4 ms·

This is a well written post that explains how to tune an AWS single user instance deployment, and the costs that may be expected. It makes me feel that I’m gett

by robga 4y ago

This is a well written post that explains how to tune an AWS single user instance deployment, and the costs that may be expected. It makes me feel that I’m getting rather good value at masto.host for my personal instance (I was on a waitlist for a few weeks). What mastodon is missing is a good catalogue of reference deployments for 1, 10, 100, 1000, users on the major platforms (AWS, GCP, Azure, DO, OVH, Hetzner). Of course, “users” is a rather poor proxy for “activity” but it’s a start. There are “scaling” articles that say “the first thing you’ll need to address is…” and breathless blogs of “what we did when we doubled registered users overnight”. But not so much if you’re starting an instance for a community that you know will be a certain size quickly. How many cores should I expect sidekiq to need to service each thousand typical users? Sure, it’s a piece of cake for sysadmins or an AWS solutions architect, but it makes me wonder how many fragile instances there are out there that have grown fast but could also fail fast.

user5678 4y ago
[dead]
windexh8er 4y ago
> Sure, it’s a piece of cake for sysadmins or an AWS solutions architect, but it makes me wonder how many fragile instances there are out there that have grown fast but could also fail fast. The way I read the post showcased how easy it was for the AWS SA to make insane billing mistakes with unneeded things like CloudWatch. They also hide the cost of EC2 because there's no charge for that instance type until 2023. This isn't a positive advertisement for AWS in my mind. This is in line with experience I've had with former AWS consumers I've converted over to DigitalOcean in 2022. I saved those conversions, on average, 70% of their prior AWS bill - with no loss of functionality. AWS has spun out of control with the nickel and dime aspect to billing. I can't say I'd recommend it to small or very large clients unless you have money to burn. At the end of the day "traditional" architectures on AWS are not cost effective without excessive oversight of choices.
- solatic 4y ago
  He talks about using an RI to reduce the monthly bill to under $5/month for compute. But in general, I think you're right. The value AWS offers for traditional architectures is for orgs running the numbers on lift-and-shift, compared to running on-prem infrastructure; greenfield projects should take advantage of cloud-native patterns.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

by robga 4y ago

user5678 4y ago

[dead]

windexh8er 4y ago

> Sure, it’s a piece of cake for sysadmins or an AWS solutions architect, but it makes me wonder how many fragile instances there are out there that have grown fast but could also fail fast. The way I read the post showcased how easy it was for the AWS SA to make insane billing mistakes with unneeded things like CloudWatch. They also hide the cost of EC2 because there's no charge for that instance type until 2023. This isn't a positive advertisement for AWS in my mind. This is in line with experience I've had with former AWS consumers I've converted over to DigitalOcean in 2022. I saved those conversions, on average, 70% of their prior AWS bill - with no loss of functionality. AWS has spun out of control with the nickel and dime aspect to billing. I can't say I'd recommend it to small or very large clients unless you have money to burn. At the end of the day "traditional" architectures on AWS are not cost effective without excessive oversight of choices.

solatic 4y ago
He talks about using an RI to reduce the monthly bill to under $5/month for compute. But in general, I think you're right. The value AWS offers for traditional architectures is for orgs running the numbers on lift-and-shift, compared to running on-prem infrastructure; greenfield projects should take advantage of cloud-native patterns.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]