3 ms·

I guess I'll have to ask Sid to add some cartoons next time to liven it up a little.

• moe 16y ago
  I meant figure as in: numbers. They (you?) switched from an expensive platform to another expensive platform. In an article about a transition I hope to find hard data about the performance- and cost-tradeoffs that were made. How many hosts, how much data, how much traffic, how many queries, how much latency, how many dollars? Instead I got a generic "AWS is awesome" boilerplate along with a generic AWS best-practice bullet-list... FWIW, here's a not-so-old chart from backblaze about relative storage cost: http://blog.backblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/cost-of-a-petabyte-chart.jpg http://blog.backblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/cost-of... S3 ranges way up there and knowing that figure first-hand (and also their traffic rate) I sort of expected cost considerations to be at least mentioned in a document titled "XXX transition to ... storage-system".
  • toddh 16y ago
    If you had read the post you would have known Sid was actually asking for feedback on his paper so he could make it better.
  • terra_t 16y ago
    I did the math for my own applications and found that Amazon's system is competitive pricewise with something I can set up in a data center that has acceptable reliability (RAID1 + "enterprise backup" that may or may not pull through in a pinch) If you consider that a home-rolled solution is not elastic to demand and therefore I'd probably wind up with a capacity factor < 50%, it's a wash pricewise. Meanwhile, I know the AMZN-based system is going to make me sleep easy when it comes to business continuity nightmares.