5 ms·

Yes. But that does not normally matter. Bandwidth has become ridiculously cheap either way; a terabyte sets you back a measly hundred bucks on amazon. And if yo

Yes. But that does not normally matter. Bandwidth has become ridiculously cheap either way; a terabyte sets you back a measly hundred bucks on amazon. And if you're pushing more than a few dozen of them then most of it is very likely going over a CDN (or a set of separate dedicated servers) anyways. That's not really a safe assumption. I work with several real-world, profitable sites whose monthly bandwidth usage range from 50Mbps to 2Gbps at 95th percentile, and they push enough custom content that CDNs are overly complex and still not priced competitively. Their respective business models would not be viable if they ran on Amazon. I just helped one of them acquire a pair of GigE uplinks, one of which they're paying $1,500/month for the other they're paying $3k/month for. Assuming they can see 800Mbps out of each link, that's $7 and $14/TB of xfe. This compared to Amazon's "measly $100" ..

moe 17y ago
Well, I'd call that a corner case - but I may stand corrected. 2Gbps is indeed a different ballpark. For most sites I have seen in that realm it would be ~90% static content (i.e. media). If your site truly needs to hit logic for each of these requests then yes, a distributed solution probably won't do there. Anyways, I didn't mean to say that EC2 is the be-all for everything. I just wanted to place a counterpoint against that all too common, lighthearted cost-bashing which too often is not backed up by figures that make sense the way yours do.
- dnsworks 17y ago
  I've been building infrastructure a long time, and for even longer, I've been fixing bad infrastructure. When I first consulted for a company using EC2, they were using it because they were just bad at planning & managing their infrastructure. Three years later it's pretty much the same story. These kids (I'm 30 now, I can totally pull off the crotchety old man thing) drink the cloud kool-aid and think "great, we don't need to think about our infrastructure". They slap together something that almost works, but is a management nightmare. It's no different from the startups I was consulting for in the '90s, except it's a lot quicker to use a brute-force scaling approach now. I like S3 for what I use it for: cheap tertiary archival for ~20TB worth of backups. Beyond that though, it's hard to find ways for the numbers to work for the pure cloud hosting sites. Especially for services that are more than just simple CRUD apps. None of the startups I'm currently incubating can do more than maybe some simplistic web hosting there, since they all involve "complex" infrastructure needs. (I double-quote complex, because in my world, BGP route optimization or IPv4 anycast is just a run of the mill daily problem).

moe 17y ago

Well, I'd call that a corner case - but I may stand corrected. 2Gbps is indeed a different ballpark. For most sites I have seen in that realm it would be ~90% static content (i.e. media). If your site truly needs to hit logic for each of these requests then yes, a distributed solution probably won't do there. Anyways, I didn't mean to say that EC2 is the be-all for everything. I just wanted to place a counterpoint against that all too common, lighthearted cost-bashing which too often is not backed up by figures that make sense the way yours do.

dnsworks 17y ago
I've been building infrastructure a long time, and for even longer, I've been fixing bad infrastructure. When I first consulted for a company using EC2, they were using it because they were just bad at planning & managing their infrastructure. Three years later it's pretty much the same story. These kids (I'm 30 now, I can totally pull off the crotchety old man thing) drink the cloud kool-aid and think "great, we don't need to think about our infrastructure". They slap together something that almost works, but is a management nightmare. It's no different from the startups I was consulting for in the '90s, except it's a lot quicker to use a brute-force scaling approach now. I like S3 for what I use it for: cheap tertiary archival for ~20TB worth of backups. Beyond that though, it's hard to find ways for the numbers to work for the pure cloud hosting sites. Especially for services that are more than just simple CRUD apps. None of the startups I'm currently incubating can do more than maybe some simplistic web hosting there, since they all involve "complex" infrastructure needs. (I double-quote complex, because in my world, BGP route optimization or IPv4 anycast is just a run of the mill daily problem).