8 ms·

There was an article not long ago from AWS saying they'll be focussing on cutting cost for customers. Maybe the next step of that process will be pushing their

by BbzzbB 3y ago

There was an article not long ago from AWS saying they'll be focussing on cutting cost for customers. Maybe the next step of that process will be pushing their clients off of AWS and telling them to just host on prem.

bootsmann 3y ago
Still waiting for python 3.11 on lambdas so must not be that big of a focus. (They finally delivered 3.10 last month at least)
- IshKebab 3y ago
  If you're sensitive to a 25% performance improvement, why not switch languages and get a 1000% performance improvement?
  - techdragon 3y ago
    An easily tested compatible upgrade that gets a free performance boost… vs lots of engineering effort to rewrite… yeah that’s just not going to fly with management. Who are probably looking at the 25% performance boost as a 20% cost reduction not a 20% speed increase
- datadeft 3y ago
  It is possible[1]. You are better off this way than the AWS "native" way. 1. https://dev.l1x.be/posts/2023/02/28/using-python-3.11-with-aws-lambda/ https://dev.l1x.be/posts/2023/02/28/using-python-3.11-with-a...
  - easton 3y ago
    The only problem with that is that Docker lambdas boot slower than lambdas with the built in runtime (not ridiculously slow, but could be 2x or something). God help you anyway if you’re trying to do something latency sensitive on Lambda, but if you are then you probably don’t want to add more time for a docker pull.
    - Jochim 3y ago
      I used to believe the same thing, I've began thinking it might now be false yet often repeated. AWS claims that: > Lambda also optimizes the image and caches it close to where the functions runs so cold start times are the same as for .zip archives.[0] This[1] article shows almost no discernable difference in .NET cold start times between containerised and regular lambdas. It's easy to imagine developers pushing up bloated images, slowing startup down and blaming docker/AWS for it. [0] https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/compute/working-with-lambda-layers-and-extensions-in-container-images/ https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/compute/working-with-lambda-lay... [1] https://www.kloia.com/blog/aws-lambda-container-image-.net-benchmark https://www.kloia.com/blog/aws-lambda-container-image-.net-b...
      - re-thc 3y ago
        The situation does keep changing - AWS does optimize things. I'm not so sure it's a black/white true/false. Depends on what goes in the docker image. It's something like for larger deployments docker is faster but for small deployments it's the other way.
    - squeaky-clean 3y ago
      We've actually observed the opposite at our company. Moving from a Python 3.8 built-in to Docker based changed our response times from about 40ms to 30ms on average.
nodefortytwo 3y ago
To be fair to AWS, they do work really hard to (at least at an account level) to optimize workloads with you. They do this so overall you'll move more workloads to them. its quite simple, if workload x can be done 100% cheaper on-prem then its an obvious move (probably) if AWS manage to get that closer to 30-40% then the operational benefits of using AWS make more sense, more workloads, more total spend.
- ivanche 3y ago
  You mean 50% cheaper on-prem, right? 100% cheaper is 0.
kypro 3y ago
I know you're joking around, but no, as they also explained a benefit of cloud (and therefore using AWS) is that it can scale flexibly with their customers' businesses. If your business invests in physical servers anticipating strong growth next year then later finds out actually we're going into a recession and those servers are no longer needed, then that's a sunk cost. With cloud if demand drops you can scale up and down as needed. Helping customers cut costs during difficult times makes sense since those customers are more likely to survive and stay with you through good times. So in context I think this article makes sense since long-term sustainable growth of AWS should be linked with the growth of their customers' businesses.
- awaythrow98765 3y ago
  > If your business invests in physical servers anticipating strong growth next year then later finds out actually we're going into a recession and those servers are no longer needed, then that's a sunk cost. Cloud vendors also mostly sell minimum use packages for discounts in the range of 20 to 80% (called e.g. "committed use discount" or "compute savings plan"). Lots of businesses use those, because two-digit discounts are real money, but they might find themselves in the same spot as with physical hardware they don't need...
  - steveBK123 3y ago
    Yup, and you are paying the premium of cloud forever, which over some vanilla compute & storage can be a lot. And cloud proponents pretend data center / rack space / server leasing doesn't exist either, for those trying to avoid large up front costs.
    - Jochim 3y ago
      I'm a cloud proponent because it means not having to sit through hours of meetings to deploy a $5/mo virtual machine. It also means some poor fuck at AWS gets woken up in the middle of the night instead of me when things go to shit. It absolutely comes at a cost, and might not be the right fit for an organisation that's absolutely on top of it's hardware requirements and can afford to divert resources from new development work. For the rest of us it saves a lot of dev hours that would have otherwise been spent in pointless meetings or debating the best implementation of whatever half-baked stack has oozed it's way out of the organisation in an attempt to replicate what's handed to you with a cloud solution.
re-thc 3y ago
> Maybe the next step of that process will be pushing their clients off of AWS and telling them to just host on prem. And then charging them to use AWS anywhere and outpost!
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

by BbzzbB 3y ago

bootsmann 3y ago

Still waiting for python 3.11 on lambdas so must not be that big of a focus. (They finally delivered 3.10 last month at least)

