3 ms·

No. It's much more cost effective to run your own infrastructure. It's always struck me as irresponsible for reedit to spend the sums they do for example. You

by ssmoot 16y ago

No. It's much more cost effective to run your own infrastructure. It's always struck me as irresponsible for reedit to spend the sums they do for example. You could easily spend half that and get four times the hardware (in addition to an admin to manage it). Some businesses just don't want to deal with it period. I get that. But at some point it's almost irresponsible. Like sending an employee to starbucks for everyone in the office a few times a day because you don't want the hassle of setting up with a coffee service. ;-)

9oliYQjP 16y ago
What would you estimate Reddit's costs are now? What would their costs be if they had a full-time (decent) admin and their own hardware in a data centre?
- lnguyen 16y ago
  Actually you probably should add in a team of admins unless you assume a single person is capable of 24/7 service and handle the possibility of multiple large-scale issues simultaneously. Also factor in expertise (not just familiarity) in all areas of infrastructure.
  - Uchikoma 16y ago
    You need the admins either way, AWS does not help with that. Most problems from experience are with the application (Database, Memory, Locking, ...) not with the infrastructure (Load balancer, Linux, ...). [Edit]: The problems Reddit, Digg, Foursquare had were problems with application code and application infrastructure (MongoDB, Cassandra, RabbitMQ, Redis, ...). AWS admins would not - and have not - helped with that. So you need your own admins, AWS does not spare you those.
Uchikoma 16y ago
This is what's amazing me too. AWS is so much more expensive, even if factoring TCO in. It's good for very fast scaling and experimentation tough. I've did some very rough calculations in a blog post some time ago http://codemonkeyism.com/dark-side-virtualized-servers-cloud/ http://codemonkeyism.com/dark-side-virtualized-servers-cloud... and AWS seems to be a least 2x more expensive.
zacman85 16y ago
I understand you are right in the context of today. A few years from now, however, I would imagine that gains in the efficiency of the business model as well as competitive pressures will drive prices down below the costs of running your own infrastructure.
bobf 16y ago
Indeed. While I would love to migrate to AWS, it is still vastly more expensive than our current power/bandwidth/cage space costs.
liuliu 16y ago
Besides the EC2, at least, my own calculation shows that Amazon S3 is much more cost-effective than hosting on your own machine.
- Uchikoma 16y ago
  Care to share? Would be interested as my calculations seem to show at least twice the costs for AWS
  - electrum 16y ago
    Do your calculations include 99.999999999% durability by storing copies in three separate facilities?
ghshephard 16y ago
If it really was more cost effective to run your own infrastructure, then I wonder why Netflix is going out of their way to migrate all of their infrastructure to Level3 and AWS. They're even discussing the details at the last cloud computing meetup: http://www.meetup.com/cloudcomputing/calendar/14476942/ http://www.meetup.com/cloudcomputing/calendar/14476942/ [Edit: Slides for Adrian's Talk on Netflix->AWS Here: http://www.slideshare.net/adrianco/netflix-on-cloud-combined-slides-for-dev-and-ops http://www.slideshare.net/adrianco/netflix-on-cloud-combined... Video of his talk here:http://blip.tv/file/4252897 http://blip.tv/file/4252897 ] Unless you are ruthlessly disciplined (Craigslist), it rarely makes sense to roll out your own infrastructure. When you start to sustain IT Systems in a corporation, the real costs are not only what's visible, but also the cost of managing, hiring, budgeting, change control, procurement, etc... Plus - you get to ride on all the scale discounts of your cloud hosting company. And, huge win - you don't have to chose the "Safe" technology solutions (Cisco + HP + EMC, or Juniper + Dell + Hitachi) - but you can let your cloud hosting company go spend a fortune on vetting an inexpensive, innovative, but unproven technology, and then ride on their investment in that vetting process.
- physcab 16y ago
  I disagree. Amazon's cloud is great for getting started, no doubt about that. And yes, they take care of all the administration. But the hardware and bandwidth costs are absurdly expensive. Probably somewhere between 2x - 10x as much. Netflix is outsourcing it because they are rich and can afford the scalability that Amazon offers.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
  - ghshephard 16y ago
    The mantra at every large company I've ever been at once we get past the initial "Get it done" phase, is, "Do it cheaper, cheaper, cheaper." I think the thing that everyone overlooks when they price AWS out is they are looking at the cost of the bare metal. They aren't pricing their Network Engineers, their DBAs, their Storage SysAdmin, Their Data Center Ops Manager, the finance overhead required to buy/track all this gear. Forget about the fact that no company over 200 employees I've ever been involved in could add 30-40 servers in less than 30 days. The reasons to not go to AWS have to do with things like control, security, customization. Cost is the #2 reason everyone I've talked to is looking at moving their infrastructure over to AWS. (Ability to quickly scale is usually #1)
tybris 16y ago
Depends on your business. If you need the ability to scale up rapidly, don't have much operational expertise or have high availability requirements, AWS is probably the cheapest option.
farnulfo 16y ago
You should read Smugmug about it : http://don.blogs.smugmug.com/2006/11/10/amazon-s3-show-me-the-money/ http://don.blogs.smugmug.com/2006/11/10/amazon-s3-show-me-th...
speleding 16y ago
It depends on what you need to do. - If you use Amazon for fail-over purposes then their cost cannot be beat since you are effectively only paying them for the few hours a year that you system is down (if at all). Same story if you can just use them to shave peaks off your load a few hours a week. - On the other hand: if your base load is similar to what you could run on a 1U rack server then it's obviously much cheaper to run that yourself rather than using AWS
- ssmoot 16y ago
  That first bit only works if you're already backing up to AWS. Moving terra-bytes of data into the cloud isn't quick and spinning up servers quickly isn't something that's going to help if your primary site goes down for many (most?) types of applications. The bottle-neck isn't the provisioning speed. I can run a few shell scripts and have a new local VM in a couple minutes. Less if I cared to. That doesn't get media or databases from here to there though.
joevandyk 16y ago
For $1, I can spin up a complete clone of my production environment in less than 10 minutes. I can modify my chef recipes to do postgresql database failover and test it on the new servers. Once I'm confident that everything works, I can destroy the new servers and move that configuration over to the production servers. If I need 5 TB more hard drive space, it takes less than 10 minutes get it. That's the value of EC2 to me. I don't really care if it costs $5,000 more a year (or whatever), my business can support that additional cost fine.

