5 ms·

sure they became a multi billion dollar business by not being cost effective

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
dijit 3y ago
They became a multi-billion dollar business by: A) Promising scale (and delivering to a certain extent) B) being significantly more convenient than contemporary solutions C) becoming trendy D) hoodwinking CxO’s into the belief that not owning your data is better for you, actually. (CapEx vs OpEx) E) unfathomable amounts of DevRel. Nobody has ever claimed AWS was cost effective, they have said that “it’s worth the cost” though.
- Aperocky 3y ago
  > cost effective > it’s worth the cost Sounds about the same.
  - otabdeveloper4 3y ago
    No, the second line is when somebody else is paying the bill. AWS is a boutique retail reseller for compute. It's okay for very tiny projects, or for vanity purposes.
  - dijit 3y ago
    I guess you could read it that way. The issue tends to be that people do not actually stay on top of their spend- they claim to need less headcount but then spend more than a few salaries worth on their cloud spend. They claim they do not need headcount but then spend the same headcount in infra people anyway, or finops people in the best case. people have lost touch with how much compute actually costs, because its little by little and claims to scale to zero or you only pay what you want. - yet every installation I’ve ever seen has had a base cost higher than the largest colo installation cost we would have needed times 2. Its not cost effective, because its on average 11x more expensive than a fully managed colocation installation. - your packets dont care that you spent 11x more on half the performance.
    - pnutjam 3y ago
      And all those cloud compute instances are probably strangled for io if there is any real load. Colocating your own equipment is going to give way better base performance. Compute is not just processor and memory, it's also dependent on network and disk i/o. Disk is often overlooked because modern disks are so fast, people don't even realize it's crippled in the cloud.
      - ndriscoll 3y ago
        It really is crippled to an absurd degree. A basic RDS install with a gp3 volume will get 3k IOPS and 0.125 GB/s transfer if your volume is under 400 GB, or 12k IOPS and 0.5 GB/s transfer if it's larger. The monthly per-GB storage cost for RDS is the same as the capital costs to buy the disks in a mirrored setup. Meanwhile, if you bought the disks, you'd get over 100x the IOPS and 10x the transfer. For a provisioned IOPS volume, you can get up to 256k IOPS (so still a fraction of a single drive) at a cost of $25600/month (plus per-GB storage costs). For that price, you could buy 8x of these: https://www.newegg.com/micron-30-72-tb-9400/p/N82E16820363150 https://www.newegg.com/micron-30-72-tb-9400/p/N82E1682036315... giving you 240 TB of raw SSD storage.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

They became a multi-billion dollar business by: A) Promising scale (and delivering to a certain extent) B) being significantly more convenient than contemporary solutions C) becoming trendy D) hoodwinking CxO’s into the belief that not owning your data is better for you, actually. (CapEx vs OpEx) E) unfathomable amounts of DevRel. Nobody has ever claimed AWS was cost effective, they have said that “it’s worth the cost” though.

Aperocky 3y ago
> cost effective > it’s worth the cost Sounds about the same.
- otabdeveloper4 3y ago
  No, the second line is when somebody else is paying the bill. AWS is a boutique retail reseller for compute. It's okay for very tiny projects, or for vanity purposes.
- dijit 3y ago
  I guess you could read it that way. The issue tends to be that people do not actually stay on top of their spend- they claim to need less headcount but then spend more than a few salaries worth on their cloud spend. They claim they do not need headcount but then spend the same headcount in infra people anyway, or finops people in the best case. people have lost touch with how much compute actually costs, because its little by little and claims to scale to zero or you only pay what you want. - yet every installation I’ve ever seen has had a base cost higher than the largest colo installation cost we would have needed times 2. Its not cost effective, because its on average 11x more expensive than a fully managed colocation installation. - your packets dont care that you spent 11x more on half the performance.
  - pnutjam 3y ago
    And all those cloud compute instances are probably strangled for io if there is any real load. Colocating your own equipment is going to give way better base performance. Compute is not just processor and memory, it's also dependent on network and disk i/o. Disk is often overlooked because modern disks are so fast, people don't even realize it's crippled in the cloud.
    - ndriscoll 3y ago
      It really is crippled to an absurd degree. A basic RDS install with a gp3 volume will get 3k IOPS and 0.125 GB/s transfer if your volume is under 400 GB, or 12k IOPS and 0.5 GB/s transfer if it's larger. The monthly per-GB storage cost for RDS is the same as the capital costs to buy the disks in a mirrored setup. Meanwhile, if you bought the disks, you'd get over 100x the IOPS and 10x the transfer. For a provisioned IOPS volume, you can get up to 256k IOPS (so still a fraction of a single drive) at a cost of $25600/month (plus per-GB storage costs). For that price, you could buy 8x of these: https://www.newegg.com/micron-30-72-tb-9400/p/N82E16820363150 https://www.newegg.com/micron-30-72-tb-9400/p/N82E1682036315... giving you 240 TB of raw SSD storage.