16 ms·

the point of Cloud is that it solves the problem of variable demand. I used to run on-prem back in the 2000's, and we were constantly dealing with demand fluct

the point of Cloud is that it solves the problem of variable demand. I used to run on-prem back in the 2000's, and we were constantly dealing with demand fluctuation crises. Spinning up new physical servers to deal with new demand, or being massively over-specced when demand dropped, was a real pain. I'm starting a new thing this week, and using the Cloud for it because I have no idea what our demand will be. I can start small, scale up with our customer growth, and never have to worry about ordering new servers a month in advance so I have enough capacity when (or if) I need it. At some point in the future, when our needs are clear and relatively stable, it might make sense to migrate to on-prem and save those costs.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
throwaway9d0291 7y ago
I half-agree. The Cloud specifically solves the problem of _highly_ variable demand. If your peak demand is 100x your baseline and only happens for ~1h each day, cloud is almost certainly a good choice. If it happens for ~12h a day or it's only 5x your baseline, the cost of the cloud is such that you're likely to save with dedicated hardware, even though much of your hardware sits around doing nothing part of the time. > never have to worry about ordering new servers a month in advance so I have enough capacity when (or if) I need it. There is a middle-ground that's very much worth considering: renting dedicated servers. It's not quite as cost-effective as colocation and owning your hardware when you have at least a cabinet worth of stuff but it does offload the management of the hardware and provisioning to somebody else. They can also usually be provisioned in a matter of minutes. In some cases (e.g. Packet.net) these machines can even be treated essentially like cloud instances, with hourly pricing. There's also yet another middle ground: using dedicated to handle the known and predictable baseline traffic and using the cloud to handle the unexpected bursts.
- supermatt 7y ago
  Thanks for the pointer to packet.net. This looks like it will scratch a current itch.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

throwaway9d0291 7y ago

I half-agree. The Cloud specifically solves the problem of _highly_ variable demand. If your peak demand is 100x your baseline and only happens for ~1h each day, cloud is almost certainly a good choice. If it happens for ~12h a day or it's only 5x your baseline, the cost of the cloud is such that you're likely to save with dedicated hardware, even though much of your hardware sits around doing nothing part of the time. > never have to worry about ordering new servers a month in advance so I have enough capacity when (or if) I need it. There is a middle-ground that's very much worth considering: renting dedicated servers. It's not quite as cost-effective as colocation and owning your hardware when you have at least a cabinet worth of stuff but it does offload the management of the hardware and provisioning to somebody else. They can also usually be provisioned in a matter of minutes. In some cases (e.g. Packet.net) these machines can even be treated essentially like cloud instances, with hourly pricing. There's also yet another middle ground: using dedicated to handle the known and predictable baseline traffic and using the cloud to handle the unexpected bursts.

supermatt 7y ago
Thanks for the pointer to packet.net. This looks like it will scratch a current itch.