Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Cutting down AWS cost by $150k per year simply by shutting things off

tuananh.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 194 posts

Re: Cutting down AWS cost by $150k per year simply by shutting things off

#171

Post by robocat »

cduzz wrote: post #157
robocat wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> An engineer [] went to a credentialed school and passed a bunch of test and is allowed to sign documents that state "this thing, if built this way, won't collapse and kill people." Ahhh - that old craptacular definition. You completely ignore mechanical engineers, chemical engineers, electrical & electronics engineers. Not all engineers make bridges. Secondly, the implied cause and effect even within civil engineer…

> Ahhh - that old craptacular definition. You completely ignore mechanical engineers, chemical engineers, electrical & electronics engineers. Not all engineers make bridges. I suppose you've got an engineering degree in pedantic engineering? Engineers manage cost and risk. The skunk-works stuff is marginally "science" not "engineering" given the relatively large budgets and relative lack of "we know this works." Cern…

You are the one trying to push your definition of engineering.

I provided counter-examples that show engineering encompasses a lot more than your definition.

I simply don't understand why anyone thinks writing software is somehow uniquely not "real" engineering. Somehow we are indoctrinated to believe that it isn't but all the evidence seems to show software engineering is a valid description.

I have no lack of experience watching the fuck-ups made by electronics engineers, or the fuck-ups made by mechanical engineers. You appear to want to define engineering only as certified civil engineering. And I've seen enough of their fuck-ups too, with signatures. In fact I'll ask my bridge engineer friend from uni about it! Unfortunately my bridge building grandad is dead so I can't ask him.

Re: Cutting down AWS cost by $150k per year simply by shutting things off

#172

Post by cduzz »

robocat wrote: post #171
cduzz wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Ahhh - that old craptacular definition. You completely ignore mechanical engineers, chemical engineers, electrical & electronics engineers. Not all engineers make bridges. I suppose you've got an engineering degree in pedantic engineering? Engineers manage cost and risk. The skunk-works stuff is marginally "science" not "engineering" given the relatively large budgets and relative lack of "we know this works." Cern…

You are the one trying to push your definition of engineering. I provided counter-examples that show engineering encompasses a lot more than your definition. I simply don't understand why anyone thinks writing software is somehow uniquely not "real" engineering. Somehow we are indoctrinated to believe that it isn't but all the evidence seems to show software engineering is a valid description. I have no lack of exper…

The vast majority of people I encounter with some "engineering" title, in software (or the related "Architect") are in fact not trained as engineers or architects, in any field.

A site reliability "engineer" or a software "engineer" is not an actual engineer just because they've got that in their title or job description. If I were to hire a "chemical engineer" position and instead hired a chemist, or a mechanic, or a rando who's cooked meth, I may end up with things working okay, or I might end up with a serious mess, even if those people I hire call themselves "engineers" (but in fact have no formal training as such).

I'm not sure to what degree credentials matter, but do credentials matter more than "not a god damned bit" ?

I'm not saying the title makes you "not an idiot" -- people gonna people -- but attention to "cost" and "risk" is (theoretically) one of the distinguishing characteristics of engineering training vs ... "mather" or "programmer" or "philosopher".

Re: Cutting down AWS cost by $150k per year simply by shutting things off

#173

Post by QuinnyPig »

EvanAnderson wrote: post #20

I worked adjacent some telecom consultants in the 90s whose income was solely driven by a percentage of cost savings they could trim from telephone bills. Seemed like a very brash business model but they clearly knew there was gold to be mined. I keep thinking I should be doing "cloud optimization" work and being compensated this way. Slicing and dicing output from usage/billing APIs and providing an "optimized spend…

As someone who's been doing this for the better part of a decade: it's a mirage. No client is going to sign for a "percentage of savings" model when it comes to cloud. Believe you me, I've looked at this up, down, and sideways; neither the math nor the psychology work out the way you'd hope.

Re: Cutting down AWS cost by $150k per year simply by shutting things off

#174

Post by tehlike »

nvm0n2 wrote: post #168
bdcravens wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was looking at dedicated hardware. If I decide to stay in anyone's cloud, I'd stick with AWS.

There's alternative companies with similar offers, like Deft: https://deft.com/dedicated-servers/

I imagine one reason I didn't hear about them before is that they don't seem to offer self service. I absolutely don't want to talk to anyone when I am buying object storage, cloud vms, or even dedicated.

