Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then who is responsible to fix it?
AWS if it's AWS' fault.
You do realize that a server can "go down" for many other reasons than "the intern pulled the plug on it", right?
AWS is 10x slower than a dedicated server for the same price [video]
141–150 of 168 posts
Re: AWS is 10x slower than a dedicated server for the same price [video]
#142I'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…
When I was learning cloud computing I ran an ASP.Net forum software on Azure Cloud Service with Azure SQL backend. It cost me ~110 USD per month and was a total dog - slow as hell intermittently.
Moved it to AWS on a small instance running Server 2012 / IIS / SqlExpress and it ran like a champ for 10 USD a month. Did that for years. Only main thing I had to do was install Fail2Ban, because being on cloud IP space seemed to invite more attackers.
10 dollars a month is probably less than I paid in electricity to run my home server.
Re: AWS is 10x slower than a dedicated server for the same price [video]
#143Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a CTO of a number of small startups, I am still struggling to understand what exactly AWS and other cloud providers give you to justify the markup. And yes we’ve been heavy users of both AWS and Google Cloud for years, mainly because of the credits they initially provided, but also used VMs, dedicated servers and other services from Hetzner and OVH extensively. In my experience, in terms of availability and securi…
When your cheap dedicated server goes down and your admin is on holiday and you have hundreds of angry customers calling you, you'll get it. Or you need to restore your Postgres database and you find out that the backups didn't work. And finally you have a brilliant idea of hiring a second $150k/year dev ops admin so that at least one is always working and they can check each other's work. Suddenly, you're spending $…
You guys aren't relying on only RDS backups, right? Something off AWS, right?
Re: AWS is 10x slower than a dedicated server for the same price [video]
#144S3 is also 10x more expensive than this single consumer grade second hand hard drive I have. Managed NAT gateways are also 10000x more expensive than my router. This is a boring argument that has been done to death.
As a CTO of a number of small startups, I am still struggling to understand what exactly AWS and other cloud providers give you to justify the markup. And yes we’ve been heavy users of both AWS and Google Cloud for years, mainly because of the credits they initially provided, but also used VMs, dedicated servers and other services from Hetzner and OVH extensively. In my experience, in terms of availability and securi…
As a Staff+ Engineer -- Principal in a couple of weeks -- for me it's about "batteries included", support availability, and ability to hire.
Using a cloud platform means that while your needs are small, you're overpaying. Where it pays off is when you have a new requirement that needs to be met quickly.
I've done my share of managing database instances in the past. I can spin up a new RDS Postgres instance in much less time than I can configure one from scratch, though. Do we need a read replica? Multi-site failover? Do we need to connect it to Okta, or Formal, so we can stand up a process to provision access to specific databases, tables, or even columns? All of those things I can do significantly faster and more quickly on AWS than I can do it by hand.
What if a NoSQL database is the right solution for us? I have much less experience adminning those, so will either have to allocate a fair amount of my time to skill up or hire someone who already has those skills.
Need a scheduled task? Sure, I could set up a Jenkins server somewhere and we could use that... or we could just add an ECS scheduled task to our existing cluster.
Need an API endpoint to handle inbound Zoom events and forward them to an internal queue? Sure, I can set up a new VPC for that... that'll be a couple of days... or we whip up a Lambda, hook it up to API Gateway, and be up and running in a couple of hours.
AWS helps me do more in less time - and my time is a cost to the business. It's also extremely flexible, and will let us add things far more quickly than we otherwise could.
IMO, the correct comparison isn't "what would it cost to run this platform on Hetzner?" - it's "What would it cost to run it, plus what would cost to acquire the talent to build it, plus retain that talent to maintain it?"
AWS isn't competing with other infrastructure providers. They're competing with other providers and the salaries of the engineers you need to make them work.
Re: AWS is 10x slower than a dedicated server for the same price [video]
#145Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a CTO of a number of small startups, I am still struggling to understand what exactly AWS and other cloud providers give you to justify the markup. And yes we’ve been heavy users of both AWS and Google Cloud for years, mainly because of the credits they initially provided, but also used VMs, dedicated servers and other services from Hetzner and OVH extensively. In my experience, in terms of availability and securi…
When your cheap dedicated server goes down and your admin is on holiday and you have hundreds of angry customers calling you, you'll get it. Or you need to restore your Postgres database and you find out that the backups didn't work. And finally you have a brilliant idea of hiring a second $150k/year dev ops admin so that at least one is always working and they can check each other's work. Suddenly, you're spending $…
> And finally you have a brilliant idea of hiring a second $150k/year dev ops admin
The initial impression that we don't need to hire many people because AWS takes care of everthing, fades away pretty quick.
