8 ms·
Are you sure there is no survivorship bias at play here? I've seen more projects fail due to overengineering for future scenarios that never materialized than d
by mmcnl 4y ago
Are you sure there is no survivorship bias at play here? I've seen more projects fail due to overengineering for future scenarios that never materialized than due to lack of scalability.
- rawoke083600 4y agoExactly!
- Sparkyte 4y agoUm what are you smoking?
- rawoke083600 4y agoDefinitely not "unfiltered scalability day one" cigars
- Sparkyte 4y agoIf you think about planning scalability as over engineering you're greatly mistaken. Probably also a terrible engineer. In fact you are likely to save money with a scalable solution. Because if a particular load is not required and it scales back as well as out with limits it prevents an over exertion of budget.
- kaliszad 4y agoNormal VPSes and other relevant offerings are pretty cheap these days if you don't consider one of the big three clouds. They will cover most use cases and loads just fine for a long time also and there are practically no autoscaling issues, budget overruns etc. You could of course show some concrete examples from you experience. In my experience, you save the most time and money when you work with a solution that is less dynamic and more general purpose, like a VPS instead of specific scalable services without fixed price. Also, it is quite easy to switch providers with a VPS. With specific scalable services less so.
- Sparkyte 4y agoVPS hosting kubernetes totally fine. VPS that is just a few static sized nodes problematic. Lets say a node fails over dies kaput. In a proper scalable solution the service would come back almost instantly. You have some sort golden ami and leverage containers no post deploy comfiguration. Even cheaper Lambda with API gateway. Now entirely dependant on API design but often works well.