3 ms·
Author mentioned here that they went from $200/month on AWS to $90/month of Fly: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34242923 https://news.ycombinator.com/item
by yashap 4y ago
Author mentioned here that they went from $200/month on AWS to $90/month of Fly: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34242923 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34242923
Pretty tiny cloud costs either way, probably safe to assume they’re a small, early stage startup. But even still, it was likely a bad call to spend significant engineering effort on saving $110/month, which is a rounding error even for small startups. Hard to imagine that time couldn’t have been better spent on things that grow the business, like new features and bug fixes.
- lawnchair 4y agoDefinitely tiny but we're just overall happier with Fly. The migration in total probably cost us a weekend of work all said and done. We get a lot for free with Fly (observability, multi-region, etc.) so all in all a win.
- yashap 4y agoAh fair enough, that’s a pretty small amount of work!
- habibur 4y agoI would read it as a 60% saving. That's a very good one. Considering that this is a recurring cost and not a one time and it's proportional to their sales. Aka, they now will be able to provide their clients twice the amount of contents for the same price. At least in theory.
- yashap 4y agoMy thought was more timing - there’s so much that’s URGENT for a young startup, is cost cutting really urgent, something you have to do NOW, when the current savings are just $110/month? Part of what allows startups to survive is ruthless focus on the work that that’s most important today, and saving $110/month seems unlikely to be that. However, the blog post author responded, noting that this migration took only 1 weekend, and they like other aspects of Fly than just the cost. So fair enough, 1 weekend is a small investment, less than I expected, I would have guessed this took 2+ weeks.