Did anyone else think "Moz" was short for Mozilla?
At the first glance, yes, I then quickly realized it was about the SEO company. I think it has a lot to do with being a developer and using the css prefix -moz for mozilla based browsers.
Moz Dumps Amazon Web Services, Citing Expense and 'Lacking' Service
11–20 of 137 posts
Re: Moz Dumps Amazon Web Services, Citing Expense and 'Lacking' Service
#12Re: Moz Dumps Amazon Web Services, Citing Expense and 'Lacking' Service
#13Did anyone else think "Moz" was short for Mozilla?
I did at first, and I am a Mozilla engineer. Mozilla makes heavy use of AWS for running portions of our continuous integration system; the cost is significant:
http://oduinn.com/blog/2013/12/13/the-financial-cost-of-a-ch...
Re: Moz Dumps Amazon Web Services, Citing Expense and 'Lacking' Service
#14Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not I, but I'm part of their demographic -- http://d2v4zi8pl64nxt.cloudfront.net/2013-in-review/52e9b643...
Weird. I recognize only half the companies on that chart, and I'm not sure what Adobe or salesforce have to with marketing.
Adobe are huge in the enterprise analytics world. I would argue they are kind of shitty at it but they are huge all the same.
Re: Moz Dumps Amazon Web Services, Citing Expense and 'Lacking' Service
#15Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not I, but I'm part of their demographic -- http://d2v4zi8pl64nxt.cloudfront.net/2013-in-review/52e9b643...
Weird. I recognize only half the companies on that chart, and I'm not sure what Adobe or salesforce have to with marketing.
so you're telling us you don't know what content creation or CRM has to do with marketing?
Re: Moz Dumps Amazon Web Services, Citing Expense and 'Lacking' Service
#16My employer spends a small fortune with AWS, and we make use of many of the services. There's no way our small team could have built our product on any other platform.
Still, as my colleague observed, it must be the only business in the world you can spend $1m a year on and get only basic support, with web-only tickets that take hours or days to get a resolved.
Re: Moz Dumps Amazon Web Services, Citing Expense and 'Lacking' Service
#17Not surprised to see this, although I am surprised more companies aren't following suit. We abandoned AWS a year and a half ago and cut our server / infrastructure costs by 90% in the process.
Re: Moz Dumps Amazon Web Services, Citing Expense and 'Lacking' Service
#18Earlier quoted context omitted.
There may not have been a recent total outage of the kind that hits the news, but I would bet Moz are referring to degraded service (slow CPU/disk/network) that causes their application to fail (or their error rate to rise). I'm not very familiar with Moz, but it looks like they have an analytics product, which is probably particularly sensitive to slowdowns.
Sounds like they are more at a size that makes sense to have an on site setup vs. a cloud based one. The cloud market is maturing now and a hybrid private/public model I think is going to become more of the norm, for companies that are large enough that this makes sense. It is cheaper to run your own hardware when you are big enough, and then use AWS for failover / load spikes / cool tech, etc.
The scale where doing your own thing makes financial sense can be much lower than many think.
About two thousand dollars a month gets half a rack with a high-speed, highly-reliable connection in co-location. The lease payments on several extremely high performance, flash storage rack servers would be a couple thousand dollars a month. Throw on some shared nothing redundant virtualization, and you have the equivalent of an army of 4xmegaxlargemongos.
AWS has a place (such as being the redundant offsite backup for that scenario, or for extremely variable service requirements), but endlessly on here we see people disbelieving alternatives make sense.
Re: Moz Dumps Amazon Web Services, Citing Expense and 'Lacking' Service
#19Not surprised to see this, although I am surprised more companies aren't following suit. We abandoned AWS a year and a half ago and cut our server / infrastructure costs by 90% in the process.
Care to share more details? Which services were you using? Most everything reserved? Were you taking advantage of auto scaling / was your traffic very elastic? Do you have as much redundancy in your new host / do you have redundancy requirements?
Re: Moz Dumps Amazon Web Services, Citing Expense and 'Lacking' Service
#20I bet one of the leading factors is the number of sites blocking the AWS servers. As a scraping service, the fact that Amazon makes all their public IPs known ( https://forums.aws.amazon.com/ann.jspa?annID=1701 ) is really inconvenient for anyone "crawling" the web. Rackspace also makes their list available, albeit incomplete ( http://www.rackspace.com/knowledge_center/article/cloud-site... ). As more websites setup…
We've actually never crawled out of Amazon (mostly because it was expensive to do so), so the crawl blocking stuff is unrelated, at least for us. As Sarah noted, it's really been costs, service, and support issues.