was there (in Marketplace) it was generally estimated that Amazon used about 80X the capacity of their entire AWS public cloud.

abrookewood 8y ago
WTF? 80 times the capacity of their entire AWS infrastructure?? That seems insane.
- caseysoftware 8y ago
  No, the exact quote was: > Amazon used about 80X the capacity of their entire AWS public cloud which is probably closer to "the capacity that is available via AWS is a tiny, tiny fraction of their overall computing power.. therefore adding it back in when things are falling over doesn't actually solve any problems."
  - Dylan16807 8y ago
    I don't understand the difference between the wording in your post and the post you're replying to.
    - martin-adams 8y ago
      I did’t understand either. I suspect it’s the semantic difference between ‘public cloud’ and ‘infrastructure’. I don’t know what that difference is really.
    - beejiu 8y ago
      I think they are using the term 'capacity' to mean 'spare capacity'. I.e. that Amazon's entire compute usage is 80x the spare capacity, so scaling even a small amount would consume any spare capacity in AWS. Still, it seems hard to believe.
      - kaspm 8y ago
        I interpreted it to mean: 1. he misspoke and meant "80%" of the AWS capacity, which I agree seems implausible. 2. Amazon does not run on AWS because Amazon is 80x more than all of AWS infrastructure. This also seems implausible because of Netflix. In fact, there's an article out there that said AWS exceeded Amazon's capacity within 1 quarter! I still don't understand what that has to do with autoscaling exactly
rorykoehler 8y ago
I find that implausible. I know they run a huge infrastructure but why would they be using 80X of their AWS public cloud? Thousands of companies if not millions at this stage use AWS and some of them are not insignificant in size.

The systems at Amazon are too large to leverage autoscaling. When I was there (in Marketplace) it was generally estimated that Amazon used about 80X the capacity of their entire AWS public cloud.

abrookewood 8y ago

WTF? 80 times the capacity of their entire AWS infrastructure?? That seems insane.

caseysoftware 8y ago
No, the exact quote was: > Amazon used about 80X the capacity of their entire AWS public cloud which is probably closer to "the capacity that is available via AWS is a tiny, tiny fraction of their overall computing power.. therefore adding it back in when things are falling over doesn't actually solve any problems."
- Dylan16807 8y ago
  I don't understand the difference between the wording in your post and the post you're replying to.
  - martin-adams 8y ago
    I did’t understand either. I suspect it’s the semantic difference between ‘public cloud’ and ‘infrastructure’. I don’t know what that difference is really.
  - beejiu 8y ago
    I think they are using the term 'capacity' to mean 'spare capacity'. I.e. that Amazon's entire compute usage is 80x the spare capacity, so scaling even a small amount would consume any spare capacity in AWS. Still, it seems hard to believe.
    - kaspm 8y ago
      I interpreted it to mean: 1. he misspoke and meant "80%" of the AWS capacity, which I agree seems implausible. 2. Amazon does not run on AWS because Amazon is 80x more than all of AWS infrastructure. This also seems implausible because of Netflix. In fact, there's an article out there that said AWS exceeded Amazon's capacity within 1 quarter! I still don't understand what that has to do with autoscaling exactly

rorykoehler 8y ago

I find that implausible. I know they run a huge infrastructure but why would they be using 80X of their AWS public cloud? Thousands of companies if not millions at this stage use AWS and some of them are not insignificant in size.