3 ms·
Every time I see numbers like this, I wonder why everyone seems to think you have to use AWS or else you've failed at scaling. They could run their operation f
by foobarbazetc 15y ago
Every time I see numbers like this, I wonder why everyone seems to think you have to use AWS or else you've failed at scaling.
They could run their operation for 10-20% of their AWS costs at a dedicated server host. And everything would be much, much faster.
- jaequery 15y agoi use aws/cloud like i use spare tires. i only use them in emergencies. why? the price, i don't care much. it's just the performance gain going from aws network i/o to directly-attached SSD/SAS i/o is almost night and day
- notJim 15y agoI noticed this, too. This statement stood out to me in particular: > Our main shard cluster involves 12 Quadruple Extra-Large memory instances… We’ve found that Amazon’s network disk system (EBS) doesn’t support enough disk seeks per second, so having all of our working set in memory is extremely important.
- ww520 15y agoUsing AWS is not just for its instances. S3 is a big factor. It's hard to replicate the S3 functionality in your own hosting without much more effort and cost. Granted that the AWS instances can be used more efficiently.
- Ecio78 15y agocant you just upload to S3 from your own dedicated machines? or it adds too much delay to operations? Author posted that images are first loaded on their system, resized and so on and then loaded on s3, so at least for image upload it shouldnt be such a great problem. disclaimer: i have no smartphone and never used their app :)
- ConstantineXVI 15y agoBesides latency, you don't pay for internal data transfer within AWS services. If you did the image processing on your own machines, you'd be paying for bandwidth every operation; where if you do it in EC2, your only outbound transfer is viewing the images.