3 ms·
I think one of the key benefits of autoscaling isn't the ability to scale out when necessary, but to scale in. Say you have an idea for a web app that needs a
by jakelazaroff 7y ago
I think one of the key benefits of autoscaling isn't the ability to scale out when necessary, but to scale in.
Say you have an idea for a web app that needs a server-side component, but you only ever expect to have a few users. A VPS will cost you at least $5 a month. If you can make your backend serverless, you'll probably only pay a tiny sliver of that, if you even end up exceeding your provider's free tier.
- esotericn 7y agoIt's not $5 per service unless you only have one service. The scaling is the fact that you run more than one thing on it. I run a bunch of stuff on a $5 VPS and more still on small machines like raspberry pi's and so on behind it. On my distro at least, spinning up a real paravirt container (not docker, a full OS with systemd, SSH, etc) within a VPS is a matter of unzipping a bootstrap to /var/lib/machines and running 'machinectl start whatever-you-called-it'. It's just a different set of abstractions to learn, and at least IMO one that's more valuable.
- michaelbuckbee 7y agoWhat you are describing is a very typical "business application" something that is a step above a spreadsheet and a word doc on how to use it. In those scenarios, the _real_ cost isn't the $5/mo VPS but the managing upgrades, security patches, etc - which would be mostly handled for you in this scenario.
- ryall 7y agoSo, if you really are this price sensitive, here's a flip-side. I built a simple email verification service for A company I used to work for. Used API gateway, lambda, s3, and sqs. Few thousand users a month. I don't need to maintain it, check for security updates etc. The monthly bill for all that was ~$2 NZD.