IshKebab 3y ago
If you're sensitive to a 25% performance improvement, why not switch languages and get a 1000% performance improvement?
- techdragon 3y ago
  An easily tested compatible upgrade that gets a free performance boost… vs lots of engineering effort to rewrite… yeah that’s just not going to fly with management. Who are probably looking at the 25% performance boost as a 20% cost reduction not a 20% speed increase
datadeft 3y ago
It is possible[1]. You are better off this way than the AWS "native" way. 1. https://dev.l1x.be/posts/2023/02/28/using-python-3.11-with-aws-lambda/ https://dev.l1x.be/posts/2023/02/28/using-python-3.11-with-a...
- easton 3y ago
  The only problem with that is that Docker lambdas boot slower than lambdas with the built in runtime (not ridiculously slow, but could be 2x or something). God help you anyway if you’re trying to do something latency sensitive on Lambda, but if you are then you probably don’t want to add more time for a docker pull.
  - Jochim 3y ago
    I used to believe the same thing, I've began thinking it might now be false yet often repeated. AWS claims that: > Lambda also optimizes the image and caches it close to where the functions runs so cold start times are the same as for .zip archives.[0] This[1] article shows almost no discernable difference in .NET cold start times between containerised and regular lambdas. It's easy to imagine developers pushing up bloated images, slowing startup down and blaming docker/AWS for it. [0] https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/compute/working-with-lambda-layers-and-extensions-in-container-images/ https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/compute/working-with-lambda-lay... [1] https://www.kloia.com/blog/aws-lambda-container-image-.net-benchmark https://www.kloia.com/blog/aws-lambda-container-image-.net-b...
    - re-thc 3y ago
      The situation does keep changing - AWS does optimize things. I'm not so sure it's a black/white true/false. Depends on what goes in the docker image. It's something like for larger deployments docker is faster but for small deployments it's the other way.
  - squeaky-clean 3y ago
    We've actually observed the opposite at our company. Moving from a Python 3.8 built-in to Docker based changed our response times from about 40ms to 30ms on average.

nodefortytwo 3y ago

To be fair to AWS, they do work really hard to (at least at an account level) to optimize workloads with you. They do this so overall you'll move more workloads to them. its quite simple, if workload x can be done 100% cheaper on-prem then its an obvious move (probably) if AWS manage to get that closer to 30-40% then the operational benefits of using AWS make more sense, more workloads, more total spend.

ivanche 3y ago
You mean 50% cheaper on-prem, right? 100% cheaper is 0.

kypro 3y ago

I know you're joking around, but no, as they also explained a benefit of cloud (and therefore using AWS) is that it can scale flexibly with their customers' businesses. If your business invests in physical servers anticipating strong growth next year then later finds out actually we're going into a recession and those servers are no longer needed, then that's a sunk cost. With cloud if demand drops you can scale up and down as needed. Helping customers cut costs during difficult times makes sense since those customers are more likely to survive and stay with you through good times. So in context I think this article makes sense since long-term sustainable growth of AWS should be linked with the growth of their customers' businesses.

awaythrow98765 3y ago
> If your business invests in physical servers anticipating strong growth next year then later finds out actually we're going into a recession and those servers are no longer needed, then that's a sunk cost. Cloud vendors also mostly sell minimum use packages for discounts in the range of 20 to 80% (called e.g. "committed use discount" or "compute savings plan"). Lots of businesses use those, because two-digit discounts are real money, but they might find themselves in the same spot as with physical hardware they don't need...
- steveBK123 3y ago
  Yup, and you are paying the premium of cloud forever, which over some vanilla compute & storage can be a lot. And cloud proponents pretend data center / rack space / server leasing doesn't exist either, for those trying to avoid large up front costs.
  - Jochim 3y ago
    I'm a cloud proponent because it means not having to sit through hours of meetings to deploy a $5/mo virtual machine. It also means some poor fuck at AWS gets woken up in the middle of the night instead of me when things go to shit. It absolutely comes at a cost, and might not be the right fit for an organisation that's absolutely on top of it's hardware requirements and can afford to divert resources from new development work. For the rest of us it saves a lot of dev hours that would have otherwise been spent in pointless meetings or debating the best implementation of whatever half-baked stack has oozed it's way out of the organisation in an attempt to replicate what's handed to you with a cloud solution.

re-thc 3y ago

> Maybe the next step of that process will be pushing their clients off of AWS and telling them to just host on prem. And then charging them to use AWS anywhere and outpost!

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]