6 ms·

Given a significant number of companies are most cost effective than AWS/Azure/Google/Etc with relatively stable workloads, I think you are completely nuts. AW

Given a significant number of companies are most cost effective than AWS/Azure/Google/Etc with relatively stable workloads, I think you are completely nuts. AWS's calculator and the assumptions the threw into it pretty much proves they aren't cost effective except compared to other cloud providers. They basically 'made up' the self hosted numbers. At $DAY_JOB, our self-hosting costs at a colo facility are something like 33% the cost of using AWS.

valas 12y ago
Perhaps at current AWS prices your self-hosting is 3x cheaper. But thinking about fundamentals, a few years out, why do you think self-hosting will still be cheaper? What is it in self-hosting that economies of scale of AWS/GCE can't crush?
- opendais 12y ago
  1) They are dependent on Intel or AMD for the higher end processors. This is a $5 billion-per-factory industry. So that is one thing they can't easily replicate. http://www.informationweek.com/cloud/infrastructure-as-a-service/amazon-web-services-revenue-new-details/d/d-id/1112068 http://www.informationweek.com/cloud/infrastructure-as-a-ser...? They don't make that on AWS, in gross revenues. This is similarly true of most hardware inside a modern server. They can make small improvements but they can't magically take over the CPU market or any of the other core components in a 'big way'. 2) Creating all that in-house software automation is complicated, difficult, and expensive. This software isn't a requirement for in-house hosting. So they need to crush the margins of their supplies [power; bandwidth; hardware] to the point that they can get their own margin on top of that + cover the cost of a bunch of custom in-house software development. For a stable workload...that just isn't going to happen. AWS isn't going to cut their prices 33% after the largest price cut I've ever seen them make in April, let alone the 67% they'd need to. Sure, in 10 years, they might manage it. I don't see it happening faster than that.
- gaius 12y ago
  A cloud provider pays the same as you for real estate, electricity, x86 hardware, and engineering talent, The only advantage of scale is being able to oversell, e.g. running one customers workload during their peak hours and another customer on the same kit at theirs.
  - GFischer 12y ago
    Are you sure about your first sentence? real estate - don't they explicitly look for cheap real estate and tax breaks? electricity - cloud providers save a lot on electricity by choosing carefully their locations. Facebook built a datacenter in the Arctic, I don't see your average enterprise doing that. - x86 hardware. They're spending a lot less by having their own custom hardware - engineering talent. They should be saving by using local talent from elsewhere, not Silicon Valley or NYC wages. IBM does that. http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/the_efficient_planet/2012/11/data_center_efficiency_why_google_technicians_wear_shorts_and_t_shirts.html http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/the_efficient_plane... http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-10-03/facebooks-new-data-center-in-sweden-puts-the-heat-on-hardware-makers http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-10-03/facebooks-ne...
    - gaius 12y ago
      All companies offshore these days. Anything a cloud company can do, any large company can do.
AJ007 12y ago
I was discussing just this with my friend yesterday. AWS remains many multiples more expensive than managing their own hardware; additionally their main office's internet connection remains less than perfect (which is a whole other wildcard.) The question is, what happens when the cloud is cheaper than doing it yourself?
- ilaksh 12y ago
  The cloud already is cheaper. Just for some reason your belief system only recognizes AWS and ignores Digital Ocean, Linode, Rackspace, Joyent, and about a thousand other smaller companies.
  - opendais 12y ago
    Nope. Checkout online.net vs. any of those ;)
    - ilaksh 12y ago
      Looks like you have an API, but not sure if there is a way to create a new server with the API?
- opendais 12y ago
  Then people will switch, but the complexities of the software AWS, et al makes me think that it'll never beat bare metal for a relatively stable load.
- Spooky23 12y ago
  It saves money by eliminating expensive infrastructure engineers. Enterprise IT spends more money on PMs than tech.
  - emn13 12y ago
    However, running on the cloud also requires cloud-specific adaptation and engineering, it's not free. The cost comparison is usually skewed in the cloud's favor because people tend to compare "server-quality" local hardware with cheaper-than-basic-PC level hardware in the cloud. The real win here is that you don't need super fancy hardware to run fairly reliably. It's not just the hardware costs, it's that when you run "unusual" hardware, you're going to have to do more administration/training. Beyond that, the cloud's advantages are trickier. I think commoditization of computing - which is what the cloud is all about - is a valuable trend. But the benefits of specific clouds are often vastly oversold, suggesting that it's somehow magic pixie dust that avoids all sysadmin duties; or that it's the only or best way to limit those costs. Also, there's this idea that you really, really need multiple redundant servers for ever menial website out there, because that three-hour outage of your cats pics is going to be terrible. And that presumption makes the cloud more attractive, since presumably outages there simply mean you spin up a new instance (even though that is also not always so simple).
count 12y ago
Different orgs have different cost models, and AWS is most definitely NOT more expensive for lots of them. It's also not always about bare bottom possible price for 'colo' type hosting. There's a ton of value to bringing up capacity for a few days and then making it just go away, which many F500 and govt shops struggle with.
- opendais 12y ago
  Hence 'relatively stable loads'. I never said it was worthless, just for alot of cases it doesn't make sense.

