171–180 of 252 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So where is your friend's data in? s3? ebs? I'm curious what is the cost to transfer data from s3/ec2 to Lightsail.
Mostly in S3 but S3/EC2 to lightsail is free within the same region :)
Spending points but this joke has to be said
Difference between wife and a prostitute ?
You know up front how much it costs to get rid of the prostitute.
:)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Disclaimer: I worked on an AWS service team. This is, oddly enough, similar to a debate people have about consumers TV or Internet: should pricing be "unlimited" or "a la carte"? AWS is combining all your networking charges into one lump "outgoing data transfer" fee. So it's heavily marked up in comparison to what they're paying for the outgoing data transfer, and you're not sure how much is profit vs. whether it's g…
I get your point, but then why does AWS charge for inter-az traffic? That seems like an "egress but not really" kinda thing. If AWS/GCP stopped charging for this, customers would be incentivized to build HA systems and distribute their workloads across AZ's, which are a win for both customers and you (since capacity is now spread instead of stuck in a zone).
And I think the charges for inter-AZ transfer are to incentivize customers to do that.
Of course, to make them fully independent, you have to replicate everything, so you wind up buying several redundant copies of your system...
Is there a plausible explanation why egress fees from cloud providers costs around $0.1/GB? "Traditional" server providers such as Hetzner are able to offer bandwidth at orders of magnitude lower price (eg. $1.1/TB). I understand that cloud providers may have better interconnects or better uptimes, but that doesn't justify the magnitudes higher pricing.
Disclaimer: I worked on an AWS service team. This is, oddly enough, similar to a debate people have about consumers TV or Internet: should pricing be "unlimited" or "a la carte"? AWS is combining all your networking charges into one lump "outgoing data transfer" fee. So it's heavily marked up in comparison to what they're paying for the outgoing data transfer, and you're not sure how much is profit vs. whether it's g…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It does have advantages, but it's not always worth the difference of "several cents per GB" versus "fractions of a cent per GB".
Walmart is generally cheaper than a steak restaurant. YMMV, and they both have their uses. Its worth going to both.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It does have advantages, but it's not always worth the difference of "several cents per GB" versus "fractions of a cent per GB".
Walmart is generally cheaper than a steak restaurant. YMMV, and they both have their uses. Its worth going to both.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who cares if you can saturate it? Breakeven is 18 terabytes/month, or 0.6% utilization on that line. You could do this even just pegging the line 9 minutes per day and otherwise leaving it unused. ;)
+1 for this. People forget just how affordable it can be to maintain your own infrastructure. You can have the hardware and network capable of supporting 10X your average traffic loads and still have it operate far more cost effectively than the equivalent traffic on AWS. At my work, we slashed our overall hosting costs by moving a data warehouse off of AWS and on to our own self-maintained infrastructure. But with a…
It's generally a function of network cost versus infra cost, and so the 'equation' solves differently based on the longest tech cycles, from inception to maturity to skill pool to diminishing returns and then back again on some other mode — this really is a decade+ thing.
Some "always true" inherent advantages of one approach (e.g. availability for cloud, or resources for on-prems) would remain across cycles as permanent gains; disruption then occurs when some new approach (e.g. containerization) fundamentally upsets the order of costs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Disclaimer: I worked on an AWS service team. This is, oddly enough, similar to a debate people have about consumers TV or Internet: should pricing be "unlimited" or "a la carte"? AWS is combining all your networking charges into one lump "outgoing data transfer" fee. So it's heavily marked up in comparison to what they're paying for the outgoing data transfer, and you're not sure how much is profit vs. whether it's g…
> If there's a compelling case for doing it differently, someone should do it and see if it works. Cloudflare doesn't charge for bandwidth. I always throw cloudflare on top of anything I do, not because I really need a CDN or anything, but because the bandwidth cost would bankrupt me otherwise. The ceo of cloudflare gave the rationale on why they don't charge: > There’s a fixed cost of setting up those peering arrang…
They also do charge for Enterprise plans, but instead of transparent pricing I got high-pressure sales techniques and black box pricing offers - which then anchored our rate so that as we grow past our current contract, we're forced to upgrade at any point with pricing based solely on our original negotiation.
Frankly, while I save money using Cloudflare over Azure's CDN right now, it's left a very sour taste in my mouth and I'll be jumping their ship as soon as I have time to find a suitable alternative.
For a service I built on AWS lambda, the far majority of the cost was just data egress. Unfortunately I haven’t found a competitor that offers the same kind of features that I’m using lambda for (running golang with additional custom binaries)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
+1 for this. People forget just how affordable it can be to maintain your own infrastructure. You can have the hardware and network capable of supporting 10X your average traffic loads and still have it operate far more cost effectively than the equivalent traffic on AWS. At my work, we slashed our overall hosting costs by moving a data warehouse off of AWS and on to our own self-maintained infrastructure. But with a…
I hear more and more cases of businesses moving parts off of the cloud, back on-premises. I think, in a wider perspective, it's going to play back and forth. The 2010's were 'forth' towards the cloud, the 2020's might see a peak back on-prems, etc. It's generally a function of network cost versus infra cost, and so the 'equation' solves differently based on the longest tech cycles, from inception to maturity to skill…
It used to be OpEx was easy, CapEx was hard to get approved. As people took advantage and OpEx went through the roof people are getting alot more pushback on reducing OpEx.