3 ms·

>Perhaps that's more of a cautionary tale for new projects than a justification for the expense though. You can find case studies for both positions: - migrat

by jasode 5y ago

>Perhaps that's more of a cautionary tale for new projects than a justification for the expense though. You can find case studies for both positions: - migrate to AWS to save money: Netflix, Guardian newspaper [1] - migrate away from AWS to save money: E.g. Dropbox [2] A lot of companies (especially non-tech businesses) don't have the technical skills to run internal datacenters at the same competency as AWS. Thus, they don't want to be "locked in" to their own IT department that's slow and handicaps their business. Dropbox, Facebook, and Walmart would among the very few that can competently run their own datacenters with advanced services like AWS. [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20160319022029/https://www.computerworlduk.com/cloud-computing/guardian-goes-all-in-on-aws-public-cloud-after-openstack-disaster-3629790/ https://web.archive.org/web/20160319022029/https://www.compu... [2] https://www.google.com/search?q=dropbox+migrates+off+aws+save+money https://www.google.com/search?q=dropbox+migrates+off+aws+sav...

Tehnix 5y ago
And then Dropbox shifted kinda back again, at least partially [0], it’s interesting to see the ebb and flow :) [0]: https://aws.amazon.com/solutions/case-studies/dropbox-s3/ https://aws.amazon.com/solutions/case-studies/dropbox-s3/
- ignoramous 5y ago
  Wait. Why? How? Their in-house system (Magic Pocket / Diskotech) seemed so promising. https://dropbox.tech/tag-results.magic-pocket https://dropbox.tech/tag-results.magic-pocket
  - nosefrog 5y ago
    They're for different use cases. Magic Pocket is for storing file block data, and according to the AWS article, they just moved their analytics data to AWS.
  - jasode 5y ago
    >Their in-house system (Magic Pocket / Diskotech) seemed so promising. The story described Dropbox moving "34 PB of analytics data (Hadoop)" to AWS. My reading of Dropbox's Magic Pocket / Diskotech appears to be storage for customer raw data -- similar to BackBlaze type of raw storage. It's 2 different use cases so it's not surprising Dropbox found AWS to be effective for analytics workloads. AWS has an extensive portfolio of software services to analyze data so Dropbox may have concluded paying AWS would cost less than reinventing the analytics pipeline in-house.

by jasode 5y ago

Tehnix 5y ago

And then Dropbox shifted kinda back again, at least partially [0], it’s interesting to see the ebb and flow :) [0]: https://aws.amazon.com/solutions/case-studies/dropbox-s3/ https://aws.amazon.com/solutions/case-studies/dropbox-s3/

ignoramous 5y ago
Wait. Why? How? Their in-house system (Magic Pocket / Diskotech) seemed so promising. https://dropbox.tech/tag-results.magic-pocket https://dropbox.tech/tag-results.magic-pocket
- nosefrog 5y ago
  They're for different use cases. Magic Pocket is for storing file block data, and according to the AWS article, they just moved their analytics data to AWS.
- jasode 5y ago
  >Their in-house system (Magic Pocket / Diskotech) seemed so promising. The story described Dropbox moving "34 PB of analytics data (Hadoop)" to AWS. My reading of Dropbox's Magic Pocket / Diskotech appears to be storage for customer raw data -- similar to BackBlaze type of raw storage. It's 2 different use cases so it's not surprising Dropbox found AWS to be effective for analytics workloads. AWS has an extensive portfolio of software services to analyze data so Dropbox may have concluded paying AWS would cost less than reinventing the analytics pipeline in-house.