valas 12y ago

Perhaps at current AWS prices your self-hosting is 3x cheaper. But thinking about fundamentals, a few years out, why do you think self-hosting will still be cheaper? What is it in self-hosting that economies of scale of AWS/GCE can't crush?

opendais 12y ago
1) They are dependent on Intel or AMD for the higher end processors. This is a $5 billion-per-factory industry. So that is one thing they can't easily replicate. http://www.informationweek.com/cloud/infrastructure-as-a-service/amazon-web-services-revenue-new-details/d/d-id/1112068 http://www.informationweek.com/cloud/infrastructure-as-a-ser...? They don't make that on AWS, in gross revenues. This is similarly true of most hardware inside a modern server. They can make small improvements but they can't magically take over the CPU market or any of the other core components in a 'big way'. 2) Creating all that in-house software automation is complicated, difficult, and expensive. This software isn't a requirement for in-house hosting. So they need to crush the margins of their supplies [power; bandwidth; hardware] to the point that they can get their own margin on top of that + cover the cost of a bunch of custom in-house software development. For a stable workload...that just isn't going to happen. AWS isn't going to cut their prices 33% after the largest price cut I've ever seen them make in April, let alone the 67% they'd need to. Sure, in 10 years, they might manage it. I don't see it happening faster than that.
gaius 12y ago
A cloud provider pays the same as you for real estate, electricity, x86 hardware, and engineering talent, The only advantage of scale is being able to oversell, e.g. running one customers workload during their peak hours and another customer on the same kit at theirs.
- GFischer 12y ago
  Are you sure about your first sentence? real estate - don't they explicitly look for cheap real estate and tax breaks? electricity - cloud providers save a lot on electricity by choosing carefully their locations. Facebook built a datacenter in the Arctic, I don't see your average enterprise doing that. - x86 hardware. They're spending a lot less by having their own custom hardware - engineering talent. They should be saving by using local talent from elsewhere, not Silicon Valley or NYC wages. IBM does that. http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/the_efficient_planet/2012/11/data_center_efficiency_why_google_technicians_wear_shorts_and_t_shirts.html http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/the_efficient_plane... http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-10-03/facebooks-new-data-center-in-sweden-puts-the-heat-on-hardware-makers http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-10-03/facebooks-ne...
  - gaius 12y ago
    All companies offshore these days. Anything a cloud company can do, any large company can do.

AJ007 12y ago

I was discussing just this with my friend yesterday. AWS remains many multiples more expensive than managing their own hardware; additionally their main office's internet connection remains less than perfect (which is a whole other wildcard.) The question is, what happens when the cloud is cheaper than doing it yourself?

ilaksh 12y ago
The cloud already is cheaper. Just for some reason your belief system only recognizes AWS and ignores Digital Ocean, Linode, Rackspace, Joyent, and about a thousand other smaller companies.
- opendais 12y ago
  Nope. Checkout online.net vs. any of those ;)
  - ilaksh 12y ago
    Looks like you have an API, but not sure if there is a way to create a new server with the API?
opendais 12y ago
Then people will switch, but the complexities of the software AWS, et al makes me think that it'll never beat bare metal for a relatively stable load.
Spooky23 12y ago
It saves money by eliminating expensive infrastructure engineers. Enterprise IT spends more money on PMs than tech.
- emn13 12y ago
  However, running on the cloud also requires cloud-specific adaptation and engineering, it's not free. The cost comparison is usually skewed in the cloud's favor because people tend to compare "server-quality" local hardware with cheaper-than-basic-PC level hardware in the cloud. The real win here is that you don't need super fancy hardware to run fairly reliably. It's not just the hardware costs, it's that when you run "unusual" hardware, you're going to have to do more administration/training. Beyond that, the cloud's advantages are trickier. I think commoditization of computing - which is what the cloud is all about - is a valuable trend. But the benefits of specific clouds are often vastly oversold, suggesting that it's somehow magic pixie dust that avoids all sysadmin duties; or that it's the only or best way to limit those costs. Also, there's this idea that you really, really need multiple redundant servers for ever menial website out there, because that three-hour outage of your cats pics is going to be terrible. And that presumption makes the cloud more attractive, since presumably outages there simply mean you spin up a new instance (even though that is also not always so simple).

count 12y ago

Different orgs have different cost models, and AWS is most definitely NOT more expensive for lots of them. It's also not always about bare bottom possible price for 'colo' type hosting. There's a ton of value to bringing up capacity for a few days and then making it just go away, which many F500 and govt shops struggle with.

opendais 12y ago
Hence 'relatively stable loads'. I never said it was worthless, just for alot of cases it doesn't make sense.