3 ms·
How about the costs? Isn’t this a very expensive bandaid? How is it not a priority? :)
by gorkempacaci 2y ago
How about the costs? Isn’t this a very expensive bandaid? How is it not a priority? :)
- bratbag 2y agoDepends what else it's solving for. I've seen multiple issues solved like this after engineering teams have been cut to the bone. If the cost of maintaining enough engineers to keep systems stable for more than 24 hours, is more than the cost of doubling the container count, then this is what happens
- JSDevOps 2y agoThis. All the domain knowledge has left. This sounds like a Hacky work around at best which AWS will welcome you with open arms come invoice day.
- kenhwang 2y agoDepends on how long it takes for the incoming instances to initialize and outgoing instances to fully decommission. x = time it takes to switchover y = length of the cycles x/y = % increase in cost For us, it's 15 minutes / 120 minutes = 12.5% increase, which was deemed acceptable enough for a small service.
- toast0 2y agoShouldn't be too high cost if you only run 2x the instances for a short amount of time. A reasonable use of Cloud, IMHO, if you can't figure out a less disruptive bandaid.
- dochne 2y agoAWS charges instances in 1 hour increments - so you're paying 150% the EC2 costs if you're doing this every 2 hours
- kenhwang 2y agoAWS has been charging by the second since 2017: https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/aws/new-per-second-billing-for-ec2-instances-and-ebs-volumes/ https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/aws/new-per-second-billing-for-...
- mhawthorne 2y ago[dead]