4 ms·
Also, when it comes time to scale, it's a lot easier to bring up a relatively simple (but scalable) infrastructure on AWS than deal with: colo location, buying
by drchopchop 6y ago
Also, when it comes time to scale, it's a lot easier to bring up a relatively simple (but scalable) infrastructure on AWS than deal with: colo location, buying servers, buying spares, replacing failing hardware, imaging, setting up backups, etc etc. Those typically become concerns once you're at big scale where the cost savings are significant.
- Zelphyr 6y agoFor what it's worth; unlike OP, I'm not suggesting Co-Lo over cloud. Co-Lo still has its place but for most projects that I'm involved with, low-cost services like DigitalOcean, Linode, or LightSail is the best option.
- jacobsenscott 6y agoBut for most companies it never "comes time to scale". Especially if you have 100% dedicated hardware and you can start out with a 64 core db server with 120GB of memory and a matching web server pretty much for free. You need to "scale" early in a cloud environment because you are allocated a fraction of the hardware and someone else on that same hardware is using all the resources. AWS/DO etc boost their margins by packing as many vps's onto one physical box as they can. That's why on a VPS your 95th percentile response time is 1000x your 50% response time. All you can do is "scale" and pray enough of your connections are hitting the boxes that nobody else is using right now.
- fomine3 6y agoVPS packs but EC2?
- ldng 6y agoI love how AWS fanboys make it a back-or-white issue. OVH,Hetzner and others are providing bare metal server that are provionnable by API. The choice is not between full-AWS vs full-On-Premises-By-Hand.