Recorded live on twitch, GET IN / theprimeagen Original: tech.ahrefs.co... MY MAIN YT CHANNEL: Has well edited engineering videos / theprimeagen Discord / discord Have something for me to read or react to?: / theprimeagenreact
Im the devops manager at a ~5B company. I have a huge 'on prem' colo deployment of systems. I can confirm that AWS or other hyperscalar clouds run me about 10-12x the cost. Now you have to deal with having data center ops and paying those salaries etc. But even with all that its way more expensive.
I've worked for one of the largest Telcos in Australia. It is cheaper to run internally, but the problem is always the internal politics of who controls what. It would literally take months to get certain changes done that would be a sinch with AWS. This is one of the reasons why departments go to the cloud because they are sick of the politics.
Develop single code, but ready for both cloud and your DC. Deploy in parallel both in the cloud and on your hardware. When your hardware cannot handle it(or DC burns to the ground), redirect traffic to cloud and it will autoscale. If big traffic becomes a new standard then increase hardware in your DC.
back when netflix got popular it forced a lot of ISPs around the world to upgrade their stuff as big chunk of their customers started maxing out their series of pipes at the same time. never been their customer but I appreciate the positive growth pressure
I don’t know how they did it but in my country where monthly usage is capped at a few hundred gigabytes (quota), only Netflix does not count into your monthly usage (offered by select ISPs) which basically makes it better than any other service
One of the things not mentioned here is that there are other resources on AWS that cost money as well. EC2 and EBS is not the only thing. You probably will have some kind of firewall, virtual networks, backups, log ingestion, etc.
I'm not a cloud expert, but I am a little surprised that competition between cloud providers hasn't seemed to reduce costs much over the last five years or more. Probably one aspect of it is that the differences in usage specifics between cloud providers means that once a typical company has started investing in one cloud provider, there's an aspect of lock-in at play that prevents easy transitioning from one to the next.
This is due to venture capital. You're not dealing with profitable companies competing with each other. You're dealing with massive, MASSIVE amounts of venture debt from companies that have no road to profitability in other areas of their businesses. And since it's rather expensive to get started, it's very difficult to bootstrap a cloud company. If you don't have the venture capital, you can't afford the servers. If you get the venture capital, you'll never be profitable enough to lower your prices.
(I'm working on a cloud platform with some buddies and it will always be both competitive and profitable as long as we never pay ourselves salaries - it would require several *thousand* servers before the cumulative profit-per-server could pay us competitive wages)
I'm a cloud expert instead: VPS are expensive, the key to lower the costs in a cloud environment like AWS is to use their native cloud services, avoiding any service VPS like: EC2, ECS, EKS, etc. this guy was unable to do, posting that just showed his lack of knowledge, TCO can be easily lower than on prem, but you can't improvise, you have to be prepared
So what you didn't calculate in is: * Pay for system admin team to manage all of this for 30 months * Pay for developer time for all of the tools and things you will need to develop now that you don't have them ready * No multi-az since you are only renting one space * Equipment breakdowns due to fauilt / overuse etc. * Backup strategies you will need to develop. You ARE planning on backups right? * Since you are renting, I am guessing you are renting the space and the connection so who is doing the infrastructure costs of the building like data center security, building upkeep, upgrades, etc? * If you ever need to go global what will do to keep the response times low? I am not saying AWS is cheap. What I am saying is that you have a LOT more to consider than just rent and electricity.
(disclaimer, I'm a dev at ahrefs) 1. the devops team is more or less the same size when using aws 2. This one is partially problematic sometimes, but for our problems it's more the other way around in general, AWS is lacking some tools. Nevertheless it's indeed can be a real limitation. And here usually the cost isn't so much the salary of the devs but the time required to build a solution. 3. yep that's correct, if you need multi AZ the computation would be different, but the computation for AWS would also be different, as you would need to duplicate the storage to different zones. So the AWS cost would also drastically increase. 4. equipment breakdown is part of the price of the hardware 5. backups are mentioned in the article 6. The people the rent is going to (this question is exactly the same for AWS, who is paying to keep the AWS building in working order?) 7. we are global, but this isn't really a relevant question here, see point 3 So overall there's not much additional costs so long as we don't depend on a product that is only available on AWS.
