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

Rubygems.org AWS bill for Feb 2014 [pdf]

dropbox.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 153 posts

Re: Rubygems.org AWS bill for Feb 2014 [pdf]

#71

Post by ksec »

evanphx wrote: post #48
TylerE wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How much does that really matter? Even going to the otherside of the world is only 200ms or so, and the time taken to run rubygems is hardly a factor in just about any workflow I can imagine. Think of it another way - what would be more valuble - RubyGems hosted on CDN, or RubyGems on DO and give a couple of grants for talent hackers to work on their gems fulltime for a few months. (ala GSoC) Even if you ARE concerne…

Person who pays the bill here. Latency does matter and we're paying an additional $1.5k new in Feb to improve european latency. RubyCentral can afford to spend the money to improve latency issues, so we do!

Really, why would that be the case? I mean the difference in Latency.

A self set up Linode CDN with all six location Tokyo, JP London, UK Newark, NJ Atlanta, GA Dallas, TX Fremont, CA

Would have provided 48TB of Pooled bandwidth at a very decent speed and cost around $480. Linode's Network are great, much better then DO. I am not sure if it match CloudFront, which isn't exactly the fastest CDN anyway.

Re: Rubygems.org AWS bill for Feb 2014 [pdf]

#73

Post by toomuchtodo »

ilaksh wrote: post #64
ghshephard wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've worked for one of their (direct) large competitors, but haven't worked for those three companies. I've currently got active accounts with all three of those VPS providers - I love them, and use them every day - particularly Linode, but also Slicehost/Rackspace, and DigitalOcean. I even have a bare metal server at ServerBeach - which I realize I need to shut down... At this exact instant I have six terminal windo…

But they are just using Amazon's Cloudfront. They aren't using SQS or anything. What technology risk is there in setting up Varnish and nginx on Digital Ocean? Or better yet some kind of out-of-the-box open source CDN. You would save a lot more than $2-3k.

There is no such thing as an open source CDN; there is a free CDN called Coral Cache (http://www.coralcdn.org/). CDNs cost money because you're dragging content from an origin to edge locations all across the world, and keeping it hot for client requests.

You could simply serve the content out of nginx, but you wouldn't see the performance benefits of keeping your content closest to the end user.

Re: Rubygems.org AWS bill for Feb 2014 [pdf]

#74

Post by nknighthb »

stickydink wrote: post #49
jcampbell1 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This bill is 2/3 bandwidth, and 1/3 compute. Some games require massive amounts of compute, but the bandwidth to deliver the assets is generally paid by Apple. I can guarantee you, your company is paying a metric fuck-ton more. It is called Apple's 30% cut. Your company is paying AWS $200k to pass json messages around for analytics and social aspects of the game. You are paying Apple something like $1 million per wee…

We aren't paying that much in cut just yet. We're a small team (6 engineers in total). You don't have to be pulling in millions per week to get high on the grossing charts. We're probably around 1/4 of what you estimated. Though you mention delivering the assets. Actually (like a lot of games) we make a big effort in getting under 50MB over-the-air limit on the App Store. The total content for retina iPhone is ~300MB…

Have somebody spend a day or two looking for low-hanging performance fruit. Start with your JSON library, there are some slow ones out there. Also see if you might be unnecessarily de/serializing data structures multiple times in a single thread or process, I've seen that kind of thing creep up over time in reasonably modular codebases.

Re: Rubygems.org AWS bill for Feb 2014 [pdf]

#75

Post by SeoxyS »

While by no means insignificant, this bill is no where near what I'd imagine would warrant a HN post. I wouldn't be surprised if most startups beat this regularly.

The startup whose backend I co-created racks up an AWS bill that hovers around a half million dollars a month. We make use of all of the ways to save with Amazon: pre-paid reserved instances, negotiated deals, etc. And we're not even that big; imagine what Netflix's AWS bill must cost?

We've tried other providers, toyed with co-locating, but at the end of the day the flexibility and cost benefit of IaaS outweighed the lower base price of CPU cycles when you roll it yourself.

Re: Rubygems.org AWS bill for Feb 2014 [pdf]

#76

Post by evanphx »

teeparham wrote: post #63
evanphx wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A very good question. I'll see about crunching some of the logs to break it down by subnet.

Great. Whoever the major commercial users are have a financial incentive to keep the service performant. They should all at least be sponsors at some level if they're not already.

Here is a partial log, every /24 that had more than 10k hits in the last 24 hours: https://gist.github.com/evanphx/9361755

Re: Rubygems.org AWS bill for Feb 2014 [pdf]

#77

Post by koide »

evanphx wrote: post #59
briancurtin wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In the past, RubyGems was hosted on dedicated hardware within Rackspace. While this was certainly cheaper, it created administrative issues. Granted those can be solved without using AWS, but we get back to again desiring to have as low of friction on the administration as possible. If Rackspace can be of assistance in the future, feel free to reach out (brian.curtin@rackspace.com). We currently donate hosting to m…

Thanks! I'll bring it up with the team.

Note that if you can get Rackspace or whomever to donate the hardware/bandwidth, you can use less than 7k/month to hire a very competent admin to solve the administrative issues, which would probably lead to better service for everybody.

Re: Rubygems.org AWS bill for Feb 2014 [pdf]

#78

Post by driverdan »

ksec wrote: post #71
evanphx wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Person who pays the bill here. Latency does matter and we're paying an additional $1.5k new in Feb to improve european latency. RubyCentral can afford to spend the money to improve latency issues, so we do!

Really, why would that be the case? I mean the difference in Latency. A self set up Linode CDN with all six location Tokyo, JP London, UK Newark, NJ Atlanta, GA Dallas, TX Fremont, CA Would have provided 48TB of Pooled bandwidth at a very decent speed and cost around $480. Linode's Network are great, much better then DO. I am not sure if it match CloudFront, which isn't exactly the fastest CDN anyway.

Having volunteers spend countless hours to setup and maintain their own CDN is a preposterous idea.

Re: Rubygems.org AWS bill for Feb 2014 [pdf]

#79

Post by sitkack »

evanphx wrote: post #69
knyt wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it's just the sync delay, you could track each mirror's last-updated time and only direct users to a mirror that had synchronized with the master since the package in question was released. Otherwise, serve the content from AWS. Though I'm sure this couldn't beat the service that Fastly's donating.

The caching mirror configuration achieves nearly the same thing. In the past, people have wanted to run their own mirrors that we directed people to, but that's got reliability and security issues.

Mirrors shouldn't be a security concern, the signatures of packages should come from "headquarters", same goes for reliability, clients should be able to, and SHOULD pull from multiple sites simultaneously.

Re: Rubygems.org AWS bill for Feb 2014 [pdf]

#80

Post by [deleted] »

dwwoelfel wrote: post #66
teeparham wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you know who are the biggest consumers of bandwidth? I would guess the CI servers (Travis, Circle)

I think that bandwidth consumed by Circle should be free, since we're also hosted in AWS. Maybe somebody who knows more about the details of Amazon's billing can confirm/deny.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN