>Should you roll your own servers? If you are not certain, the answer is most likely “no”. The staggering growth of AWS happened for a reason. Funny how for many decades companies and people were running their own servers. The hardware was getting cheaper each year. More software became available via open source. Then several ubecorporations entered the hosting/cloud business, and suddenly no one seems to be able to…
Rolling your own servers with Kubernetes
111–120 of 209 posts
Re: Rolling your own servers with Kubernetes
#112Earlier quoted context omitted.
The hardware isn’t the expensive part, it’s the people to run it that is.
Using publicly available costing data from last November, I see that an m4.xlarge RDS reserved instance of SQL Server Enterprise Edition with multi-AZ failover is $39,000 / year. If I have 4 DBAs at a cost of $150K / yr salary + benefits, that's the equivalent of around 15 smallish, managed SQL Server instances. My current SQL footprint is on the order of 600 instances, which works out to be a bit over $23M a year. I…
Edit: Your math seems off as well. Don't forget that you'd have to pay the SQL Server license regardless of where it's hosted, as well as the cost of dedicated hardware if you go that route, so the difference between the two options will be much smaller than $39k per instance. And I don't know if that salary number is real, but $150k including overhead seems really low for a good DBA (at least in the US)—I would expect at least $200k.
Re: Rolling your own servers with Kubernetes
#113Earlier quoted context omitted.
Counterpoint: These issues still exist, you just lose visibility into them by putting someone else in between. And usually, the someone else is big enough that you're not a priority.
with limited resource, you have to choose to balance between the stability or more control over your infra. IMO, small companies can't afford both, but also likely they would not need both at that size.
Maybe you simply haven't seen this kind of operation in action before?
Re: Rolling your own servers with Kubernetes
#114Earlier quoted context omitted.
Using publicly available costing data from last November, I see that an m4.xlarge RDS reserved instance of SQL Server Enterprise Edition with multi-AZ failover is $39,000 / year. If I have 4 DBAs at a cost of $150K / yr salary + benefits, that's the equivalent of around 15 smallish, managed SQL Server instances. My current SQL footprint is on the order of 600 instances, which works out to be a bit over $23M a year. I…
As your operation gets bigger, the scale generally starts to tip in favor of running your own hardware. But 600 SQL Server instances is fairly large—when that number is in the single digits, the cost of DBAs/DevOps dwarfs that of the hardware. So the scale of your business matters a lot, and it's not useful to generalize this to all companies. Edit: Your math seems off as well. Don't forget that you'd have to pay the…
Re: Rolling your own servers with Kubernetes
#115Earlier quoted context omitted.
It usually takes the form of "ugh then you have to hire dedicated people to manage it."
Which is a valid argument, isn't it? Engineers are expensive! Whether they're more expensive than AWS depends entirely on what you're doing, but the answer is almost always "yes" at a small enough scale.
Re: Rolling your own servers with Kubernetes
#116>Should you roll your own servers? If you are not certain, the answer is most likely “no”. The staggering growth of AWS happened for a reason. Funny how for many decades companies and people were running their own servers. The hardware was getting cheaper each year. More software became available via open source. Then several ubecorporations entered the hosting/cloud business, and suddenly no one seems to be able to…
Re: Rolling your own servers with Kubernetes
#117Earlier quoted context omitted.
Using publicly available costing data from last November, I see that an m4.xlarge RDS reserved instance of SQL Server Enterprise Edition with multi-AZ failover is $39,000 / year. If I have 4 DBAs at a cost of $150K / yr salary + benefits, that's the equivalent of around 15 smallish, managed SQL Server instances. My current SQL footprint is on the order of 600 instances, which works out to be a bit over $23M a year. I…
How much is the license for SQL enterprise nowadays? still 5k per node or does Microsoft charge per socket now?
Re: Rolling your own servers with Kubernetes
#118Earlier quoted context omitted.
The hardware isn’t the expensive part, it’s the people to run it that is.
Using publicly available costing data from last November, I see that an m4.xlarge RDS reserved instance of SQL Server Enterprise Edition with multi-AZ failover is $39,000 / year. If I have 4 DBAs at a cost of $150K / yr salary + benefits, that's the equivalent of around 15 smallish, managed SQL Server instances. My current SQL footprint is on the order of 600 instances, which works out to be a bit over $23M a year. I…
Re: Rolling your own servers with Kubernetes
#119Earlier quoted context omitted.
Using publicly available costing data from last November, I see that an m4.xlarge RDS reserved instance of SQL Server Enterprise Edition with multi-AZ failover is $39,000 / year. If I have 4 DBAs at a cost of $150K / yr salary + benefits, that's the equivalent of around 15 smallish, managed SQL Server instances. My current SQL footprint is on the order of 600 instances, which works out to be a bit over $23M a year. I…
As your operation gets bigger, the scale generally starts to tip in favor of running your own hardware. But 600 SQL Server instances is fairly large—when that number is in the single digits, the cost of DBAs/DevOps dwarfs that of the hardware. So the scale of your business matters a lot, and it's not useful to generalize this to all companies. Edit: Your math seems off as well. Don't forget that you'd have to pay the…
Re: Rolling your own servers with Kubernetes
#120Earlier quoted context omitted.
Using publicly available costing data from last November, I see that an m4.xlarge RDS reserved instance of SQL Server Enterprise Edition with multi-AZ failover is $39,000 / year. If I have 4 DBAs at a cost of $150K / yr salary + benefits, that's the equivalent of around 15 smallish, managed SQL Server instances. My current SQL footprint is on the order of 600 instances, which works out to be a bit over $23M a year. I…
Do you have multi-AZ failover now? And probably many of your 600 instances would be fine on a lower tier? On Azure (as an example) one gets 100 of the lowest managed SQL DB tier per 150K/year developer.