Re: Cutting down AWS cost by $150k per year simply by shutting things off

#176

Post by listenallyall »

schnebbau wrote: post #48
anuptalwalkar wrote: post #17

Couple of years ago I saved about 14 mn of revenue per year for my company. I got a 250$ bonus for it.

This is why you should start the conversation with "I have drawn up a plan to save the company $14M per year. I will execute this plan in exchange for $7M upon completion." If they say no then just go back to your regular duties.

Very few companies would make this deal at 0.7M, 0.07M, or even 0.007M. Direct sharing a % of savings with the responsible employee is simply not the way most companies work. Consultants, now, that's different...

Re: Cutting down AWS cost by $150k per year simply by shutting things off

#177

Post by robocat »

cduzz wrote: post #172
robocat wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are the one trying to push your definition of engineering. I provided counter-examples that show engineering encompasses a lot more than your definition. I simply don't understand why anyone thinks writing software is somehow uniquely not "real" engineering. Somehow we are indoctrinated to believe that it isn't but all the evidence seems to show software engineering is a valid description. I have no lack of exper…

The vast majority of people I encounter with some "engineering" title, in software (or the related "Architect") are in fact not trained as engineers or architects, in any field. A site reliability "engineer" or a software "engineer" is not an actual engineer just because they've got that in their title or job description. If I were to hire a "chemical engineer" position and instead hired a chemist, or a mechanic, or…

Yeah, the debasement of meaning is annoying - vice-president is one I hate. Another one that surprises me from the US is "licensed nail technician".

I have a bachelor of engineering title I can use with my name, but that is another distinct type of bullshit.

In New Zealand one relevant legal certification is CPEng which you can apply for after receiving your degree and working for a few years: https://www.engineeringnz.org/join-us/cpeng/ And apparently our government agreed in 2022 to introduce a new licensing regime for engineers doing safety-critical work.

But in an international world, how relevant are certified individuals? When I purchase a stove from a US brand and it catches fire, there needs to be other liability/retribution/corrective systems to deal with the problem. It matters little to me who signed off on the product in the US.

Can I import custom structural steel beams? How many New Zealanders have signed off on this steel construction: https://ccc.govt.nz/the-council/future-projects/major-facili... We need a new stadium because the last one broke. Unfortunately it wasn't insured due to some cockup at the city council (which I suspect had zero retribution on the people that cocked up - I wonder if they signed bits of paper?).

Over-credentialisation is a problem too - where is the right balance? The shift to everyone needing credentials is fucked. My friends (nurses, teachers) literally weep at the absolute trash they have to "learn" for their credential. I also vividly remember the crap I needed to disgorge to get my degree.

I don't know what the answer is, but I honestly believe most credentials are pointless waste and adding more credentials is not actually effective. Neither do I believe that that the anarchy of libertarian free markets are a workable answer.

Re: Cutting down AWS cost by $150k per year simply by shutting things off

#178

Post by kthejoker2 »

deepsun wrote: post #144
mullingitover wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If your company has a spending commitment with AWS in order to get a few percent savings, and it's just barely hitting the contracted amount, it may not be worth the effort to pursue any cost savings. Suppose your company has committed to hit 5M in spend, and they're just barely inching over the line at 5.01M. You might spend a bunch of time and labor expense knocking it down to 4M of usage and not really move the bo…

Yep, that's how AWS sales make money. Theoretically, your company could reduce their commitment to 4M next year, but the AWS sales would start negotiating hard against it, like "you will not get the same discount with less commitment".

Not only will you not get the discount you won't get the commit at all, AWS only reups commits with incremental growth. You can spend less; you just don't get commit pricing.

Re: Cutting down AWS cost by $150k per year simply by shutting things off

#179

Post by charlie0 »

listenallyall wrote: post #176
schnebbau wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is why you should start the conversation with "I have drawn up a plan to save the company $14M per year. I will execute this plan in exchange for $7M upon completion." If they say no then just go back to your regular duties.

Very few companies would make this deal at 0.7M, 0.07M, or even 0.007M. Direct sharing a % of savings with the responsible employee is simply not the way most companies work. Consultants, now, that's different...

For a slice of 7M, just quit and come back as consultant.

Re: Cutting down AWS cost by $150k per year simply by shutting things off

#180

Post by kthejoker2 »

When I joined my current company I quickly found our internal Azure environment was effectively unmanaged. Four weeks in I shaved nearly 55k in monthly spend just scripting out VM shutdowns and service pauses.

Cloud revenue in most large companies is at least 25$, maybe up to 40%, pure developer waste because nobody upstairs knows the difference.

Post reply on HN