391–400 of 657 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To make a fair comparison you need to consider the time cost for setting all of that other stuff up compared to having it out of the box. I'd an engineer on 100k takes a week to get it up and running then your vps cost 2k to set up and 40/month going forwards.
True, but setting things up on AWS isn’t free either.
>What we're talking about here is egress bandwidth for data being sent out of Microsoft's Azure infrastructure (priced at AU$0.014 per GB). AUD $0.014 is roughly USD $0.01. Which I thought was reasonable. But on [1] only "Data transfer between Availability Zones(Egress and Ingress)" cost $0.01. Do transferring from Azure to CF count as that? Other Internet egress (routed via Routing preference transit ISP network) st…
Cloudflare and Azure have a "Bandwidth Alliance" peering which - if you correctly set up your Azure resources to use "Internet Routing" - will result in a modest discount. It is a bit of a scam though as it is marketed as though you'll get 100% discount but in reality it is more like 15% off. I think GCP is 100% though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If an engineer needs that much time you have a serious technical debt for setup of your software or a inexperienced or inept engineer. Everyone does something for the first time once. Just because someone has not set up a hypervisor before doesn't mean they're inexperienced. > I can set up Proxmox VE as hyper visor, some container for each DBs, load balancer in front and some app in about an hour max from scratch,…
>Just because someone has not set up a hypervisor before doesn't mean they're inexperienced. Wait, what? If you never did something, then you're unexperienced, ain't you?
Experienced != Knows 100% of things.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The simple answer here is that Troy was using Cloudflare to offset costs he knew he would incur with Azure. He states verbatim: "Firstly, I always knew bandwidth on Azure was expensive and I should have been monitoring it better, particularly on the storage account serving the most data." ...and he didn't have simple monitors in place to alert him of uncommon billing spikes. I get your point, if he's not OK with usin…
There are no savings with cloud, weaving or not. You want to waste money? Hire a car, with a driver, when you need it. Want to save money. Learn to drive. You always pay more for outsourcing stuff, a lot more, than doing it yourself. You can buy 1000x the processing power, by buying baremetal. You can get 100,000x more bandwith for cost, when not using the cloud. People think baremetal is hard. It isn't. It does take…
This.
I always wonder how much of the "clouds" success (economic, that is) would have materialized, if the marketing term never got traction, and everyone just called it what it really is: "renting someone elses hardware without physical access, and less, if any, control over how the stack works from the metal up".
In the good 'ol days, when people wanted to put a service online, they rented the racks at a colo, and either stuffed their own hardware in or, worst case, used rented hardware.
Did that require some basic familiarity with hardware? Yes it did. Did people need to know how to setup, configure and administrate a LAMP stack? Sure. Was it guarded against sudden loadspikes by god-knows-how-many layers of abstraction? Nope.
But it worked, and surprise, in 99% of cases, it was perfectly fine if a website ran at sub-optimal speed for a few hours, or went down every now and then.
And the dirty little secret is: It still does, and it still is.
Ah the old cloud provider switcheroo. Yip this is the way they make money. They make it easy to setup some gigantic hugely scalable website then hit you with a gigantic scaled up bill. AWS would do this as well. Team I'm in at the moment is in the early stages of cloud adoption but the company in total has fell hook line and sinker for AWS. When I mentioned the cost there is always an excuse. The main one being that…
I can see both sides. If you're a startup that needs to be able to scale quickly if product market fit is achieved, the cloud really saves your bacon. Or is your ten person team really going to figure out how to get Postgres to reliably run with billions of records, with encrypted backups, etc? It's basically a form of permanent debt. Faster product market fit, higher long term infrastructure costs until you have eno…
Actually AWS won't help you here. I have literally been on a 2 day training course or aurora with AWS and the explanation of how to scale was actually just the same as any traditional non-cloud explanation. Correct usage of indexes, partitioning data, optimising queries (especially any non trivial query output by an ORM) and read replicas.
In terms of explosive growth if you're talking about something like google or tiktok again slapping it all in AWS will not automatically just work. There is a lot of engineering that you'll need to get to their level.
