this post was submitted on 30 Aug 2023
1462 points (99.4% liked)

Programmer Humor

32136 readers
1217 users here now

Post funny things about programming here! (Or just rant about your favourite programming language.)

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

It was to talk about "team restructuring"

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] TrustingZebra@lemmy.one 33 points 1 year ago (18 children)

You're the guy 1984 was talking about...

[–] wim@lemmy.sdf.org 58 points 1 year ago (16 children)

Got to agree with @Zushii@feddit.de here, although it depends on the scope of your service or project.

Cloud services are good at getting you up and running quickly, but they are very, very expensive to scale up.

I work for a financial services company, and we are paying 7 digit monthly AWS bills for an amount of work that could realistically be done with one really big dedicated server. And now we're required to support multiple cloud providers by some of our customers, we've spent a TON of effort trying to untangle from SQS/SNS and other AWS specific technologies.

Clouds like to tell you:

  • Using the cloud is cheaper than running your own server
  • Using cloud services requires less manpower / labour to maintain and manage
  • It's easier to get up and running and scale up later using cloud services

The last item is true, but the first two are only true if you are running a small service. Scaling up on a cloud is not cost effective, and maintaining a complicated cloud architecture can be FAR more complicated than managing a similar centralized architecture.

[–] shiftymccool@lemm.ee 13 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I worked in operations for a large company that had their own 50,000 sq ft data center with 2000 physical servers, uncountable virtual servers, backup tape robots, etc... Their cooling bill would like to disagree with your assessment about scaling. I was unpacking new servers regularly because, when you own you own servers, not only do you have to buy them, but you have to house them (so much rented space), run them, fix them, cool them, and replace them.

Don't get me wrong, I've also seen the AWS bill for another large company I worked for and that was staggering. But, we were a smaller tech team and didn't require a separate ops group specifically to maintain the physical servers.

[–] wim@lemmy.sdf.org 19 points 1 year ago

If you really need the scale of 2000 physical machines, you're at a scale and complexity level where it's going to be expensive no matter what.

And I think if you need that kind of resources, you'll still be cheaper of DIY.

load more comments (14 replies)
load more comments (15 replies)