2 ms·
FWIW, AWS is expensive... but mostly for networking and then second to that storage, with the cost for actual computation usually being a pretty small percentag
by saurik 4y ago
FWIW, AWS is expensive... but mostly for networking and then second to that storage, with the cost for actual computation usually being a pretty small percentage of my overall spend. The only time I have seen computation itself be an interesting expense is when I am looking for some complicated hardware, such as their GPU or FPGA instances. That said, money is money... but it is much easier to figure out fun ways to save storage or bandwidth when the code is a bit more nimble, so I'm not sure I could justify larger teams or slower iteration times just to save on CPU.
- dilippkumar 4y ago> but mostly for networking and then second to that storage, with the cost for actual computation usually being a pretty small percentage of my overall spend. What portion of the bandwidth is end-user facing and what portion of it is connecting all the servers? Another way of asking this is if I need fewer servers because code runs faster, how much less bandwidth do I need?
- saurik 4y agoAWS doesn't charge for internal server-to-server transfers, so the answer is precisely 0.
- caleblloyd 4y agoThat's only true for transfer in the same availability zone. https://aws.amazon.com/ec2/pricing/on-demand/#Data_Transfer_within_the_same_AWS_Region https://aws.amazon.com/ec2/pricing/on-demand/#Data_Transfer_...
- saurik 4y agoAvailability and horizontal scale-out are separate axes, so that isn't relevant for this question.