4 ms·

Sounds like they are more at a size that makes sense to have an on site setup vs. a cloud based one. The cloud market is maturing now and a hybrid private/publ

Sounds like they are more at a size that makes sense to have an on site setup vs. a cloud based one. The cloud market is maturing now and a hybrid private/public model I think is going to become more of the norm, for companies that are large enough that this makes sense. It is cheaper to run your own hardware when you are big enough, and then use AWS for failover / load spikes / cool tech, etc.

corresation 13y ago
The scale where doing your own thing makes financial sense can be much lower than many think. About two thousand dollars a month gets half a rack with a high-speed, highly-reliable connection in co-location. The lease payments on several extremely high performance, flash storage rack servers would be a couple thousand dollars a month. Throw on some shared nothing redundant virtualization, and you have the equivalent of an army of 4xmegaxlargemongos. AWS has a place (such as being the redundant offsite backup for that scenario, or for extremely variable service requirements), but endlessly on here we see people disbelieving alternatives make sense.
- AznHisoka 13y ago
  I own 15 OVH servers (32 GB RAM, 2 TB HD, quad-core), and the cost monthly is less than $1000. What can that buy more in Amazon? Maybe a huge instance? But I surely can't run thousands of distributed crawlers and store a distributed search index.
  - gtaylor 13y ago
    You can get some decent beef with the new C3 instances, but you have to pay a good chunk of the year upfront (called a reservation) to get the sane rates. If you do that, the prices are OK. But you don't come to AWS just for EC2 instances. You're there to combine their portfolio of services in various ways. Because of this, it'd probably be wrong to just compare $1000 on AWS vs what you are paying now.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

4 ms·

Sounds like they are more at a size that makes sense to have an on site setup vs. a cloud based one. The cloud market is maturing now and a hybrid private/publ

by res0nat0r 13y ago

corresation 13y ago
The scale where doing your own thing makes financial sense can be much lower than many think. About two thousand dollars a month gets half a rack with a high-speed, highly-reliable connection in co-location. The lease payments on several extremely high performance, flash storage rack servers would be a couple thousand dollars a month. Throw on some shared nothing redundant virtualization, and you have the equivalent of an army of 4xmegaxlargemongos. AWS has a place (such as being the redundant offsite backup for that scenario, or for extremely variable service requirements), but endlessly on here we see people disbelieving alternatives make sense.
- AznHisoka 13y ago
  I own 15 OVH servers (32 GB RAM, 2 TB HD, quad-core), and the cost monthly is less than $1000. What can that buy more in Amazon? Maybe a huge instance? But I surely can't run thousands of distributed crawlers and store a distributed search index.
  - gtaylor 13y ago
    You can get some decent beef with the new C3 instances, but you have to pay a good chunk of the year upfront (called a reservation) to get the sane rates. If you do that, the prices are OK. But you don't come to AWS just for EC2 instances. You're there to combine their portfolio of services in various ways. Because of this, it'd probably be wrong to just compare $1000 on AWS vs what you are paying now.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]