4 ms·
I'd love to see a post-mortem explaining how they possibly could have a $35k/mo AWS bill for a platform that only serviced 55k users.
by meritt 13y ago
I'd love to see a post-mortem explaining how they possibly could have a $35k/mo AWS bill for a platform that only serviced 55k users.
- phea 13y agoSeriously, they should have went with dedicated boxes on something like Softlayer comme Dropbox. Unlike CPU-cycles, storage needs are relatively predictable as people usually don't remove photos after uploading them.
- semerda 13y agoSoftlayer - yikes! Was with them once and never again. AWS is far more flexible and cheaper (based on my experience). Not to mention the full suite of services available under the 1 umbrella from AWS where Softlater just cannot compete.
- bowlofpetunias 13y agoGood question. I've seen a lot of people claiming AWS was the wrong choice from the start, but IMO at the stage Everpix was at, the flexibility of AWS would still have been a reasonable and viable choice. But $35k for only 55k users just doesn't add up in the absolute sense, AWS or not.
- spartango 13y agoWhile this would be interesting as a matter of engineering curiosity, Everpix's AWS bill was not close to the #1 hurdle between them and profitability. It seems like low hanging fruit, but you'd be optimizing away something small relative to, say, their employee costs or per user revenue.