3 ms·

AWS "experts" are one of the most expensive. And they'll be pushing for EKS and the whole AWS stack. The funny thing is, if you are using K8s, you might as well

by csomar 4y ago

AWS "experts" are one of the most expensive. And they'll be pushing for EKS and the whole AWS stack. The funny thing is, if you are using K8s, you might as well setup your own servers. These experts cost upward of $1000/day. Hiring a full time is $150k+, and that's not for the expensive locations.

GauntletWizard 4y ago
I'm one of those expensive EKS Experts. I encourage many of my customers to go to other clouds that are cheaper, but there's a) a "Nobody got fired for buying IBM" thing that founders want, and b) Actual value in the AWS Ecosystem of managed products for all sorts of things. If you're using Kubernetes, you want a managed cloud storage solution and you want a managed database solution, and AWS is among the best for those. (Though, personally - I prefer GKE). The smaller VPS providers have solutions for those. DynamoDB, though? Not so much.
Melatonic 4y ago
You can also do both - run your own K8's and then just autoscale (during big peaks) into the cloud provider of your choice.
vidarh 4y ago
When I was doing devops consulting, my "cloud clients" were always by far my most profitable, because they were so used to that and so blind to the cost savings they could get.
- eastbound 4y ago
  Maybe the people running on the cloud are, therefore, efficient businesses? despite using a financially costly option? or thanks to AWS allowing an immediate setup ?
  - vidarh 4y ago
    Getting set up in AWS in a remotely manageable way is in no way "immediate" - a lot of my income came from that fact (and another large chunk came from fixing setups that had descended into total chaos because people "just" started spinning up resources without properly managing it) If you want ad hoc rapid setup you can get a managed server up and running about the same time as an instance with AWS too, from a provider that also offers colos and cloud so you can pick and choose and move between the three depending on what is most cost effective for specific needs. In practice, ironically, having that option makes cloud instances even less cost-effective because having the option of spinning up cloud instances an tie them into your environment means your can allow yourself to have less spare capacity on your managed/colo servers.
  - re-thc 4y ago
    Or they're not aware of the options. AWS has massive marketing and market share. A lot of businesses aren't even aware of AWS savings plans and spot instances. That's even why there are companies that purely offer to optimise "cloud costs" as their core business.
andrewstuart 4y ago
So much kubernetes is just overkill. A fast modern 16 core machine with 128 gig of ram can meet a lot of needs.
- sofixa 4y ago
  > A fast modern 16 core machine with 128 gig of ram can meet a lot of needs. True, as long as you don't care about redundancy or scalability or wasting money because you actually only use 4GB of RAM and barely any CPU. > So much kubernetes is just overkill. Absolutely true. Kubernetes is great in some scenarios, but pretty complex so overkill when starting. Serverless (ideally containers as a service), docker-compose and Nomad* are much better options unless everybody is already a Kubernetes pro that has all the tooling ready. * - disclaimer, I work at HashiCorp, but I actually believed Nomad is amazing, sufficient in most scenarios, and actually better than Kubernetes in some aspects before joining and it's one of the reasons I joined.
  - Nextgrid 4y ago
    > wasting money because you actually only use 4GB of RAM and barely any CPU. Hetzner will rent you a massive 128GB of RAM server for ~150 bucks a month. In company terms, that is peanuts and whatever time you'd spend installing and managing K8S is pretty much never going to pay for itself, not to mention the added liability of all those moving parts. The whole "autoscaling" thing is mostly bullshit invented by the cloud providers to make their insane margins more palatable. A dedicated, non-cloud stack sized to peak capacity will be cheaper than the majority of "autoscaled" stacks at minimal capacity.
  - toast0 4y ago
    >> A fast modern 16 core machine with 128 gig of ram can meet a lot of needs. > True, as long as you don't care about redundancy or scalability or wasting money because you actually only use 4GB of RAM and barely any CPU. Redundancy: you want two fast machines. More if you want them in multiple locations, but we still see a lot of people with presence only in us-east. Scalability: You can go to 96-core per socket on commodity x86 servers now; 16 -> 96 is a lot of room to scale. You can also go up to I think 3TB per socket on Epyc Genoa.
weberer 4y ago
>And they'll be pushing for EKS and the whole AWS stack. Nah, I'd recommend serverless for the vast majority of use cases. But otherwise, yeah it gets heavily into the AWS stack with SQS, SNS, Kinesis, S3, DynamoDB, Aurora, etc.
whoknew1122 4y ago
I'm assuming by AWS 'experts' you mean third-parties? Because every SA I know at AWS will proactively tell you when to not use AWS. Half of my job at AWS is reviewing architecture diagrams and determining whether workloads are a good fit for AWS. I've never met any AWS expert at AWS who isn't quick to tell you when an AWS service isn't a fit for your needs.
mschuster91 4y ago
> The funny thing is, if you are using K8s, you might as well setup your own servers Running k8s on bare metal is incredibly annoying and brittle. Upgrading your clusters is a constant firefighting experience, and because k8s doesn't have something like an LTS version [1], you have to keep upgrading ALL THE DAMN TIME, which often enough means you have to upgrade not just the clusters but also your resource definitions (e.g. ingressClass), or mess around neck-deep in the bowels of MetalLB because it managed to shart all over its configuration yet again. In contrast, EKS is relatively painless. [1] https://kubernetes.io/releases/ https://kubernetes.io/releases/

by csomar 4y ago

GauntletWizard 4y ago

I'm one of those expensive EKS Experts. I encourage many of my customers to go to other clouds that are cheaper, but there's a) a "Nobody got fired for buying IBM" thing that founders want, and b) Actual value in the AWS Ecosystem of managed products for all sorts of things. If you're using Kubernetes, you want a managed cloud storage solution and you want a managed database solution, and AWS is among the best for those. (Though, personally - I prefer GKE). The smaller VPS providers have solutions for those. DynamoDB, though? Not so much.

