3 ms·
What I just read is that for the cost of a single 16TB hard drive, they were able to rent a hard drive for 7 hours to stream 16TB, and they still had to devote
by hansvm 2y ago
What I just read is that for the cost of a single 16TB hard drive, they were able to rent a hard drive for 7 hours to stream 16TB, and they still had to devote meaningful engineering resources to avoid the cost overrun.
Does anybody here have a success story where AWS was either much cheaper to operate or to develop for (ideally both) than the normal alternatives?
- lionkor 2y agoYeah, I'm confused, too - a $60 server with any decent web server on it should be happy chugging along at 5-15k req/s, right?
- hansvm 2y agoIn general, yes. My rule of thumb for a basic web server is 100k QPS per physical core on cheap hardware, slowing down if it's doing anything intensive (depending on the nature of the images being requested and how the requests are distributed relative to the disks' layouts, they could have been pegged at the disks' throughput for example), speeding up if you have a particularly light workload or better hardware.
- jeffhuys 2y agoThey don't use AWS, by the way. This was GCP.
- hansvm 2y agoOops, missed that. The question still stands, but read "AWS" as "AWS or a similar service."