Live data from Hacker News

My startup is Microsoft-based, here's why

jitbit.com

111–120 of 209 posts

Re: My startup is Microsoft-based, here's why

#111
post #91

I don't see what the anecdote about the other person has to do with your story. It seems like you're citing it to try to imply that Linux can be expensive, but that's not really a valid point based on that anecdote. Their software costs were $0/mo of that $3000/mo. Linux has nothing to do with whatever reasons they had for such expensive server costs. There is no question that whatever their server costs, they would…

Linux has nothing to do with whatever reasons they had for such expensive server costs. It might do. The point is that Node/Ruby etc aren't particularly efficient compared to C# and the CLR, so you need more Server power for a given application. For example StackOverflow ran from a single windows server in the early days, they didn't add a second one till Oct 2008 http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2008/10/adde-a-second-s…

A bad[1] workman is perfectly capable of being inefficient with any tool.

[1]this isn't passing comment on any of the people referenced in the original post

Re: My startup is Microsoft-based, here's why

#112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree, he could easily be using a JVM-based stack to get the same or better efficiency out of his 1-server configuration. Also there's some clearly naivety when bragging about his "low cost" $200/month setup. His SQL Server licenses alone will probably triple or quadruple his costs when his Bizspark status runs out.

>"I agree, he could easily be using a JVM-based stack" Maybe but believe it or not, there are people who HATE Java (that would includes me)

There's always Scala, clojure, groovy, etc.

Re: My startup is Microsoft-based, here's why

#115
post #4

How much of this is old-school admin practices vs. the new "cloud" philosophy of spinning up lots of boxes that you don't care about? I don't see a Microsoft vs. Open-source argument for alot of this stuff. Many of the devs I see working with "cool kids" tools don't know anything about operating IT environments, yet they are playing admin. They're spinning up dozens of single-purpose VMs, sometimes to perform trivial…

It's not just a cool cloud thing. Managing multiple services on a single host comes at its own price too. Trying to manage security separation, disk space, specific user access, projecting bandwidth / cpu / memory / disk usage in the future, figuring out which services cannot run on the same host for yet another set of reasons. Then you add HA for only one service and end up with host A with services X,Y,Z and host B…

It depends on the technology stack that you're using. If your apps are .Net/CLR-based, it's very possible to get the separation that you're looking for. On Unix this is done all of the time with JVM-based apps as well.

End of the day scaling horizontally or vertically requires real engineering and operational discipline. I am seeing much more sloppy horizontal scaling than I used to, because the marginal cost of a VM is so low.

The difference is, when scaling up everyone intuitively understood that many services on one OS instance introduced risk. When scaling out, I think people with weak ops backgrounds intuitively feel that the OS instances are giving them a security barrier. That's a dangerous assumption!

The simplicity of spinning a VM is obscuring the complexity of the system as a whole.

Re: My startup is Microsoft-based, here's why

#116
2 SP3's from OVH would be both cheaper (89*2) and have way, way more bang for the buck than a single weak amazon instance. (E3 1245v2 8 ht cores @ 3.4ghz , 2 x 120GB SSD in soft raid and 32gb memory) If you wanted to run windows on those, you'd need to buy two licenses pushing an extra 50$ a month onto the price. You also wouldn't need to screw around with spawned instances in failover, and you could actually use the capacity of both systems at the same time to massively increase your initial capacity before it becomes necessary to expand that investment again and get more steel.

None of your windows based software will scale well horizontally, especially at the storage layer compared to the competition, and if you're relying on bizspark for the price advantage, you should also mention it expires in 3 years and you then either have to go full in to microsoft licensing and massively increase your software spend, or drop your engineering investment in the past three years and go with something off the MS stack. It sure is a neat trap from microsoft's perspective, but it's a pretty shitty deal for anyone that actually looks at it economically and long term.

On the other hand, if you build your apps around a horizontally scalable storage solution (of which there are about fifty hojillion these days on open source stacks) you have near infinite ability to scale upward by just throwing more boxes at the problem. Visual Studio may be very pretty but for a nice IDE you drop a well behaved git, and everything that goes with it.

You also lock your software engineer options to people that are satisfied working on the MS stack, which whilst acknowledging that anecode is not data and all, in my experience means that you will get poor results.

