31 ms·
I read it as the system being down costing the company millions of dollars through lost sales/revenue, not direct cost of infrastructure.
by SOLAR_FIELDS 5y ago
I read it as the system being down costing the company millions of dollars through lost sales/revenue, not direct cost of infrastructure.
- londons_explore 5y agoIf your normal infra is 80,000 servers which you own, then running costs are quite low. But during the migration, you are renting in 80,000 servers from AWS too, so the two systems can run in parallel, which have a far higher running cost. As soon as the migration is over, workloads can return to cheap owned hardware.
- moralestapia 5y agoSo, you rented 80,000 AWS intances (!) at about (at least*) 12 bucks each one, per day? Also, for reference: https://www.ibtimes.com/apple-amazons-biggest-customer-spends-over-30m-month-aws-2787325 https://www.ibtimes.com/apple-amazons-biggest-customer-spend...*
- jjav 5y agoYou wouldn't need 80,000 servers to host the activity of one user.