[deleted]
AWS is 10x slower than a dedicated server for the same price [video]
131–140 of 168 posts
Re: AWS is 10x slower than a dedicated server for the same price [video]
#132Earlier quoted context omitted.
What is the point you are trying to make? Are you saying that we would need to have someone on payroll to have a usable machine? Then why not just have... a SysAdmin? Shared instances is something even European "cloud" providers can do so why is EC2 so much more expensive and slower?
I'm saying that if you do want to compare two different platforms on performance, it should probably be done in consultation with someone who has worked with it before. To use an analogy it's like someone who's never driven a car, and really only read some basic articles about vehicles deciding to test the performance of two random vehicles. Maybe one of them does suck, and is overpriced - but you're not getting the…
Isn't the point of using AWS that it's never in 1st gear?...
Re: AWS is 10x slower than a dedicated server for the same price [video]
#133Earlier quoted context omitted.
For an older but more to the point comparison, see this: https://jan.rychter.com/enblog/cloud-server-cpu-performance-...
I'm pretty sure this was posted on HN a while ago, and that I read it then. It's good - makes it's point well.
2019, very pre-Graviton
Re: AWS is 10x slower than a dedicated server for the same price [video]
#134Earlier quoted context omitted.
This comment comes across as someone who is either trying to flog AWS to customers or someone who has to justify a job that depends on AWS.
Well, you're entitled to your opinion. For what it's worth - my day job does involve running a bunch of infrastructure on AWS. I know it's not good value, but that's the direction the organisation went long before I joined them. Previous companies I worked for had their infrastructure hosted with the likes of Rackspace, Softlayer, and others. Every now and then someone from management would come back from an AWS conf…
On the "value" question, it's worth considering why so many tech savvy firms with infra-as-code chops remain with GCP or AWS. It's unlikely, given how such firms work, they find no value in this.
FWIW, I firmly believe non "cloud native" platforms should be hosted using PXE-booted bare metal withing the physical network constructs that cloud provider software-defined-network abstractions are designed to emulate.
Re: AWS is 10x slower than a dedicated server for the same price [video]
#135This is exactly true, and is something we have built our business around. In fact, I just kicked-off a multi-TiB Postgres migration for one of our clients this morning. We're moving them out of Supabase and onto a bare-metal multi-AZ Postgresql cluster in Hetzner. I'm going to say what I always say here - for so many SME's the hyperscaler cloud provider has been the safe default choice. But as time goes on a few thin…
I've been trying to start a very similar thing around here (Spain) at first specializing a bit on backups and storage, still working very small as an independent contractor while I keep my daily job (at least for now, I'm testing the waters...).
I don't really totally miss the days where I had to configure multipath storage with barely documented systems ("No, we don't support Suse, Debian, whatever...", "No, you don't pay for the highest support level, you can't access the knowledge base..."), or integrate disparate systems that theoretically were using an open standard but was botched and modified by every vendor (For example DICOM. Nowadays the situation is way better.) or other nightmare situations. Although I miss accessing the lower layers.
But I've been working for years with my employers and clients cloud providers, and I've seen how the bills climb through the roof, and how easy is to make a million-dollar mistake, how difficult (and expensive) is to leave in some cases, and how the money and power is concentrated in a handful of companies, and I've decided that I should work on that situation. Although probably I'll earn less money, as the 'external contractor' situation is not that good in Spain as in some other countries, unless you're very specialized.
But thankfully, the situation is in some cases better than in the 00s: documentation is easier to get, hardware is cheaper to come by and experiment or even use it for business, WAN connections are way cheaper...
Re: AWS is 10x slower than a dedicated server for the same price [video]
#136Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is statistically far more likely that your cloud service will go down for hours or days, and you will have no recourse and will just have to wait till AWS manage to resolve it.
I suspect that this is really about liability. When AWS goes down you can just throw up your hands, everyone's in the same boat. If your own server goes down you worry that your customers doubt your competence. It's actually kinda frustrating - as an industry we're accepting worse outcomes due to misperceptions. That's how the free market goes sometimes.
Nobody gets fired for hiring IBM. This is the new version, when you go down because AWS did its someone else’s fault. Of course AWS will compare their downtime to industry standards for on premise and conclude they are down less often. On Premise engineers can say until they are blue that their downtime is on a Sunday at 3 am because it doesn't impact their customers it doesn't seem to matter.
Re: AWS is 10x slower than a dedicated server for the same price [video]
#137Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because people aren't going on AWS for EC2, they go on it to have access to RDS, S3, EKS, ELB, SNS, Cognito, etc. Large enough customers also don't pay list price for AWS.
A lot of people do use AWS for EC2. Of the services you list, S3 is OK. I would rather admin an RDBMS than use RDS at small scale > Large enough customers also don't pay list price for AWS. At that scale the cost savings on not hiring sysadmins becomes much smaller, so what is the case for using AWS? The absolute cost savings will be huge.
The last 18 years of tech companies I’ve worked for used AWS EC2, every single one.
Re: AWS is 10x slower than a dedicated server for the same price [video]
#138I'm struggling to find a way to express my opinion about this video without seeming like a complete ass. If the author's point was to make a low effort "ha ha AWS sucks" video, well sure: success, I guess. Nobody outside of AWS sales is going to say AWS is cheaper. But comparing the lowest end instances, and apparently, using ECS without seeming to understand how they're configuring or using it just makes their point…
A better presentation would be to have someone make the best performance/price on AWS EC2, then someone else make the best performance/price on Hetzner and compare.
I myself used EC2 instances with locally attached NVMe drives with (mdadm) RAID-0 on BTRFS that was quite fast. It was for a CI/CD pipeline so only the config and the most recent build data needed to be kept. Either BTRFS or the CI/CD database (PostgreSQL I think) would eventually get corrupted and I'd run a rebuild script a few times a year.
Re: AWS is 10x slower than a dedicated server for the same price [video]
#139Re: AWS is 10x slower than a dedicated server for the same price [video]
#140I'm struggling to find a way to express my opinion about this video without seeming like a complete ass. If the author's point was to make a low effort "ha ha AWS sucks" video, well sure: success, I guess. Nobody outside of AWS sales is going to say AWS is cheaper. But comparing the lowest end instances, and apparently, using ECS without seeming to understand how they're configuring or using it just makes their point…
For an older but more to the point comparison, see this: https://jan.rychter.com/enblog/cloud-server-cpu-performance-...
Great link. I find my instances are more sensitive to RAM pricing than CPU performance as my needs are generally more IO-bound than CPU.