5 ms·
We're a one-man shop, so the cost savings made sense in the long run. I already use SSDB and Redis in production so I'm very familiar with supporting it.
by welder 5y ago
We're a one-man shop, so the cost savings made sense in the long run. I already use SSDB and Redis in production so I'm very familiar with supporting it.
- JAlexoid 5y agoFrom business growth perspective: if you have paying customers - then such low cost savings are counter intuitive, for a one man shop. A one man shop with paying customers shouldn't spend time on optimization, unless it's just for fun. If I'm a customer - I'd rather see more value added functionality, rather than cheaper data storage. But that is my opinion, hope that your customers appreciate you spending time on this.
- pengaru 5y agothey're not mutually exclusive
- jrh206 5y agoThey kind of are. A one-man shop can only do one thing at once. Either they save costs on data storage, or they spend that time doing something else.
- welder 5y agoNo, pengaru's right. They're not mutually exclusive. For ex: making the site faster and more stable means I spend less time fixing and keeping things running and more time building new features.
- JAlexoid 5y agoBut cost optimization doesn't make a site more stable.(Remember the context here) In fact, adding another component to optimize the cost is adding another point of failure.
- staticassertion 5y agoNah. As someone who has gone from a 1 person project to ~10 people and funding, taking the time to tackle problems like this is critical - it frees up an order of magnitude of time later, helps make the product experience smoother, saves you real money that, when you're one person, really can make a difference.
- wormik 5y agoGenerally good thinking, but few "real world" notes A) you first need to run the service to get any customers B) this might take long C) you maybe don't want / can't get VC money at this stage D) you maybe are not the most advanced dev who can properly utilitize s3 from I/O perspective, getting you to higher costs than possible E) there might be a time period between introducing the service and getting traction which yields enough feedback, so you can start adding more business features F) when you are burning your own money, you are more senstive to the cost side - which is not ultimately wrong Just my 2c
- woadwarrior01 5y agoPerformance is a feature. In this case, it’s the perf gained by avoiding round trips to S3.
- JAlexoid 5y agoWhich could have been gained by.... hosting on AWS. Which ends up being back to - purely cost optimization of the initial cost optimization. It seems like the whole product is focusing on cost optimization. I suspect that the OP would be better off making money by doing cost optimizations for third parties.
- tebruno99 5y agoYou could just host in AWS EC2 pay the extra few dimes and not pay ANY S3 transfer cost.
- welder 5y agoThe economics don't work out on that... we migrated away from our $3k/mo AWS bill back in the day to save $2k/mo with DO. Going back to EC2 would save $200/mo but cost $2,000/mo in compute.
- ramraj07 5y agoHave you considered lightsail? So much cheaper than ec2 and you still get to be on aws.