7 ms·

After years of working with AWS this is not surprising. You can have developers with minimal sys admin / dev ops building instances and running jobs. Back in ea

After years of working with AWS this is not surprising. You can have developers with minimal sys admin / dev ops building instances and running jobs. Back in early days of my startup I recall my team launching a big model run and leaving for weekend. We can back on monday to a 10k bill and thousands of compute hours... That did not go well, 10k on a few days of compute for a small startup haha! Still to this day we've got tons of EC2 instances lying around racking up charges. We dont have the devops support to build proper auto-scaling, making things really fit AWS. We just needed a server to run 24/7 and this was easy. Can only imagine the insanity that goes on at huge Pinterest level scale. How many EC2 instances do they have? Thousands? Hundreds of thousands?

wolfi1 8y ago
if you just have webservers, api gateway + lambda is the way to go Edit: to make myself clear, I meant the backend, frontend, of course, should be served like below
- WrtCdEvrydy 8y ago
  Cloudfront + S3 for static sites. I've seen so many people just create an EC2 instance for serving static content. If you have a banging new React app that generates static files, you don't need anything more.
  - wolfi1 8y ago
    of course, I meant it backend-wise
- meritt 8y ago
  lambda gets incredibly expensive for anything that approaches even modest usage levels. Once you exceed about 10 requests/second, you'd be better off with the lowest tier virtualized instances ($2 - $5/mo from most providers including AWS)
  - RhodesianHunter 8y ago
    Not if your usage patterns spike dramatically. Once worked at a place that needed to do rapid crawls of websites on short notice and we saved a lot of money by moving from.dedocatrd instances to lamdas that we could scale out and down as needed. How you use them is important.
eeeeeeeeeeeee 8y ago
Fender showcased how much they use AWS at the recent re:Invent. They moved more services to AWS, while still increasing usage, and still reduced their AWS spend. Because it sounds like they did it the right way and used AWS services effectively. I've spent a lot of time helping web developers, that don't have a ton of infrastructure experience, that get into AWS and they almost always do it the wrong way (the most expensive way). As in, they take whatever they were running on-premise and just throw it on EC2.
- steeef 8y ago
  Would that be the quick keynote excerpt? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F61GtueelP4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F61GtueelP4 Or their IoT talk? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7oqSTmrfVc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7oqSTmrfVc
  - eeeeeeeeeeeee 8y ago
    It’s the quick keynote. Starts around 6:30. AWS spend down 15% even though traffic is 21x what it was a year ago.

wolfi1 8y ago

if you just have webservers, api gateway + lambda is the way to go Edit: to make myself clear, I meant the backend, frontend, of course, should be served like below

WrtCdEvrydy 8y ago
Cloudfront + S3 for static sites. I've seen so many people just create an EC2 instance for serving static content. If you have a banging new React app that generates static files, you don't need anything more.
- wolfi1 8y ago
  of course, I meant it backend-wise
meritt 8y ago
lambda gets incredibly expensive for anything that approaches even modest usage levels. Once you exceed about 10 requests/second, you'd be better off with the lowest tier virtualized instances ($2 - $5/mo from most providers including AWS)
- RhodesianHunter 8y ago
  Not if your usage patterns spike dramatically. Once worked at a place that needed to do rapid crawls of websites on short notice and we saved a lot of money by moving from.dedocatrd instances to lamdas that we could scale out and down as needed. How you use them is important.

eeeeeeeeeeeee 8y ago

Fender showcased how much they use AWS at the recent re:Invent. They moved more services to AWS, while still increasing usage, and still reduced their AWS spend. Because it sounds like they did it the right way and used AWS services effectively. I've spent a lot of time helping web developers, that don't have a ton of infrastructure experience, that get into AWS and they almost always do it the wrong way (the most expensive way). As in, they take whatever they were running on-premise and just throw it on EC2.

steeef 8y ago
Would that be the quick keynote excerpt? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F61GtueelP4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F61GtueelP4 Or their IoT talk? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7oqSTmrfVc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7oqSTmrfVc
- eeeeeeeeeeeee 8y ago
  It’s the quick keynote. Starts around 6:30. AWS spend down 15% even though traffic is 21x what it was a year ago.