Also If you have any compliance reqs cloud is much easier. And all of the bespoke shit you write is more technical debt. Then five years go by and you have to re train ops people on your bespoke shit. Not fun.
@@louisroche9574 "1. the devops team is more or less the same size when using aws" So the devops team size didn't change taking on more critical responsibilities , but did everyones pay go up to match. Sounds like a big mgmt win.
I think one thing we have to keep in mind when looking at these example companies who're doing these migrations is, that they're pretty special cases - be it massive scale web scraping (ahrefs) or video streaming (amazon prime video). __This is not what most of us are doing/serving__. Most devs here, me included, probably do standard web development - maybe with some SSR. But this will not lead to comparable load profiles in respect to user count. Most of Ahrefs capacities most likely go to 24/7 max load scraping, not to serving customer requests.
I've been conditioned to think that buying vs renting/leasing is more cost effective over the long term. Think real estate and autos. I remember when AWS cloud was taking off and having this twinge of misgivings about the costs. Plus the fact that you are beholden to the owners of the cloud. I agree with everyone who says there needs to be a balance. The ability to be able to spin up hundred/thousands of servers at a moment's notice is a great convenience but once your infrastructure is more mature, the cost savings are too great for standalone.
That's always was the supposed argument of all arguments for cloud - "you only pay per hour for what you use, so you can't multiply that cost by whole month". It always seemed silly to me because, yeah, sure, if your server ran for just a couple of hours every day it might make sense. But in reality, most of the time that's not what happens. You need to have some instances that just run all the time, even simply because the demand won't drop below some level. And it's not like you can just nuke all your databases or delete all your data from the cloud every day because it's "not in use". Ahref's case is especially striking, because the cloud cost overhead is so high that even if 90% of their servers were never needed, they still are better off not paying for AWS.
As someone that is supposedly a software architect, but always ends up having to do Ops on the side, this ignores the biggest cost point in all this: IT and developer time. We're not just talking about making sure the power stays on. We're talking about automatic backups, configured with a few clicks, autoscaling easily, and starting up and tearing down developer instances in seconds. Suddenly, your IT, or worse, your developers have to do all that. If you're already big enough to afford 40 million in servers, chances are you have a big enough IT department already. My personal experience though is that the IT department is where every single CFO tries to save money, and it fucks EVERYONE over.
With things like OpenStack, OpenShift, OpenNebula, VMWare, Canonical MAAS, heck even Proxmox that is quite literally not an issue. Almost all platforms have a way of autoscaling, backups, high availability, hardware issue alerts and more features that used to need a lot of specialized knowledge. Now, a single person, or a small three to four person team, could potentially manage the actual hardware of a rack or whole DC location and it would still not even make a dent in the difference between collocated and cloud costs assuming salaries in the low 6 figures. In Proxmox for example, you could take a physical server down for maintenance and have it live migrate to another node with no noticeable affect to the client. All platforms have at least this feature and more; you could even migrate across two different DCs/locations if you really wanted to, which you can't do in AWS, GCP or Azure yet. Canonical MAAS literally manages the hardware for you and with its hooks you could potentially even have it automatically auto order parts that failed tests, safely turn off the server, turn on the iBMC LED (to show remote hands which server is having issues), submit a ticket to the DC with the shipping number and have maintenance effectively automated. The IT landscape today is not the same as 2008 and the large cloud providers are definitely starting to show their age big time
@@Victoria-ij3cb I definitely think, if the company is big enough, on-prem is can be nice, but only if your feature set (and therefore requirements) are basically static. Otherwise, what would a single click in AWS to try out (e.g.) K8S turns into MONTHS of waiting, and then getting a faulty, buggy on-prem K8S. Another BIG disadvantage I've observed in pretty much every bigger company is that IT is understaffed, underfunded, overworked and overregulated. Things that would be a single click on the cloud can take months.
