51–60 of 149 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wasn't aware they added the support. Well, maybe they can figure out GPUs too.
I'd be surprised if it'd be that much additional work, if the local SSD options are NVMe -- which is also PCI-e like GPU's.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you're concerned about cost, AWS is almost never the right place to host to begin with.
You miss the point. The lifetime of a web request, for example, can be measured in milliseconds. It is now possible, technically anyway, for operating systems to boot, service the request and disappear. There needs to be pricing models that reflect computing models like this.
This was already possible even with a 2 second boot time. The problem is that it's a stupid use case because (unless the OS boots up in <10ms) the latency of waiting for the bootup is intolerable in any use case where a 2 second boot time was intolerable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They would legitimately lose a lot of money if they did this now (and I would argue, wouldn't make up for it in market share). Most companies I work with who switch to AWS think it's a 1:1 conversion in terms of cost from a data center and pretty much just "leave AWS on" not realizing that they are not only paying for computing cost but the hidden cost of being able to scale up more instances quickly.
It's really really difficult to be able to turn on and off instances as needed, like turn a test instance on in the morning when developers come in and turn it off in the evening when they leave.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The market for this is much broader. We do a bunch of data science so spinning up a heavy machine and only getting billed for the 5 minutes usage is a massive saving for us. I'm quite excited by this news!
That is basically the serverless main "point of sell" you are just one step away from automation (if you aren't already doing it) and it will be virtually the same as serverless
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They would legitimately lose a lot of money if they did this now (and I would argue, wouldn't make up for it in market share). Most companies I work with who switch to AWS think it's a 1:1 conversion in terms of cost from a data center and pretty much just "leave AWS on" not realizing that they are not only paying for computing cost but the hidden cost of being able to scale up more instances quickly.
It's really really difficult to be able to turn on and off instances as needed, like turn a test instance on in the morning when developers come in and turn it off in the evening when they leave.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you're concerned about cost, AWS is almost never the right place to host to begin with.
Agreed - just check cloud comparison, AWS is rarely at the top: https://www.cloudorado.com/cloud_server_comparison.jsp
One thing I noticed though is the pricing seems a bit biased; for example for AWS it recommends an m1.small with 1GB Ram and 20GB of Storage at $35 a month ... However if you used a t2.micro that would give you the same specs for $10.79
Back to the future: this was how computing worked back in the punch card days. Minicomputers and personal computers were supposed to liberate you from this tyranny: computing so cheap that you could have a whole computer to your self for a while!