4 ms·

"Linode is frequently the target of massive global DDOS. I remember well a few years ago the Christmas Eve Linode DDOS because I had to work 20 hours that day."

by wolco2 6y ago

"Linode is frequently the target of massive global DDOS. I remember well a few years ago the Christmas Eve Linode DDOS because I had to work 20 hours that day." Those sound like some of the weakest reasons. Is your information still upto date? Are they still experiencing major outages? The truth is it would save you money to use a digitalocean instance over aws, regardless of your edge cases where some network property is not desirable. How much do you spend a month more to justify working around that weird networking property? Is it really worth it for everyone else? What is this weird networking issue we need to spend extra to avoid?

busterarm 6y ago
I can't really get into specifics, but the particular issue that we have with DO (and it really is specific to DO/droplets) makes it a complete no-go for our new product architecture. It doesn't save us money if we can't use it. As for my reasons being weak, you might have read other places in this thread where I've mentioned that I'm responsible for a) a multi-million dollar infrastructure, b) across clouds and on-prem in tier 1 datacenters c) have been in this field for a long time. Odds are that I'm not a total idiot, that I have good information and that I know what I'm doing here.
- wolco2 6y ago
  You are probably an expert in your area but the original poster was talking about much smaller shops. That's the point being missed for every multi-million dollar spender there are thousands of smaller projects paying 10x the cost because they think they will be you one day and it is cheaper to build on that stack from day one.
  - busterarm 6y ago
    Yeah, I'm saying that you can use this cost effectively at smaller places too. When I think of my core Terraform infrastructure that I can spin up for any project, the only resource with a recurring AWS/Google/Azure cost is NAT Gateways. You can get very cost-competitive with the instances themselves with reservations and/or spot, depending on your architecture. The costs of the big clouds and the small ones is basically the same here. The way the cost balloons out of control for most companies is for things like S3 access (applications that HEAD the bucket every 60 seconds and hit the API request cash register), or managed services like EKS, Amazon ElasticSearch, etc. It's in the "oh I don't have to learn how to manage X application" where cloud gets expensive. Smaller providers solve that problem by not even giving you that option. It's not that AWS is expensive, it's that they give you rope to hang yourself with.
    - ClumsyPilot 6y ago
      > "they give you rope to hang yourself with." That's not a triviality - C++ has the same problem, if you have a single ezpert individual it's great, but if you have a team, and some are very green, it will be a nightmare.
      - busterarm 6y ago
        Here we are in agreement. Thing is though, people who well-understand AWS/Azure/Google are plentiful (but expensive) in the industry at this point. Small startups can't afford to have junior talent.
        wolco2 6y ago
        Small startups use junior talent for most services. They are not hiring the best hr team, marketing, sales and development. They don't have unless amount of money. They will pick one or two areas where they have an advantage and hire a strong person or two.
        busterarm 6y ago
        I think we have wildly different expectations of the scale of "small startups". If you can afford to full-time hire an entire hr team, an entire marketing team, an entire sales team and an entire engineering org, then you're able to pay an AWS bill.
        wolco2 6y ago
        Maybe not after paying that team. Small startups have less than 2 million and usually a 16-24 cash or bust cycle. If they are hiring teams of people they are not a small startup. If you are not bring in more cash than your aws bill that's a problem.
        ClumsyPilot 6y ago
        Some organisations seem plain unwilling to pay that kind of money. So they pay far more for the mess/waste/damage, but that somehow doesn't matter to them. Not just startups, some big corporates too.

by wolco2 6y ago

busterarm 6y ago

I can't really get into specifics, but the particular issue that we have with DO (and it really is specific to DO/droplets) makes it a complete no-go for our new product architecture. It doesn't save us money if we can't use it. As for my reasons being weak, you might have read other places in this thread where I've mentioned that I'm responsible for a) a multi-million dollar infrastructure, b) across clouds and on-prem in tier 1 datacenters c) have been in this field for a long time. Odds are that I'm not a total idiot, that I have good information and that I know what I'm doing here.

wolco2 6y ago
You are probably an expert in your area but the original poster was talking about much smaller shops. That's the point being missed for every multi-million dollar spender there are thousands of smaller projects paying 10x the cost because they think they will be you one day and it is cheaper to build on that stack from day one.
- busterarm 6y ago
  Yeah, I'm saying that you can use this cost effectively at smaller places too. When I think of my core Terraform infrastructure that I can spin up for any project, the only resource with a recurring AWS/Google/Azure cost is NAT Gateways. You can get very cost-competitive with the instances themselves with reservations and/or spot, depending on your architecture. The costs of the big clouds and the small ones is basically the same here. The way the cost balloons out of control for most companies is for things like S3 access (applications that HEAD the bucket every 60 seconds and hit the API request cash register), or managed services like EKS, Amazon ElasticSearch, etc. It's in the "oh I don't have to learn how to manage X application" where cloud gets expensive. Smaller providers solve that problem by not even giving you that option. It's not that AWS is expensive, it's that they give you rope to hang yourself with.
  - ClumsyPilot 6y ago
    > "they give you rope to hang yourself with." That's not a triviality - C++ has the same problem, if you have a single ezpert individual it's great, but if you have a team, and some are very green, it will be a nightmare.
    - busterarm 6y ago
      Here we are in agreement. Thing is though, people who well-understand AWS/Azure/Google are plentiful (but expensive) in the industry at this point. Small startups can't afford to have junior talent.
      - wolco2 6y ago
        Small startups use junior talent for most services. They are not hiring the best hr team, marketing, sales and development. They don't have unless amount of money. They will pick one or two areas where they have an advantage and hire a strong person or two.
        busterarm 6y ago
        I think we have wildly different expectations of the scale of "small startups". If you can afford to full-time hire an entire hr team, an entire marketing team, an entire sales team and an entire engineering org, then you're able to pay an AWS bill.
        wolco2 6y ago
        Maybe not after paying that team. Small startups have less than 2 million and usually a 16-24 cash or bust cycle. If they are hiring teams of people they are not a small startup. If you are not bring in more cash than your aws bill that's a problem.
      - ClumsyPilot 6y ago
        Some organisations seem plain unwilling to pay that kind of money. So they pay far more for the mess/waste/damage, but that somehow doesn't matter to them. Not just startups, some big corporates too.