7 ms·
They were paying on-demand ec2 prices and reserved instances alone would save them ~35%, savings plan even more which would apply to egress and storage costs to
by hipadev23 3y ago
They were paying on-demand ec2 prices and reserved instances alone would save them ~35%, savings plan even more which would apply to egress and storage costs too. Anyway, they're still saving a lot more (~55%), but it's not nearly as egregious of a difference.
- RhodesianHunter 3y agoRight. Now what's the developer man-hour cost of the move? Unless their product is pretty static and not seeing much development, they're probably in the negative.
- manvillej 3y agowhen we don't optimize for cloud and look at it from this angle and squint, it looks like we're saving money!
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- zer00eyz 3y agoIt's not a very good question: they still have aws compatibility as their fail over/backup (should be live but that's another matter...) What's capex vs opex now? Thats 150k of depreciable assets, probably ones that will be available for use long after all the current staff depart. Everyone forgets what WhatsApp did with few engineers and less hardware, there's probably more than enough room for them to grow, and they have space to increase capacity. The cloud has a place, but candidly so does a Datacenter and ownership.
- RhodesianHunter 3y ago> they still have aws compatibility as their fail over/backup Now you're maintaining two tiers. That's more work, not less.
- potatopatch 3y ago> Right. Now what's the developer man-hour cost of the move? I think the real question is what's the cost to buy an equal number of training hours so you can pretend your resources are that competent. Imagine a military that never fought, never did significant exercises and probably doesn't even have cleaning exercises any more on half its inventory.. That's basically how I view a company that had organic IT growth over a few years and hasn't done a major transition in anyone's recent memory.
- cypress66 3y agoGoing from AWS to something like hetzner would be most of the way there probably.
- hipadev23 3y agoHetzner in particular is a disaster waiting to happen, but yes I agree with the sentiment. OVH doesn't arbitrarily shut off your servers or close your account without warning.
- rgrieselhuber 3y agoWe’ve been on both Hetzner and OVH for years and have never had this happen. The move does cost money, once. Then the savings over years add up to a lot. We made this change more than 10 years ago and it was one of the best decisions we ever made.
- nonsens3 3y agoHetzner randomly shuts down one of my servers every 2-3 months.
- codenesium 3y agoNice of them to test your failover for you.
- rgrieselhuber 3y agoYeah you do have to have redundancy built in, but we don't get random shutdowns.
- razemio 3y agoI am sorry what? I have been with Hetzner over 10 years hosting multiple servers without issue. There has to my knowledge never been a shutdown without notice on bare metal servers and it does not happen often. Like once every 2 years.
- Karrot_Kream 3y agoAfter that 35% savings, they ended up saving about a US mid level engineer's salary, sans benefits. Hope the time needed for the migration was worth it.
- alberth 3y agoI'm sure they are also getting better performance as well. Not sure how to factor that $ into the equation.
- flkenosad 3y agoAlso, I'd imagine most companies can fill unused compute with long-running batch jobs so you're getting way more bang for your buck. It's really egregious what these clouds are charging.
- darkwater 3y agoTo get real savings with a complex enough project you will need one or more FTE salaries just to stay on top of AWS spending optimizations
- baz00 3y agoPlus... 2x FTEs to manage the AWS support tickets 3x FTE to understand the differences between the AWS bundled products and open source stuff which you can't get close enough to the config for so that you can actually use it as intended. 3x Security folk to work out how to manage the tangle of multiple accounts, networks, WAF and compliance overheads 3x FTEs to write HCL and YAML to support the cloud. 2x Solution architects to try and rebuild everything cloud native and get stuck in some technicality inside step functions for 9 months and achieve nothing. 1x extra manager to sit in meetings with AWS once a week and bitch about the crap support, the broken OSS bundled stuff and work out weird network issues. 1x cloud janitor to clean up all the dirt left around the cluster burning cash. --- Footnote: Was this to free us or enslave us?
- hotpotamus 3y ago
- throw555chip 3y agoBandwidth would need to be compared and considered between EC2 and what they were able to negotiate for bare metal co-location.
- bauruine 3y agoBandwidth is about 2 orders of magnitude less on non-cloud even without any negotiation or commitment. How much do you have to commit for e.g. Cloudfront to pay 2 orders of magnitude less than their list price of 0.02 per GB?
- ttt3ts 3y agoTo give you ballpark I colo metal servers at a few different data centers. A gig up is a few hundred dollars a month. Let's say you're really pushing the connection and your p95 is 900megabit up. That is $200 at colo vs ~$8200 for amazon.
- threeseed 3y agoAlso being an uptime site surprised they didn't use the m7g instance type. Would've saved another ~30% for minimal difference in performance. For me this doesn't look like a sensible move especially since with AWS EKS you have a managed, highly-available, multi-AZ control plane.
- hipadev23 3y agoI’d be so excited to run my company’s observability platform on a single self-managed rack.
- cj 3y ago> savings plan even more which would apply to egress and storage Wait, is this accurate? If so I need to sign our company up for a savings plan... now. We use RI's but I thought savings plan only applied to instance cost and not bandwidth (and definitely not S3)
- tommek4077 3y agoYou got it right. They do not include traffic or S3.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- ActorNightly 3y agoAlso, EKS (i.e a managed service) is also more expensive then renting EC2s and doing everything yourself, which is not that hard.
- pojzon 3y agoIs 150$ really that much when you are paying hundreds of thousends for nodes ?
- threeseed 3y agoEKS's control plane consists of decent EC2 instances, ELB, ENIs distributed across multiple availability zones. You're not saving anything doing it yourself. And you've just given yourself the massive inconvenience of running a HA Kubernetes control plane.
- aranelsurion 3y agoIf that's the case, probably just going for Spot machines would save them more than that move.
- ezekiel68 3y agoNow you've got to muck up your app with logic to detect spot-market termination, pausing, and recovery. It's turtles all the way down.
- mlrtime 3y agoNot really, just a sane ASG policy. Also, there are companies that manage spot price allocation for you, so you should essentially always pay spot+small_x% and never actually get terminated.
- belter 3y agoIts not clear if they could have used Spot for most of the workloads, then they would be looking at 70 to 80% price reduction over On-Demand. They dont clarify their requirements for RTO. Because they are now at a single data center...