3 ms·

> that would add to ops costs for this service, Wouldn't fewer moving parts mean lower operational costs?

• Kalium 5y ago
  Only to the extent that cost is a function of complexity. This isn't always the case. In a case like this, going to bare metal likely brings with it significant drawbacks in organizational complexity, orchestrational complexity, and more while allowing for much better utilization of memory and cpu resources. Telling someone whose car is making some funny noises that it's simpler to go back to horse-and-buggy times would both increase costs and decrease the number of user-servicable moving parts. There's some significant overhead attached.
  • xorcist 5y ago
    Bare metal has nothing to do with this. It isn't even touched upon in the article. It discusses a scheduler, and the parent post suggests exempting these kind of jobs from the scheduler in question, which they obviously aren't a very good product fit for. Should you wish to really stretch that car analogy, maybe a bit more appropriate than a horse would be: If you aren't happy with your travel agency aren't booking your taxi trips in time, try booking with the taxi company directly.
    • deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
• mabbo 5y ago
  Yes and no. It would lower the operations costs of hardware, hopefully (that's the entire goal of this article) but you'd need more people resources to manage it, I would guess. Mesos and containers automate a lot of thinking work.
  • Kalium 5y ago
    Once you move to hosts dedicated to specific services, as seems to be the suggestion here, you also might increase the overall hardware cost across your set of services. The cost per some of the services might decrease, though.