Melatonic 4y ago

You can also do both - run your own K8's and then just autoscale (during big peaks) into the cloud provider of your choice.

vidarh 4y ago

When I was doing devops consulting, my "cloud clients" were always by far my most profitable, because they were so used to that and so blind to the cost savings they could get.

eastbound 4y ago
Maybe the people running on the cloud are, therefore, efficient businesses? despite using a financially costly option? or thanks to AWS allowing an immediate setup ?
- vidarh 4y ago
  Getting set up in AWS in a remotely manageable way is in no way "immediate" - a lot of my income came from that fact (and another large chunk came from fixing setups that had descended into total chaos because people "just" started spinning up resources without properly managing it) If you want ad hoc rapid setup you can get a managed server up and running about the same time as an instance with AWS too, from a provider that also offers colos and cloud so you can pick and choose and move between the three depending on what is most cost effective for specific needs. In practice, ironically, having that option makes cloud instances even less cost-effective because having the option of spinning up cloud instances an tie them into your environment means your can allow yourself to have less spare capacity on your managed/colo servers.
- re-thc 4y ago
  Or they're not aware of the options. AWS has massive marketing and market share. A lot of businesses aren't even aware of AWS savings plans and spot instances. That's even why there are companies that purely offer to optimise "cloud costs" as their core business.

andrewstuart 4y ago

So much kubernetes is just overkill. A fast modern 16 core machine with 128 gig of ram can meet a lot of needs.

sofixa 4y ago
> A fast modern 16 core machine with 128 gig of ram can meet a lot of needs. True, as long as you don't care about redundancy or scalability or wasting money because you actually only use 4GB of RAM and barely any CPU. > So much kubernetes is just overkill. Absolutely true. Kubernetes is great in some scenarios, but pretty complex so overkill when starting. Serverless (ideally containers as a service), docker-compose and Nomad* are much better options unless everybody is already a Kubernetes pro that has all the tooling ready. * - disclaimer, I work at HashiCorp, but I actually believed Nomad is amazing, sufficient in most scenarios, and actually better than Kubernetes in some aspects before joining and it's one of the reasons I joined.
- Nextgrid 4y ago
  > wasting money because you actually only use 4GB of RAM and barely any CPU. Hetzner will rent you a massive 128GB of RAM server for ~150 bucks a month. In company terms, that is peanuts and whatever time you'd spend installing and managing K8S is pretty much never going to pay for itself, not to mention the added liability of all those moving parts. The whole "autoscaling" thing is mostly bullshit invented by the cloud providers to make their insane margins more palatable. A dedicated, non-cloud stack sized to peak capacity will be cheaper than the majority of "autoscaled" stacks at minimal capacity.
- toast0 4y ago
  >> A fast modern 16 core machine with 128 gig of ram can meet a lot of needs. > True, as long as you don't care about redundancy or scalability or wasting money because you actually only use 4GB of RAM and barely any CPU. Redundancy: you want two fast machines. More if you want them in multiple locations, but we still see a lot of people with presence only in us-east. Scalability: You can go to 96-core per socket on commodity x86 servers now; 16 -> 96 is a lot of room to scale. You can also go up to I think 3TB per socket on Epyc Genoa.

weberer 4y ago

>And they'll be pushing for EKS and the whole AWS stack. Nah, I'd recommend serverless for the vast majority of use cases. But otherwise, yeah it gets heavily into the AWS stack with SQS, SNS, Kinesis, S3, DynamoDB, Aurora, etc.

whoknew1122 4y ago

I'm assuming by AWS 'experts' you mean third-parties? Because every SA I know at AWS will proactively tell you when to not use AWS. Half of my job at AWS is reviewing architecture diagrams and determining whether workloads are a good fit for AWS. I've never met any AWS expert at AWS who isn't quick to tell you when an AWS service isn't a fit for your needs.

mschuster91 4y ago

> The funny thing is, if you are using K8s, you might as well setup your own servers Running k8s on bare metal is incredibly annoying and brittle. Upgrading your clusters is a constant firefighting experience, and because k8s doesn't have something like an LTS version [1], you have to keep upgrading ALL THE DAMN TIME, which often enough means you have to upgrade not just the clusters but also your resource definitions (e.g. ingressClass), or mess around neck-deep in the bowels of MetalLB because it managed to shart all over its configuration yet again. In contrast, EKS is relatively painless. [1] https://kubernetes.io/releases/ https://kubernetes.io/releases/