[deleted]
Rubygems.org AWS bill for Feb 2014 [pdf]
141–150 of 153 posts
Re: Rubygems.org AWS bill for Feb 2014 [pdf]
#142could easily knock multiple thousand bucks off of that by just reserving the ec2 servers you know you'll need, plus reserve the cloudfront bandwidth you know you'll need (for the amount of data served I believe you should be able to cut CF costs by at least half).
3 year heavy EC2 reservations pay for themselves in ~7 months, cloudfront reserved bandwidth is just a 12 month agreement so that costs nothing up front. You might want to experiment with some different instance types though, depending on your resource utilization. Personally I really like using the new c3.large instances for my web servers and anything else that needs more CPU than memory, proportionately. If the standard instances suit your needs better you still might want to move to the m3 class.
Aside from those two items it looks like you are sending out a considerable amount of stuff from EC2->internet (27 TB transfer out from US-East to internet). I'd recommend looking at whether you could set up a cloudfront distribution with your EC2 servers as its origin.
Re: Rubygems.org AWS bill for Feb 2014 [pdf]
#143WHY DOWNLOAD!!! WHY
Re: Rubygems.org AWS bill for Feb 2014 [pdf]
#144This seems reasonable to me? Why is this a newsworthy item?
Transparency is nice and the guy paying the bill answered questions for curious minds.
Re: Rubygems.org AWS bill for Feb 2014 [pdf]
#145Earlier quoted context omitted.
Whenever anybody makes this type of statement, I'm alway interested in knowing if they've ever run a site with this type of traffic, and this many customers. In particular, have you ever run a site that consistently serves over 25 Terabytes of traffic/month, or have you worked with someone who has? I guarantee you that no company I have worked for in the last 15 years, could have ever run this type of infrastructure…
My site serves 25 TB/mo, and it costs me $80/mo... $60/mo for a dedicated server, $20/mo for CloudFlare. The dedicated server only serves 1 TB of it, the other 24 TB is static assets cached and served directly by CloudFlare. Here's a screenshot of CloudFlare Analytics for the last 30 days: http://d.pr/i/6Z8S/5GU2Ni8t
Thanks - that's eye opening.
So, what this really comes down to (after a good nights sleep) - is what type of traffic/transactions are you running on your back end infrastructure.
If the data is static, then you can probably (these days) cut your costs for 25 Terabytes/month from $8K to $800 (or, in your extraordinary case, $80), simply by being a bit intelligent as to how you make use of VPS/CDN/CloudFlare Transfer allocations.
On the flip side, if much of the data you are transferring out is the result of dynamic back end transactions, queries, and generation, then it's unclear to me that you can (easily) recognize the savings that you might see when generating static content.
I'm interested in knowing if CloudFlare will start throttling/shutting down people who pay $20 and use 25 TBytes in the long term though - that alone, for some organizations, will cost them more than the extra $8K they would pay to AWS (who, have zero problem with you using 25TB, 250TB, 2.5PB, etc...)
Re: Rubygems.org AWS bill for Feb 2014 [pdf]
#146Earlier quoted context omitted.
CloudFront doesn't have many edge locations This is nonsense. They have more edge locations than most. I didn't try all comparators in the list, but out of half of them I tried, none had more than Cloudfront: http://www.cdnplanet.com/compare/cloudfront/maxcdn/ So if Cloudfront has 'not many', who has 'many', and how many is that?
MaxCDN is a very low-end "CDN". If you can buy your account from the website without talking to an account manager, and the plans are as low as $9/month, you should not expect a lot of performance, features, locations, etc.: what you should, however, expect is "cheap"... MaxCDN is appropriately cheap. To look at something more reasonable: CDNetworks is realistic competition; they are strong in Asia, and were the peop…
Well, like I said, I didn't check just one, but about half in the list - maxcdn was just in the link because you can't link that site to just one service. Akamai had nothing listed, and level3 and cdnetworks weren't in the ones I checked. From what I saw, they still have more than most.
I still think you're mischaracterising AWS as being a bit player - they have a decent presence with Cloudfront, it's just that there are a couple that are bigger. Like I originally said, 'more than most'. CDNetworks certainly does pound them in numbers, though.
Re: Rubygems.org AWS bill for Feb 2014 [pdf]
#147Earlier quoted context omitted.
My site serves 25 TB/mo, and it costs me $80/mo... $60/mo for a dedicated server, $20/mo for CloudFlare. The dedicated server only serves 1 TB of it, the other 24 TB is static assets cached and served directly by CloudFlare. Here's a screenshot of CloudFlare Analytics for the last 30 days: http://d.pr/i/6Z8S/5GU2Ni8t
Thanks - that's eye opening. So, what this really comes down to (after a good nights sleep) - is what type of traffic/transactions are you running on your back end infrastructure. If the data is static, then you can probably (these days) cut your costs for 25 Terabytes/month from $8K to $800 (or, in your extraordinary case, $80), simply by being a bit intelligent as to how you make use of VPS/CDN/CloudFlare Transfer…
Yeah, I'll admit that other CloudFlare customers are likely subsidizing the amount of bandwidth I'm using.
Funny thing - back when I was using 10 TB/mo, my site was hosted entirely on DreamHost's $9/mo shared hosting. I moved mostly because I was starting to get several hours a month of downtime - presumably, they were gently nudging me off their service.
I've seen plenty of $60-$100 dedicated servers come with unlimited-use 100Mbit connections, which work out to 16ish TB/mo before you start getting to 50% saturation. Of course, those are still subsidized in that that pricing is possible only because most people who buy it don't max out a 100Mbit connection.
Still, though, S3's 9-12¢/GB bandwidth pricing seems a bit high. Bandwidth at DigitalOcean (presumably unsubsidized) is 2¢/GB, which comes out to a much more manageable $500 for 25 TB.
With dynamic content, CloudFlare has Railgun, which takes advantage of the fact that dynamic content is usually mostly static. Still, though, if you have 25 TB of dynamic content, I presume bandwidth stops becoming the limiting factor in your cost of operation.
Re: Rubygems.org AWS bill for Feb 2014 [pdf]
#148Earlier quoted context omitted.
Need help with the VCL with Fastly? Drop me a line to my name minus ct @npmjs.com.
Thanks! I'll definitely keep you in mind as we're (finally) getting around to setting up correctly.
Same here: we host Maven Central with fastly and are willing to help out any way we can. @sonatype.com
Re: Rubygems.org AWS bill for Feb 2014 [pdf]
#149Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Very true on the signatures. Using multiple sites isn't necessary though, imho.
I could be wrong, but it seems like a nice hack to pull for say 3 mirrors at the same time at some offset into the resource using a range get for say, 16k each. The first one to complete does a pipelined request for another 16k slot and this process continues until the entire asset is downloaded. The fast mirrors would dominate, a small percentage of the bandwidth from slow mirrors would assist and truly slow mirrors would be ignored.
Re: Rubygems.org AWS bill for Feb 2014 [pdf]
#150Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Software maintenance and damage is nothing compared to real engineering. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cluster_(spacecraft) cost $370 million when an overflow caused a rocket to explode. I'd imagine there's some mission critical software running nuclear plants, aircraft, cars, etc.
I'll agree mission critical software exists. I however imagine there are far more engineering projects across the planets whose failure result in mass casualties than software. There is a reason actual engineers are legally liable for their work.
Yes there is. It is an older industry. One that existed when Common Law was being formed hundreds of years ago.