4 ms·

Almost everyone who really does need it (and is not just ridiculously inefficient) eventually moves off of AWS, including most large startups. Revenue makes it

Almost everyone who really does need it (and is not just ridiculously inefficient) eventually moves off of AWS, including most large startups. Revenue makes it possible to hire and build whatever you want.

0xB31B1B 5y ago
extremely incorrect. The benefits of cloud grow as the company grows. I've been in a few mega companies that from colo infra to cloud infra, it was a huge cost savings and helped enormously with product development speed.
- shiftpgdn 5y ago
  I've never seen anyone save money by moving to AWS unless things were already a complete clusterfuck catastrophe.
  - MattGaiser 5y ago
    In my first job, it meant we got a dev back moving to Digital Ocean as they were no longer dealing with servers and infrastructure.
    - shiftpgdn 5y ago
      Digital Ocean is a radically less complex offering than AWS.
  - jaywalk 5y ago
    My medium-sized company saved a considerable amount of money by moving to Azure from a managed dedicated server company. I wouldn't call the previous situation "a complete clusterfuck catastrophe" by any means, although I would say we were paying too much. Our Azure bill is just starting to approach what we were paying five years ago to the previous company, with far more things going on now plus all of the flexibility that The Cloud™ has to offer.
MattGaiser 5y ago
Netflix uses AWS heavily and they are probably one of the heaviest users in the world of compute. https://aws.amazon.com/solutions/case-studies/netflix/ https://aws.amazon.com/solutions/case-studies/netflix/
AggroVanGogh 5y ago
This might be the most ludicrous thing I've ever read on HN. Do you have any actual examples to back up the statement?
- sokoloff 5y ago
  Not GP, but Dropbox moved off AWS as they grew: https://www.datacenterknowledge.com/manage/dropbox-s-reverse-migration-cloud-own-data-centers-five-years https://www.datacenterknowledge.com/manage/dropbox-s-reverse...
  - Karrot_Kream 5y ago
    Dropbox makes sense. They're an egress-heavy business. Other than media companies (Netflix, Disney Plus, et al.) there aren't that many egress-heavy businesses, so AWS continues to make sense.
  - AggroVanGogh 5y ago
    Dropbox is not a relevant example to the original comment IMO - they clearly need cheap storage above all else; it should be no surprise that someone can self-host something so single-minded as a storage application without all the cloud provider baubles.
  - tempnow987 5y ago
    Is this true? I thought dropbox moved their 30PB+ data lake ONTO aws to get off of Hadoop or something because trying to do this on-prem, even with tons of tech talent and money, was not working. They complained about onprem requiring 3 YEAR forecasts for capacity planning given their scale. Here is what they said in 2020 for benefits of AWS: --------------------- Hosts 40 PB of analytics data and supports 1 PB of data growth a month Optimizes costs by moving cold data to Amazon S3 Glacier Deep Archive Uses Amazon EC2 Spot Instances for 15–50% of compute capacity Doubles compute footprint using Amazon EC2 Spot Instances Enables the testing of new technologies without damaging data or affecting users Improved performance by six times for some job types Deletes hundreds of files in a few seconds compared to 30–40 minutes Runs more than 100,000 analytics jobs and tens of thousands of one-time jobs daily --- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6x-XGJQwk2M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6x-XGJQwk2M Maybe this has changed since 2020
imwillofficial 5y ago
Worst take ever
Karrot_Kream 5y ago
That's definitely not what we did at $TRENDCORP. We still use AWS all the time. The cost of netops dwarfs whatever discounts we'd get on colo costs. We're not an egress heavy business so we aren't eating bandwidth costs either. Do you have examples demonstrating your point?
lostcolony 5y ago
...some examples please? I literally can't even think of one, but can absolutely think of numerous companies that have moved to AWS (and other public clouds) and remained there.
newaccount2021 5y ago

0xB31B1B 5y ago

extremely incorrect. The benefits of cloud grow as the company grows. I've been in a few mega companies that from colo infra to cloud infra, it was a huge cost savings and helped enormously with product development speed.

shiftpgdn 5y ago
I've never seen anyone save money by moving to AWS unless things were already a complete clusterfuck catastrophe.
- MattGaiser 5y ago
  In my first job, it meant we got a dev back moving to Digital Ocean as they were no longer dealing with servers and infrastructure.
  - shiftpgdn 5y ago
    Digital Ocean is a radically less complex offering than AWS.
- jaywalk 5y ago
  My medium-sized company saved a considerable amount of money by moving to Azure from a managed dedicated server company. I wouldn't call the previous situation "a complete clusterfuck catastrophe" by any means, although I would say we were paying too much. Our Azure bill is just starting to approach what we were paying five years ago to the previous company, with far more things going on now plus all of the flexibility that The Cloud™ has to offer.

MattGaiser 5y ago

Netflix uses AWS heavily and they are probably one of the heaviest users in the world of compute. https://aws.amazon.com/solutions/case-studies/netflix/ https://aws.amazon.com/solutions/case-studies/netflix/

AggroVanGogh 5y ago

This might be the most ludicrous thing I've ever read on HN. Do you have any actual examples to back up the statement?

sokoloff 5y ago
Not GP, but Dropbox moved off AWS as they grew: https://www.datacenterknowledge.com/manage/dropbox-s-reverse-migration-cloud-own-data-centers-five-years https://www.datacenterknowledge.com/manage/dropbox-s-reverse...
- Karrot_Kream 5y ago
  Dropbox makes sense. They're an egress-heavy business. Other than media companies (Netflix, Disney Plus, et al.) there aren't that many egress-heavy businesses, so AWS continues to make sense.
- AggroVanGogh 5y ago
  Dropbox is not a relevant example to the original comment IMO - they clearly need cheap storage above all else; it should be no surprise that someone can self-host something so single-minded as a storage application without all the cloud provider baubles.
- tempnow987 5y ago
  Is this true? I thought dropbox moved their 30PB+ data lake ONTO aws to get off of Hadoop or something because trying to do this on-prem, even with tons of tech talent and money, was not working. They complained about onprem requiring 3 YEAR forecasts for capacity planning given their scale. Here is what they said in 2020 for benefits of AWS: --------------------- Hosts 40 PB of analytics data and supports 1 PB of data growth a month Optimizes costs by moving cold data to Amazon S3 Glacier Deep Archive Uses Amazon EC2 Spot Instances for 15–50% of compute capacity Doubles compute footprint using Amazon EC2 Spot Instances Enables the testing of new technologies without damaging data or affecting users Improved performance by six times for some job types Deletes hundreds of files in a few seconds compared to 30–40 minutes Runs more than 100,000 analytics jobs and tens of thousands of one-time jobs daily --- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6x-XGJQwk2M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6x-XGJQwk2M Maybe this has changed since 2020

imwillofficial 5y ago

Worst take ever

Karrot_Kream 5y ago

That's definitely not what we did at $TRENDCORP. We still use AWS all the time. The cost of netops dwarfs whatever discounts we'd get on colo costs. We're not an egress heavy business so we aren't eating bandwidth costs either. Do you have examples demonstrating your point?

lostcolony 5y ago

...some examples please? I literally can't even think of one, but can absolutely think of numerous companies that have moved to AWS (and other public clouds) and remained there.

newaccount2021 5y ago