4 ms·
> To be honest I hadn't thought at all about the pricing beforehand. I just figured "Pay for what you use" sounded like it would be cheaper than paying for inst
by vasco 7y ago
> To be honest I hadn't thought at all about the pricing beforehand. I just figured "Pay for what you use" sounded like it would be cheaper than paying for instances that are on 24/7.
Deciding to do a whole infrastructure change to save money without even stopping 5mins to do a quick math on the expected savings seems like a recipe for disaster.
Just switching from m1.small to t2.small would bring their costs down to $55 from $96 for the compute. Just make sure to create a monitor in case you use up all your burst capacity. Other than that a quick reservation would bring that down even further, and all of this with zero re-architecting.
Serverless is super cheap if your workload is not serving requests constantly. It's like renting a car 365 days out of the year instead of purchasing, it only makes sense if you only need it sporadically.
- necovek 7y agoHis main goal was to reduce deployment time, not to reduce costs. It's obvious from the article that he would have even lived with a slight bump in pricing if he got that.
- euph0ria 7y agoBetter to use t3.small and use infinite burst
- fauigerzigerk 7y ago>Deciding to do a whole infrastructure change... He didn't decide to do a whole infrastructure change. He just ran an experiment that was about more than just cost.
- snak 7y ago> It's like renting a car 365 days out of the year instead of purchasing, it only makes sense if you only need it sporadically. Spot on! Great analogy.