by ssmoot 16y ago

9oliYQjP 16y ago

What would you estimate Reddit's costs are now? What would their costs be if they had a full-time (decent) admin and their own hardware in a data centre?

lnguyen 16y ago
Actually you probably should add in a team of admins unless you assume a single person is capable of 24/7 service and handle the possibility of multiple large-scale issues simultaneously. Also factor in expertise (not just familiarity) in all areas of infrastructure.
- Uchikoma 16y ago
  You need the admins either way, AWS does not help with that. Most problems from experience are with the application (Database, Memory, Locking, ...) not with the infrastructure (Load balancer, Linux, ...). [Edit]: The problems Reddit, Digg, Foursquare had were problems with application code and application infrastructure (MongoDB, Cassandra, RabbitMQ, Redis, ...). AWS admins would not - and have not - helped with that. So you need your own admins, AWS does not spare you those.

Uchikoma 16y ago

This is what's amazing me too. AWS is so much more expensive, even if factoring TCO in. It's good for very fast scaling and experimentation tough. I've did some very rough calculations in a blog post some time ago http://codemonkeyism.com/dark-side-virtualized-servers-cloud/ http://codemonkeyism.com/dark-side-virtualized-servers-cloud... and AWS seems to be a least 2x more expensive.

zacman85 16y ago

I understand you are right in the context of today. A few years from now, however, I would imagine that gains in the efficiency of the business model as well as competitive pressures will drive prices down below the costs of running your own infrastructure.

bobf 16y ago

Indeed. While I would love to migrate to AWS, it is still vastly more expensive than our current power/bandwidth/cage space costs.

liuliu 16y ago

Besides the EC2, at least, my own calculation shows that Amazon S3 is much more cost-effective than hosting on your own machine.