@@invinciblemode Not even remotely true, at least in my experience. For example, my personal, very painful experience with on-prem K8S: We didn't have an expert, so someone just had to google shit and hope something useful happened. Obviously, it took forever. Then at least 5 different features that are a click away in the cloud, even for the dumbest developer, were missing. Things like a basic load balancer, an API gateway, a replicated database, or a decent storage solution. And again, you'd need experts for all those things. With a cloud K8S solution, all that just magically happens, and is maintained, automatically. Even if you only use the cloud for as dumb VMs, you're saving a lot on people that need to setup, install, and maintain your racks, and the software (hypervisor, etc.) running on it. I guess I just have PTSD, because EVERY SINGLE IT department I've ever come into contact with has been underfunded and overworked, making them decidedly far worse than the cloud, at least from a developer perspective. Maybe in heaven they have a wonderfully running on-prem cloud.
I never noticed the little light up border on the like button that happened when you had your early video breakdown... It only does it during that outburst too
The prime values that a cloud provider delivers are :- 1. avoid upfront cost of infra and talent ownership. 2. provide flexibility to scale up / down as necessary. 3. allow distributing workloads across multiple regions / zones. 4. reduces complexity by providing an API over infra and services to allow composing your implementations rather than deal with the underlying implementations. In case of on-prem deployments, considering that they're multi-regions, it's usually still a single zone per region. You could have hardware level redundancies but how do you auto-swap? How do you deal with ISP failures, weather, sabotage, etc. The problem is most people don't know what worms does the on-prem can has. If the on-prem infra is the physical filesystem, a cloud provider is the logical filesystem over top of it. Techniques like IaC (Infrastructure as Code) basically allow you to programmatically / declaratively not only spawn infra but also allow you to observe it, scale it up / down and even protect you from major security threats. Does all of this come at a premium? Obviously, DUH! It's not a best effort basis deployment which most on-prem deployments are. There's usually an SLA and a very high one at that. Also, almost no one discusses the talent cost, local regulatory costs, technical debt that accrues and slows everything down gradually? And lastly, what do you do when there's a sudden spike, let's say 300% on Black Friday and then you don't receive such traffic again for the whole year. What do you do? Over provision 5x? What about the unutilised capacity available for the rest of the year? If a company doesn't need most of the features mentioned above and has extremely predictable and mostly static loads, sure, the premium for the cloud provider might not make sense. The most probable reason why Netflix sticks to AWS is for the ability to seriously scale up / down in seconds and for AWS's expertise is maintaining a behemoth such as itself. Finally, scraping the internet is going to be expensive. Should've thought about that before building a business around it. LOL!
@@thewhitefalcon8539 who said it needs to be EC2. Though, I'm sure if a company that serves 10 - 15% of the internet, Netflix, is fine with using EC2s then there's some value proposition that really works well.
SLA for EC2 is only 99.9 (3 nines) and 95.0 (1.5 nines) for 10 and 25% discounts respectively (most of AWS is similar, you don't get 5 nines from Amazon) If you can't accomplish 95.0 (18.25 days of downtime per year, more than 24 hours per month), you're doing something truly wacky In regards to staffing, someone from ahrefs stopped by the comments (and other people backed them up here), the staff cost for devops is basically the same either way I don't find the dismissive comment at the end helpful at all. They aren't complaining, they're sharing their information. It seems strange and derisive to punctuate with 'By the way, what did you think was gonna happen, boneheads? LOL' if the information is meant to be conveyed compellingly or convincingly
Exactly, their use case is completely different than EC2’s value proposition. I’m not saying that doing yourself isn’t possible, I’m saying if your business isn’t around managing infra, you shouldn’t be mostly doing it yourself unless it makes business sense to do so. Ahrefs business revolves around scraping the internet and greedily too. I’m not privy about their approach to scraping but from what I understand they’re simply putting in compute to get as much content as they can. Considering the rate at which data is being generated and made available online, this is only going to become more expensive or time consuming. This is a scale and optimisation problem and throwing compute at it is not going to make it easier.
I think the key advantage of IaaS is not flexibility in capabilities you invest in, but simply the much, much shorter timeframe of investment. You can double your infrastructure today, and cut it down to a quater tomorrow. If you did that with hardware, the decision you made today would mean paying extra 200% capabilities for the next 60 months, on top of the fact you’d be stuck with the original excessive 100% you would have even without todays fuck-up. The fact you couldn’t even do such a choice because the timeframe from decision to actual capability is so much longer. If you buy “off the shelf”, you might have a bare supervisor running in less than a month - provided you only bought few machines, your network configuration didn’t need reworking, your UPS had a vacant spot, the server had memory pre-installed and the storage was delivered before the server or in the same shipment. it’s like buying a car versus renting it. You can think about renting a car for ten years, and conclude that it’s ridiculously expensive. But at the flip side, you can’t buy a car for a weekend - that’s not how buying a car works to begin with.