You still need to hire the same people, they just do the same things in a different way.
Re: AWS is 10x slower than a dedicated server for the same price [video]
#146Earlier quoted context omitted.
AWS counts as managed servers with constant security monitoring. That's a huge difference to paying for a dedicated server where you're responsible for the installation and maintenance of the operating system and all software, intrusion detection and thread responses, and server monitoring. I am a Hetzner customer for my forthcoming small company in order to keep running costs low, but it's not as if companies using…
> AWS counts as managed servers with constant security monitoring. That's a huge difference to paying for a dedicated server where you're responsible for the installation and maintenance of the operating system and all software, intrusion detection and thread responses, and server monitoring. This has absolutely nothing to do with "georedundancy" or "physical security" or "electricity".
[deleted]
Re: AWS is 10x slower than a dedicated server for the same price [video]
#147Earlier quoted context omitted.
AWS counts as managed servers with constant security monitoring. That's a huge difference to paying for a dedicated server where you're responsible for the installation and maintenance of the operating system and all software, intrusion detection and thread responses, and server monitoring. I am a Hetzner customer for my forthcoming small company in order to keep running costs low, but it's not as if companies using…
> AWS counts as managed servers with constant security monitoring. That's a huge difference to paying for a dedicated server where you're responsible for the installation and maintenance of the operating system and all software, intrusion detection and thread responses, and server monitoring. This has absolutely nothing to do with "georedundancy" or "physical security" or "electricity".
The point is that the comparison is rubbish because Amazon offers way more than Hetzner. If you compare apples with oranges, you get the result that they're different, and that's the gist of the video we're talking about. I'll spare you a car analogy since I'm sure you understand what I'm saying without one. Companies choose Amazon AWS because having peace of mind and contracting out liability is worth the price. It's not complicated and honestly not worth making a video about. That's all I have to say. Have a good day!
Re: AWS is 10x slower than a dedicated server for the same price [video]
#148Earlier 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.
In absolute numbers maybe it's a lot, but I doubt even 10% are EC2 only.
Even "only" ECS users often benefit from load balancing there. Other clouds sometimes have their own (Hetzner), but generally it's kind of a hard problem to do well, if you don't have a cloud service like Elastic IP's that you can use to handle fail over.
Generally everywhere I've worked has been pretty excited to have a lot more than just ecs managed for them. There's still a strong perception that other people managing services is a wonderful freedom. I'd love some day if the stance could shift some, if the everyday operator felt a little more secure doing some of their own platform engineering, if folks had faith in that. Having a solid secure day-2 stance starts with simple pieces but isnt simple, is quite hard, with inherent complexity: I'm excited by those many folks out there saddling up for open source platform engineering works (operators/controllers).
Re: AWS is 10x slower than a dedicated server for the same price [video]
#149Pricing in AWS is heavily dependent on whether you reserve the instance and for how long. In my experience, if you reserve a bare metal instance for 3 years (which is the biggest discount), it costs 2 times the price of buying it outright. I'm surprised to hear about the numbers from the video being way different, but then, it's a video, so I didn't watch it and can't tell if he did use the correct pricing.
You seem to insinuate that the correct pricing is using a 3 year commitment. That seems very much not logical to me considering the original promise of the cloud to be flexible, and to scale up and down on demand.
You're also getting pretty stale instances by the end of the 3 years.
At two difference companies, I've seen a big batch of committed instances finally go off contract, and we replaced them with more modern instances that improved performance significantly while not costing us anything more or even letting us shrink the pool, saving us money.
It's a pain, but auto scaling groups with a couple different spot instance types in it seems to be quasi necessary for getting an ok aws compute value.
Re: AWS is 10x slower than a dedicated server for the same price [video]
#150Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a CTO of a number of small startups, I am still struggling to understand what exactly AWS and other cloud providers give you to justify the markup. And yes we’ve been heavy users of both AWS and Google Cloud for years, mainly because of the credits they initially provided, but also used VMs, dedicated servers and other services from Hetzner and OVH extensively. In my experience, in terms of availability and securi…
When your cheap dedicated server goes down and your admin is on holiday and you have hundreds of angry customers calling you, you'll get it. Or you need to restore your Postgres database and you find out that the backups didn't work. And finally you have a brilliant idea of hiring a second $150k/year dev ops admin so that at least one is always working and they can check each other's work. Suddenly, you're spending $…
> And finally you have a brilliant idea of hiring a second $150k/year dev ops admin (...)
in my experience you always need a "Devops team" to operate all that cloud stuff; so to paraphrase - suddenly you're spending $400k on three devops to operate $500k cloud
I think The Promise behind the cloud was you just pay for the service and not worry about it, but in practice you need some team to maintain it