4 ms·
The post is super light on details, it's hard to visualize if it's worth it or not. For examples: - How much data are they working with? What's the traffic sh
by didip 3y ago
The post is super light on details, it's hard to visualize if it's worth it or not.
For examples:
- How much data are they working with? What's the traffic shape? Using NFS makes me think that they don't have a lot of data.
- What happened when their customers accidentally sent too much events? Will they simply drop the payload? In bare-metal they lose the ability to auto-scale quickly.
- Are they using S3 or not, if they are, did they move that as well to their own Ceph cluster?
- What's the RDBMS setup? Are they running their own DB proxy that can handle live switch-over and seamless upgrade?
- What's the details on the bare metal setup? Is everything redundant? How quickly can they add several racks in one go? What's included as a service from their co-lo provider?
- oxfordmale 3y agoIt is not unlikely an AWS to GCP migration would have saved them significant money too, in the sense that they likely reviewed and right sizes different systems. I also would love to see a comparison done by a financial planning analyst to ensure no cost centres are missed. On prem is cheaper but only by 30 to 50%. That is the premium you pay for flexibility, which you can partly mitigate by purchasing reserved instance for multiple years.
- threeseed 3y ago> On prem is cheaper but only by 30 to 50% Depending on use case. If you have traffic which isn't consistent 24/7 then AWS Spot instances with Gravitron CPUs will be cheaper than on-premise. Because you have the ability to in real-time scale your infrastructure up/down.
- Thristle 3y agoIts 2 seperate issues: fluctuation in traffic is handled by auto scaling Saving money on stateless (or short start times) services is done with spots