4 ms·
It's something that was absolutely on the table for our planned 4th generation infrastructure. It was unlikely to us we could stay on AWS. We already had 400 mi
by swisspol 13y ago
It's something that was absolutely on the table for our planned 4th generation infrastructure. It was unlikely to us we could stay on AWS. We already had 400 millions full-res photos and running 80+ EC2 / RDS instances for 50,000 users. At our growth rate, we would have been close to a billion photos by end of year.
It's far from simple though: you need to find the people who can build such systems and also be able to afford the capex. And then there's the risks of running your own system and opportunity cost.
It's really unclear we would have been able to go this far in the first place without AWS.
- keithwarren 13y agoAny idea what the average storage take per user was?
- rhizome 13y agoNot to pile on, but a storage startup should have had a systems person among the 7 employees. I would do it in the first 10, but the only reason it wouldn't be in the first 5 is that I have the skills myself. It's really unclear we would have been able to go this far in the first place without AWS. You could have drastically cut your burn on that last $550K by hiring a sysadmin and bringing it all out of AWS (maybe keeping S3). This would have likely also involved retooling on the app side, but in the long run it would have given you more time for positioning/promotion/etc. All in all, 4th Gen is way late for this. P.S. Number of photos is basically irrelevant, were you actually using market-fit metrics for infrastructural decision support?