Uchikoma 16y ago
Care to share? Would be interested as my calculations seem to show at least twice the costs for AWS
- electrum 16y ago
  Do your calculations include 99.999999999% durability by storing copies in three separate facilities?

ghshephard 16y ago

If it really was more cost effective to run your own infrastructure, then I wonder why Netflix is going out of their way to migrate all of their infrastructure to Level3 and AWS. They're even discussing the details at the last cloud computing meetup: http://www.meetup.com/cloudcomputing/calendar/14476942/ http://www.meetup.com/cloudcomputing/calendar/14476942/ [Edit: Slides for Adrian's Talk on Netflix->AWS Here: http://www.slideshare.net/adrianco/netflix-on-cloud-combined-slides-for-dev-and-ops http://www.slideshare.net/adrianco/netflix-on-cloud-combined... Video of his talk here:http://blip.tv/file/4252897 http://blip.tv/file/4252897 ] Unless you are ruthlessly disciplined (Craigslist), it rarely makes sense to roll out your own infrastructure. When you start to sustain IT Systems in a corporation, the real costs are not only what's visible, but also the cost of managing, hiring, budgeting, change control, procurement, etc... Plus - you get to ride on all the scale discounts of your cloud hosting company. And, huge win - you don't have to chose the "Safe" technology solutions (Cisco + HP + EMC, or Juniper + Dell + Hitachi) - but you can let your cloud hosting company go spend a fortune on vetting an inexpensive, innovative, but unproven technology, and then ride on their investment in that vetting process.

physcab 16y ago
I disagree. Amazon's cloud is great for getting started, no doubt about that. And yes, they take care of all the administration. But the hardware and bandwidth costs are absurdly expensive. Probably somewhere between 2x - 10x as much. Netflix is outsourcing it because they are rich and can afford the scalability that Amazon offers.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- ghshephard 16y ago
  The mantra at every large company I've ever been at once we get past the initial "Get it done" phase, is, "Do it cheaper, cheaper, cheaper." I think the thing that everyone overlooks when they price AWS out is they are looking at the cost of the bare metal. They aren't pricing their Network Engineers, their DBAs, their Storage SysAdmin, Their Data Center Ops Manager, the finance overhead required to buy/track all this gear. Forget about the fact that no company over 200 employees I've ever been involved in could add 30-40 servers in less than 30 days. The reasons to not go to AWS have to do with things like control, security, customization. Cost is the #2 reason everyone I've talked to is looking at moving their infrastructure over to AWS. (Ability to quickly scale is usually #1)

tybris 16y ago

Depends on your business. If you need the ability to scale up rapidly, don't have much operational expertise or have high availability requirements, AWS is probably the cheapest option.

farnulfo 16y ago

You should read Smugmug about it : http://don.blogs.smugmug.com/2006/11/10/amazon-s3-show-me-the-money/ http://don.blogs.smugmug.com/2006/11/10/amazon-s3-show-me-th...

speleding 16y ago

It depends on what you need to do. - If you use Amazon for fail-over purposes then their cost cannot be beat since you are effectively only paying them for the few hours a year that you system is down (if at all). Same story if you can just use them to shave peaks off your load a few hours a week. - On the other hand: if your base load is similar to what you could run on a 1U rack server then it's obviously much cheaper to run that yourself rather than using AWS

ssmoot 16y ago
That first bit only works if you're already backing up to AWS. Moving terra-bytes of data into the cloud isn't quick and spinning up servers quickly isn't something that's going to help if your primary site goes down for many (most?) types of applications. The bottle-neck isn't the provisioning speed. I can run a few shell scripts and have a new local VM in a couple minutes. Less if I cared to. That doesn't get media or databases from here to there though.

joevandyk 16y ago

For $1, I can spin up a complete clone of my production environment in less than 10 minutes. I can modify my chef recipes to do postgresql database failover and test it on the new servers. Once I'm confident that everything works, I can destroy the new servers and move that configuration over to the production servers. If I need 5 TB more hard drive space, it takes less than 10 minutes get it. That's the value of EC2 to me. I don't really care if it costs $5,000 more a year (or whatever), my business can support that additional cost fine.