3 ms·
As someone who started in this industry when full stack meant you did CSS and Apache configuration, I'm often surprised by the need for AWS for most startups. A
by ppeetteerr 2y ago
As someone who started in this industry when full stack meant you did CSS and Apache configuration, I'm often surprised by the need for AWS for most startups. A single machine can grow to two machines + a load balancer + a database instance. If you reach that point, then yes, explore AWS. Until then, is the cost really worth it?
- corytheboyd 2y agoAWS/GCP throws tons and tons of free credits at startups, I get why it happens. Especially when they can now say things like “we will throw in AI too!” when every startup is some AI wrapper thing.
- sshine 2y agoI worked for the biggest job site in my country. They get thousands of doom-scrollers every day, and their revenue was ~$55M last year. Admittedly, those numbers are peanuts compared to some global SaaS providers. But they managed to work for decades on two moderately beefy servers, and a database server, behind a load balancer. Heck, one server was always enough. The second one was there for redundancy, during releases and in case of emergency. Traffic peaked at 80% during nation-wide flow-tv commercials. As flow-tv is on the way out, the traffic has spread out a lot more. They used Perl, which isn't insanely fast, it was just well-made (enough caching, no N+1 queries, etc.). "That point" where auto-scaling is the obvious choice is pretty far out.
- orev 2y agoI think one of the biggest reasons is just because everyone else is using it, so you need to use it too to either be able to hire people, or so you can get hired at the next gig. Us on-prem regular server people are hard to find.