Good luck trying to get over ~10,000 instances in a single region spun up within a small time frame. Even on a corporate account, you need to plead a case for a need for that many instances which goes through a ticketing process that can take days to weeks which is still dependent on if the resources are even available in the region at the time, which in the case they're not your request is simply denied. Then take Netflix who was able to host the entirety of the US eastern client base off a single rack and is able to spin up hundreds of thousands of instances whenever they want at a fixed rate.
@@callowaysutton About 10k instances, it's actually pretty edge case, probably that number even more than any cloud provider have in a day worldwide. And it's actually hard to find a task for this 10k instances, so yeah they want to know will they be paid for this, and for which task it needed, because it can create a shortage for other clients. About netflix served from single rack, depends on which timeframe you refer, because earlier they used Akamai, and now they use their OpenConnect rack for ISPs. So it's almost never was a single rack. Per each 1gbit they can serve approximately 400 active streams(average 1080p stream ~512KB/s with some fluctuations), if we assume that some pause video + they ok with some small almost unnoticable delays, then it can be approx. 1000 users of decent content provisioning. From requirements of OpenConnect they can connect it max to single 100gbit, So 1 rack can serve max 100k users with ideal conditions of course, and it's only content serve without site logic/analytics/etc.. UPD: even less than 100k, I forgot to include IN traffic, because it's one same NIC for IN/OUT.
@@Sergey92zp Here's the thing though, I could spin up 10,000 instances very easily on any medium sized $100-500k privately hosted cluster and not even be close to reaching the total capacity, so it being an edge case isn't and shouldn't be used as an excuse for an IaaS type of commodity. For reference, spinning up 10,000 of AWS' smallest EC2 instance in US East costs a whopping 100k+/year, and for that you get 10k shared 2 core, 512MB of RAM instances... or about 20,000 vCPUs and 512GB of RAM. Let's break this down further; it's a common industry practice to split each physical CPU thread 32 ways to each vCPU so that gives us 625 actual threads. The newest Epyc servers come in configurations of 512 threads per server (you could even have a 4 way multinode in 2U for a total of 2,048 threads in 2-4U worth of space) and 512GB of RAM is frankly nothing considering these types of servers go into the terabytes of RAM. If we discuss space and networking, a single 42-47U rack with good 100Gbps can be had for ~6000/m now, or ~72k/y, and considering AWS doesn't ever let a single customer go above 100Gbps per zone it's a good frame of reference. If we were to amortize over a 3 year period that gives us a 150k budget to compete with AWS and with that kind of money, you could easily afford multiple tens of terabytes of RAM, thousands of cores and much faster disks. For what you're saying about Netflix, you're just completely off. I'd recommend looking at their many presentations about their infrastructure and how they've saved money by using their own hardware/network.
To be fair, if your idea of using AWS is just paying for dedicated EC2 instances, you’re doing it wrong. You need to architect your applications intelligently to keep your costs down.
@@lhxperimental Not necessarily. There are many AWS and Serverless providers. There’s tons of ways to roll databases. There’s many ways to do compute and single sign on and such. Not everything has to be in AWS and really you can architect your applications to appropriately fit cloud services in some places and monoliths on dedicated hardware for others.
@@lhxperimentalthats why you have a exit startegy from the cloud, or use terraform if you're sticking to cloud stuff to move as easily as possible. You actually choose whether you get locked in AWS. AWS is locked in WITH ME >:)
@@lhxperimentaldon’t use your phone send us letters with a parrot so google doesn’t lock you in with RU-vid. You obviously didn’t touch a server in the past 10 years if you think a company that large can rely on ec2 instances
The reason I use AWS as a startup that has a huge storage commitment and moderate EC2 Usage is that I can scale out and in at will, so for example I'm on a some downtime right now and I scale down the system dramatically lowering my monthly commitment while keeping the Infrastructure. I spent a few years in a COLO and while it definitely was cheaper, when I needed to scale up I had to put out a ton of cash and worry what happens when the scale goes down. I guess the most important thing for any company moving to the "cloud" is to spend some quality time with Excel and figure out your options.
