4 ms·
>for our most performance and latency critical workloads, we have made the choice to build and manage our own infrastructure on-prem I don't understand this lo
by 867-5309 5y ago
>for our most performance and latency critical workloads, we have made the choice to build and manage our own infrastructure on-prem
I don't understand this logic. are they basically saying that their servers are on average closer to the user than mainstream cloud infra? are they e.g. choosing to have N satellite servers around a city instead of N instances at one cloud provider location in the centre of the city? is it the sparseness of the servers that decreases the latency?
or is it more to do with avoiding the herd, i.e. less trafficky routes / beating the queues?
it's also unclear whether they use their own hardware on rented rackspace as that could potentially lower costs too
- mike_d 5y agoCloud providers are rarely in cities. Google's biggest region is in the middle of Iowa, Amazon's is in Virginia. If you have a latency sensitive application (like multiplayer games) it makes sense to put a few servers in each of 100 locations rather concentrate them in a half dozen cloud regions. As they point out elsewhere, the cost of infrastructure directly impacts their ability to pay creators on the platform. Doing it yourself will always be cheaper, and they hired the smart people to make it happen.
- InsomniacL 5y ago> it makes sense to put a few servers in each of 100 locations rather concentrate them in a half dozen cloud regions. Large cloud providers have a backbone network with interconnects to many ISPs reducing the amount of Hops a client has to take across the internet. > Doing it yourself will always be cheaper Treating the Cloud as a traditional IAAS Datacenter extension will be more expensive. By utilising PAAS, only using resource that's needed and when it's needed, etc.. is much cheaper.