151–160 of 202 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is this a home connection ?
No, dedicated business fiber from sunrise.
I expect the latter
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Any egress heavy workload can quickly cost more on cloud than on prem. Especially if you’ve got consistent egress bandwidth that can be negotiated against.
If it's so heavy that you pay 8x the price of deployment and maintenance of physical servers then you're either very small in which case I'm surprised you don't need the flexibility, or you have many options to make a deal. Don't accept the listed prices.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If it's so heavy that you pay 8x the price of deployment and maintenance of physical servers then you're either very small in which case I'm surprised you don't need the flexibility, or you have many options to make a deal. Don't accept the listed prices.
Can I suggest that perhaps I have extensive experience with very large aws deployments and negotiations and stand by what I said.
If you said 2 times I'd think it's overestimated but okay, let's not dwell on details. 3x is bullshit and so is the rest.
Perhaps you're comparing apples and oranges - yes, it's possible to do a much less capable on-premise deployment that will obviously cost much less. But if we're comparing comparable - just the internet subscription you'd need in your DC to match the AWS offer in availability, connectivity and stability would make any egress costs pale in comparison. Saying this as someone who used to run a hosting company with 3000 servers before the clouds made it obsolete.
And lastly, yes - paying people to do stuff for you usually costs more than time and materials. If you fuck it up, it's up to you to fix it. If AWS fucks it up, you're compensated for it - part of the price are guarantees that are impossible to get with a DIY deployment. Maybe you don't need it, so choose accordingly - a cheaper hosting provider, or even the less capable on premise. But matching the cloud offer all by yourself is not going to be cheaper than the cloud unless you're on AWS scale.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
1) You may more than pay for that labor in cloud costs, but you can also pretty easily operate rented dedicated hardware with a 3-man team if they know how to do it, the tools to scale are there they're just different. 2) I don't know what your setup looks like, but renting a dedicated server off of Hetzner takes a few minutes, maybe hours at most. My personal opinion is that most workloads that have a load balancer…
Just to clarify, AWS lets you provision bare-metal too if your goal is to just rent hardware someone else is maintaining. And things like trivially distributing load and storage across multiple datacenters/regions is another big bonus for us.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Per google, more than 30,000 employees, so I'd say enterprise-scale, sure. One of the biggest? No, but not tiny or even medium-sized.
Insurance companies tend to have far more capital than their employee numbers would suggest. Particularly Geico, who are famously cheap.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can I suggest that perhaps I have extensive experience with very large aws deployments and negotiations and stand by what I said.
Sorry but this claim makes me seriously question your experience with this particular regard. I'm an AWS partner and this (negotiating better prices) is what we do every week for our clients. There is no way egress causes your costs to 8x compared to on-premise deployment, even if you pay the listed price, and definitely not if you pick up the phone and call the first partner in registry. If you said 2 times I'd thin…
Yeah, maybe "AWS partner" can give a discount but I bet it'd be 10% for most, or maybe 30% tops. This won't turn $7K into $36.
This is partially the result of cloud providers and partially business leadership. They, for whatever reason, insufficiently educated their clients on migration requirements. Lift & shift from on-premises to cloud only work for emergency. The shifted resources must be converted to cloud stack, or the cost will be multiples of on-prem costs. Business leadership was (is?) ignoring IT teams screaming of the problem with…
I keep reading ´ Lift and shift is bad ‘ on HN - what is the opposite of lift and shift ? ( ´cloud native ´ does not mean much to me). Is it that instead of oracle running on a rented vm you use whatever db your cloud provider is selling you, you move your monolith to a service oriented architecture running in k8s, etc ?
So you either adopt serverless patterns (the kind of serverless that means scale to zero and pay nothing when you do) or you adopt auto-scaling, where you shut down instances when traffic is lower, to minimize idle time. Or both.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
aws and other hyperscalers will keep growing, no doubt. Public cloud adoption is at around 20%. So the new companies that migrate into the cloud will keep the growth going. That doesn't deny the fact that some might be repatriating though. Especially ones that couldn't get the benefits out of the cloud.
One thing I've seen in every startup I've been in over the last decade is that cloud asset management is relatively poor. Now I'm not certain that enterprise is better or worse, but ultimately when I think back 10+ years ago resources were finite. With that limitation came self-imposed policing of utilization. Looking at cloud infrastructure today it is very easy for organizations to lose sight on production vs frivo…
Asset management is always poor, but thats half because control over assets ends up being wrestled away from folks by "DevOps" or "SREs" making K8S operators that just completely fuck up the process. The other half is because they also want "security controls" and ensure that all the devs can't see any billing information. How can I improve costs if I can't tell you the deltas between this month and last?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yep, Hetzner, OVH or even DO aren't even close to offering what AWS offers. Once you start exploring all the things they have to offer you understand why so many large companies use hyperscalers. Although to be fair, most hobbyists only need basic services like cloud servers/VMs, and hyperscalers like AWS are an awful deal compared to other options if you only need compute + storage + bandwidth. You don't need to use…
> Hetzner, OVH or even DO aren't even close to offering what AWS offers But I think the argument is - do they need to be? How much of the services of AWS (Google/azure/etc) are really needed by the majority of customers? For companies that need hyperscaling services, I get it. There are definite benefits to the cloud when operating at extremes (auto scaling up and down). But for the majority of workloads, I think you…
Some companies want the space to grow into it. At my job, we just started getting into video decoding. AWS has elastic video processing services. Where as DO would cost way more to setup those services on our own.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sorry but this claim makes me seriously question your experience with this particular regard. I'm an AWS partner and this (negotiating better prices) is what we do every week for our clients. There is no way egress causes your costs to 8x compared to on-premise deployment, even if you pay the listed price, and definitely not if you pick up the phone and call the first partner in registry. If you said 2 times I'd thin…
There are so many blogposts about AWS egress being crazy expensive. Here is one: https://www.vantage.sh/blog/cloudflare-r2-aws-s3-comparison . Their example "image hosting" has ~$7K for AWS, vs $36 on R2, mostly due to egress costs. Yeah, maybe "AWS partner" can give a discount but I bet it'd be 10% for most, or maybe 30% tops. This won't turn $7K into $36.
Cloudflare networking solution doesn't nearly match - and to be fair, they're not trying - what AWS offers. Cloudflare is a small, focused service; AWS is enterprise universal do everything and stay secure&compliant while doing it solution that has the entire Cloudflare offering included and it's not even a big part of AWS. Don't conflate the two - use whatever is better for your use case, budget/margin, risk profile, reliability requirements etc, but each has some and the price is justified.