If you look around and all you see is masses upon masses of startups pursuing fairly similar infrastructure strategies, you should probably think very hard about why everyone else thinks you're wrong before you're certain you're not.

From my perspective the equation looks like this;

Pros;

Visual studio.

MS CLR performs well against python / ruby / php.

In a single server environment, you can probably get away without any sysadmin expertise.

Cons;

Everyone has to use Windows.

Storage layer doesn't scale well horizontally.

Git not so great. (apparently this no longer applies and msysgit works perfectly well now)

CLR may perform well compared to interpreted languages, but not so great if you're willing to go a bit more esoteric or if you're happy with boring old java.

Application server scaling is largely the easiest part of any horizontal scaling stack at any rate, minimising the significance of your competition using even extremely slow interpreted languages.

Licensing fees are infinitely more than the (typically free) competition. When BizSpark expires, even moreso. And you bought yourself a nice solid vendor lockin by using their sandpit in the meantime.

You're stuck with microsoft monoculture and all the associated baggage that implies from a HR and strategy perspective.

Most of the stuff everyone else is using that you might want access to works either not at all or poorly on windows, meaning when you run up against the same problems as your competition, they'll have more ground on you from the get-go. (ansible, redis, practically every NoSQL db in existence, etc etc etc, pick a problem space you need to find a solution in and compare the MS CLR based options to "everything else" and MS rarely comes out on top unless it's dealing with MS proprietary formats or interfaces in some way)

Re: My startup is Microsoft-based, here's why

#117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Meanwhile millions of businesses are able to get it to work quite well. Ever use StackOverflow? NewEgg? Their server and tools revenue continues to increase by double digits. You think that's all media manipulation? Go search Dice for for the number of openings. Just because someone was not able use the right tool for the right job in your instance doesn't prove anything. One of my friends used Windows Server to stre…

Wow, great. Stackoverflow and Newegg. Amazon? Linux. Google? Linux. Apple? Linux. Large Hadron Collider? All. Linux. Using Microsoft server in a production environment? Gonna have a bad time. There's a reason most sane people don't use it in important places. I don't hate on Microsoft server products because its in fashion. Its because I like to sleep at night.

It would be more enlightening and people might agree with you if you told us what was going wrong to cause you such pain?

I have had many windows servers and often you can almost just forget about them entirely once they're setup, which takes all of like 2 hours even if you're using a whole new stack.

Re: My startup is Microsoft-based, here's why

#118
Just a few points:

1) If traffic is low enough, you can fit 100+ different apps on 8GB of RAM, regardless of tech.

2) Hourly backups are better than nothing, but not good enough if you want to make claims of durability and/or high availability.

3) BizSpark is more or less a loophole (they don't always accept), and when they do, you have to hope you go out of business w/in 5 years or never make more than $1M in revenue, or you're out.

4) Snarky comments about what the "cool kids" are doing hardly (in)validates anything.

5) If you enjoy the Microsoft stack and it works for you, then awesome. We're developers and should enjoy what we work on day in and day out.

6) My current projects have me bouncing back and forth between Node.js and .NET on a daily basis. Aside from getting an order of magnitude more enjoyment from developing w/ node, I'll also add that our node servers (plural) have been running for ~2 years for a total cost that isn't even approaching the cost of my Visual Studio license. If that makes me a "cool kid", then I'll rock that sag all the way to the bank (if cool kids are still sagging, that is).

Re: My startup is Microsoft-based, here's why

#119
His point is, it's dirt cheap to do any solution, and all that matters to the customer is customer value, assuming you are on a platform that can deliver on the "ilitys" (maintainab-, reliab-, supportab-, etc.), which Microsoft can.

The thing he doesn't point out is how much cheaper it would be if he dumped the VM and went with Windows Azure Cloud Services.

Re: My startup is Microsoft-based, here's why

#120

I totally understand the "I like C#" argument - that's a personal taste, and we all have personal tastes when it comes to languages. What I don't understand is the "we can run it on one server, so Microsoft is better". The same sites could very easily be run on open source software on the same hardware or even less. I've never heard anyone, not even Microsoft, claim that Microsoft server software requires less RAM an…

Yeah, not to mention I am sure he could run C#Mono/MySQL/Linux on one server as well...
Post reply on HN