581–590 of 643 posts
Saving $400/month covers about 3-5 hours of engineering time per month. In a year, call it 30-50 hours. Did this project take more than 30-50 person-hours? (The obvious argument about how it might pay off more in the future are dependent on the startup surviving long enough for that future to arrive.)
I cannot overstate the performance improvement of deploying onto bare metal. We typically see a doubling of performance, as well as extremely predictable baseline performance. This is down to several things: - Latency - having your own local network, rather than sharing some larger datacenter network fabric, gives around of order of magnitude reduced latency - Caches – right-sizing a deployment for the underlying har…
And you are still charging half of AWS, which is that case I am just doing these work myself if I really think AWS is too expensive.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I actually benchmarked this and wrote an article several years back, still very much applicable: https://jan.rychter.com/enblog/cloud-server-cpu-performance-...
I also did a benchmark between cloud providers recently and compared performance for price https://dillonshook.com/postgres-cloud-benchmarks-for-indie-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
neo4j
What is the cost of running Neo4j on aws vs using aws Neptune? Related to disk I/o?
We run a modest graph workload (relatively small dataset wise but an intense on graph edge wise) on Neptune that costs us slightly under USD 600 per month – that is before the enterprise discount, so in reality we pay USD 450-500 a month. But we use Neptune Serverless that bursts out from time to time, which means that monthly charges are averaged out across the spikes/bursts. The monthly charges are for the serverless configuration of 3-16 NPU's.
Disk I/O stats are not available for Neptune, moreso for serverless clusters, and they would not be insightful anyway. The transactions per second rate is what I look at.
No servers, no VMs, no containers, just our code to focus on.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Tangential point but why is it that so often these leaving the cloud posts use the word "beefy" to describe the servers? It's always you don't need cloud because beefy servers handle pretty much any bla bla bla https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que... If anyone from oxide computer or similar is reading, maybe you should rebrand to BEEFY server inc...
Because that is a casual word in the English language to describe an object with substantial power? If you would suggest a word that would make a better substitute in this case, that could move the conversation forward, and perhaps you could improve the aesthetic quality of posts about leaving the cloud.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because that is a casual word in the English language to describe an object with substantial power? If you would suggest a word that would make a better substitute in this case, that could move the conversation forward, and perhaps you could improve the aesthetic quality of posts about leaving the cloud.
Well, I wouldn't say I have a beefy car or a beefy sword: there's some historical bit of linguistic connection that seems to have caused people to describe a server with the adjective "beefy", rather than "powerful", "hefty", "stacked", or... "chonky" ;P. Coming up with some options, I think my favorite might be "cranked"?
As someone who's had to rack some pretty heavy servers with lots of GPUs, CPUs, NVMe drives, and RAM, that turned out to be quite powerful, I'd say "beefy" is accurate.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/beefy
Side note edit: hefty and chonky don't tell me much about power. Stacked is usually more about a team or group of things (and for individuals, I'd rather not see it).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’d like to point that exaggerations like $430 an hr (isn’t some average salary) or three Starbucks a day being something everyone casually does, they weaken your point. As the rest of your comment, personally, I see it more like a pitch to use AWS, rather than some conversion whether everyone really needs that enterprise tier. Me, I’d prefer to control as much of my infra as possible, rather than offloading it to ot…
OK, call it a half day (four hours) a month. But really, if DIY, someone's got to actually have it meet SLOs and SLAs. So you need a person or two, which is when those hours add up. These days housing and benefiting an employee can cost 50% to 100% overhead, depending on firm efficiency. So, $400/hr means $800k/yr (because 40 hrs x 50 weeks = rate x 2000) but half that can be considered overhead (recruiting, real est…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And now, on cloud it’s the same but much more expensive and worse performance. We’ve been struggling for over a month to get a single (1) non-beefy non-GPU VM allocated on Azure, since they’ve been having insane capacity issues, to the extent that even “provisioned” capacity cannot be fulfilled ;-(
Sure, but that’s because Azure. I’m sorry someone made the decision to go there. AWS & GCP, stock outs at least used to be nearly unheard of.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My conspiracy theory is that "cloud scaling" was entirely driven by people who grew up watching sites get slash dotted and thought it was the absolute most important thing in the world that you can quickly scale up to infinity billion requests/second.
No, cloud adoption was driven by teams having to wait 2 years for capex for their hardware purchase and then getting a quarter of what they asked for. You couldn't get things, people hoarded servers they pretended to be using because when they did need something they couldn't get it. Management just wouldn't approve budgets so you were stuck using too little hardware. On the cloud it takes five seconds to get a new m…
This isn't exactly realistic, not for too long anyway.
Once your cloud bill climbs into the millions, expect to see just as much scrutiny on what's costing so much and what can be cut and can you really justify the new thing you want to spin up (as there should be).
Having been through many growing startups, I'd say the freewheeling days of spin up whatever you want only last to about 50K to 100K/month AWS billings.