3 ms·

Unless a company is doing a computationally expensive thing (like deep learning, or big data crunching etc) or the domain is commoditized/low value then the ope

Unless a company is doing a computationally expensive thing (like deep learning, or big data crunching etc) or the domain is commoditized/low value then the opex should be an inconsequential amount, and only at massive scale does it become worth optimizing (relative to the cost of engineer's time to do that optimization). Optimizing for runtime speed can be a product advantage though, but in my experiences are usually unimportant so long as it's not absurdly inefficient.

asveikau 3y ago
I don't think that has much bearing on my question of ranking server costs with other costs (which I don't know the answer to, I'm just saying it's a cost among all the others cited). Further, I think their app is pretty popular so it does require some of that optimized engineering on the server side.
- dwaltrip 3y ago
  Staffing costs >> server costs, generally, is my understanding.
  - asveikau 3y ago
    I'm not even implying the opposite, I'm merely saying it is a cost.
    - dwaltrip 3y ago
      >> Unless a company is doing a computationally expensive thing [...] then the opex should be an inconsequential amount > I don't think that has much bearing on my question of ranking server costs with other costs Take another look at the comment thread. It seems to me there is some sort of miscommunication or misunderstanding.
      - asveikau 3y ago
        Oh. I missed the word inconsequential. I don't think it's inconsequential at all once you have a substantial user base, especially since increasingly people tend to use resource hog frameworks and overpay for AWS and other cloud services.
        maerF0x0 3y ago
        in this case i use inconsequential to mean it's relatively small. It doesnt matter if you save $1M on $1B expenses. Even though, yeah, holy crap that's a million dollars! And generally it's a waste of limited resources to chase saving $1M in server costs when you can cut 1K head count and save $100M.

asveikau 3y ago

I don't think that has much bearing on my question of ranking server costs with other costs (which I don't know the answer to, I'm just saying it's a cost among all the others cited). Further, I think their app is pretty popular so it does require some of that optimized engineering on the server side.

dwaltrip 3y ago
Staffing costs >> server costs, generally, is my understanding.
- asveikau 3y ago
  I'm not even implying the opposite, I'm merely saying it is a cost.
  - dwaltrip 3y ago
    >> Unless a company is doing a computationally expensive thing [...] then the opex should be an inconsequential amount > I don't think that has much bearing on my question of ranking server costs with other costs Take another look at the comment thread. It seems to me there is some sort of miscommunication or misunderstanding.
    - asveikau 3y ago
      Oh. I missed the word inconsequential. I don't think it's inconsequential at all once you have a substantial user base, especially since increasingly people tend to use resource hog frameworks and overpay for AWS and other cloud services.
      - maerF0x0 3y ago
        in this case i use inconsequential to mean it's relatively small. It doesnt matter if you save $1M on $1B expenses. Even though, yeah, holy crap that's a million dollars! And generally it's a waste of limited resources to chase saving $1M in server costs when you can cut 1K head count and save $100M.