I also think you haven't really looked at the SO link I sent through with thoughtful engineering they have huge user base with a tiny footprint.
> DigitalOcean or anyone of a number good providers of good old VPSes / Cloud-lite
Not sure why you are dunking on DO here they are a fully fledged cloud provider with much the same stuff you would need. You can also run up a huge bill on DO as well.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The simple answer here is that Troy was using Cloudflare to offset costs he knew he would incur with Azure. He states verbatim: "Firstly, I always knew bandwidth on Azure was expensive and I should have been monitoring it better, particularly on the storage account serving the most data." ...and he didn't have simple monitors in place to alert him of uncommon billing spikes. I get your point, if he's not OK with usin…
There are no savings with cloud, weaving or not. You want to waste money? Hire a car, with a driver, when you need it. Want to save money. Learn to drive. You always pay more for outsourcing stuff, a lot more, than doing it yourself. You can buy 1000x the processing power, by buying baremetal. You can get 100,000x more bandwith for cost, when not using the cloud. People think baremetal is hard. It isn't. It does take…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are no savings with cloud, weaving or not. You want to waste money? Hire a car, with a driver, when you need it. Want to save money. Learn to drive. You always pay more for outsourcing stuff, a lot more, than doing it yourself. You can buy 1000x the processing power, by buying baremetal. You can get 100,000x more bandwith for cost, when not using the cloud. People think baremetal is hard. It isn't. It does take…
There are savings, but they require work to realize. Let's use your driving example (because car examples are always great!)... > You want to waste money? Hire a car, with a driver, when you need it. > Want to save money. Learn to drive. This is true. You can save more money if you need to drive often if you own a car. But there are two scenarios that it still makes sense to rent. 1) What if you need a car in a diffe…
Isn't that exactly how companies use the cloud? Sure, there are contrived examples where the cloud is cheaper than self hosting. But the common case is that companies "use the cloud" by putting 100% of their infrastructure and hosted products in the cloud. That's what is meant when you say "X uses the cloud".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In my experience you can only setup billing alerts, which are fair, if you ask me. I took a good course on pluralsight about AWS and the first lesson was to setup a billing alert. What will hard limits will do to your infra? You can't take down / suspend DBs, EC2s, etc... Just because you set a 1k USD limit and that's it. Alerts are the 1st thing you should setup IMHO
> You can't take down / suspend DBs, EC2s, etc... Just because you set a 1k USD limit and that's it. You (the cloud provider) can shut down VMs, block access to all services, and just retain the content in storage until the bill is resolved or the account is permanently closed. The cost would be trivial as storage is dirt cheap.
AFAIK Heroku shuts down your stuff if your Dynos are overspending :P
Can somebody explain to me why I wouldn't just rent a 40 EUR dedicated server from Hetzner with unlimited traffic and gigabit uplink? His 600GB/day is way less than what you get over a gigabit link within a day. Sure, sudden bursts would perhaps "throttle" at a gigabit, but according to his article that was only the cloudflare proxy anyhow, so no pain in having that take a few seconds longer. As far as I am concerned…
He is a Microsoft MVP. A title that is given for being a "community evangelist" of Microsoft. You wouldn't get that throwing it on a Heztner machine. Edit: Consider this article, and Geoff's statement about Azure credits. https://www.theregister.com/2021/04/21/microsoft_revokes_mvp...
Seriously, yeah, if he's an MVP, he'll be fine.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sounds like a pretty expensive privilege. How is using cloudflare okay in this then? Cloudflare is also not Azure
The simple answer here is that Troy was using Cloudflare to offset costs he knew he would incur with Azure. He states verbatim: "Firstly, I always knew bandwidth on Azure was expensive and I should have been monitoring it better, particularly on the storage account serving the most data." ...and he didn't have simple monitors in place to alert him of uncommon billing spikes. I get your point, if he's not OK with usin…
I haven't checked, but are the prices for Azure CDN relatively competitive with Cloudflare? I think you'd probably get similar savings going that route, and it would all be Azure.