4 ms·
At this point it's mostly about (cost) efficiency, like how many EC2 instances you will need to cover your workload with a service implemented in a particular f
by ghostwriter 6y ago
At this point it's mostly about (cost) efficiency, like how many EC2 instances you will need to cover your workload with a service implemented in a particular framework. It also assumes that developers can pick any of them with the same amount of effort, which is probably a proper assumption for a benchmark that measures performance.
- Alex3917 6y agoHow much cost efficiency is there? I’ve worked at multiple of the top 100 websites in the U.S., and none of them had more than a dozen web servers. For any website, 90% of traffic is logged out and probably doesn’t even hit the web servers. And web servers are generally the least expensive component of hosting costs.
- ghostwriter 6y agoThese costs are more meaningfull for those who bootstrap their businesses and projects at their own expense. I have a personal anectdote where switching from a scripting web framework to a compiled one reduced the runtime size, and the deployable environment went from 800mb to 10mb, which allowed me to fit all my deployments into a free-tier monthly quota of AWS ECR. Given I already knew both frameworks from fulltime jobs, it's a great net benefit. It also means that whoever wants to use self-hosted open-source alternatives of user-tracking services (notes, calendars, emails, etc), they can do it cheaper or even for free.