Sounded like Ahrefs was doing a lift and shift comparison with just infrastructure. It would be interesting to have digged into their architecture to see if a cloud native architecture could have fitted better.
@@meletisflevarakis40 I would not read too much in to the Prime Video malarkey, it did make good headlines 😉 For me, main takeaway was it reminded us there are good and bad architectures, and just because it's serverless does not mean it's good. I.e, if you are hammering Event Bridge (as was the case with Prime Video), then you will have a bad (expensive) architecture.
@@aaronhamburg4428 IT's a "future aaron" problem. You deal with it as you approach the issue. Until then, don't waste your time - focus on product and business development.
@@aaronhamburg4428it’s like people just lose their memories every five years and all knowledge of previous bad behavior from vendors who abuse lock-in tactics is wiped from the face of the earth
My company is all about the cloud and migrating everything on the cloud for certification sake. The problem is that they don't think about the cost and performance. I've noticed the things we are running are more expensive and slower than before... Hey, if they are fine with this...
Honestly me neither, Primeagen is just fun to watch. Then again you probably won't have any real knowledge about the cloud unless you work at a company that uses them or are just into knowing about cloud infrastructure
Key Takeaways: The video discusses the cost of running infrastructure on the cloud versus using on-premise hardware. The company, AREFS, compared the costs of their own co-located data center with a similar installation on Amazon Web Services (AWS). The analysis showed that running the infrastructure on AWS would cost AREFS significantly more money compared to their own data center. Summary: The video explores the cost implications of running infrastructure on the cloud versus using on-premise hardware. AREFS, a company, compared the costs of their co-located data center with a similar setup on AWS. The analysis revealed that running infrastructure on AWS would cost AREFS significantly more money, even taking into account their revenue. The video highlights the importance of periodically re-evaluating cloud benefits versus actual cost and suggests considering a reverse migration from the cloud for more mature companies. The analysis also takes into account factors such as people skills, financial controls, and capacity planning, among others. Overall, AREFS found that managing their own infrastructure was more cost-effective and allowed them to invest in product improvements and development.
What about all the support costs for all your hardware and how many people it takes to support that hardware??? The people costs would be enormous when you factor in benefits. I don't believe it would be that big of a Delta.
As a SysOps guy watching here to better communicate with my dev colleagues, I can say the point where migrating away from cloud makes sense is much lower than you think. Granted I'm in Germany so we might have other expenditures for people and other stuff. But I would argue, that one of the first additional talent a start-up, with say 2 devs that founded the company should look for, is a SysOps guy, even if you stay on cloud for a while. Sure I'm biased because I am a SysOps dude, but cloud doesn't make infrastructure trivial tho. Or rather on-prem /colo isn't that complicated for someone who knows their way around servers. Also what you need to consider ist where all you data is stored (especially when you are a Europe based company), are you thinking about backups, where are those backups stored, and so on. With all that cloud easily gets more expensive than on-prem or colo. With cloud it is the same thing as with everything, it has it's use cases but it's not the be all an end all. The tech sector tends to jump on a hype and must use it for anything without considering it's pros and cons
Big part of the cloud is using it effectively. You have the power of the largest and most feature rich cloud provider of the world and you are using the most simple service they have for almost everything. This is an easy comparison, but it is not the right or fair one.
It's called Snowmobile (yes, it's a true name). Btw. there's also Snowcone and Snowball xD I just love how they name their services. As for financial aspect - no idea, but it's most likely costly af.
i agree with the conclusions but I'm not sure if this is completely genuine for example is Singapore is AWS especially expensive? can this be replicated across multibile locations ? 1. i think u could get a better AWS deal at least 30% off . 2. he doesn't include engineering cost associated with AWS and Homebrew. 3 it doesn't include replacement hardware given a failure rate. but overall renting DC space seems to be the way to go because u are skipping a lot of the hassle. but save a lot compared to the cloud.
I feel like the cost/benefit really depends on the business. I'm a little skeptical of the articles representation but still, the auxiliary costs to a particular business could totally justify the cost of cloud services depending on the business. Thinking about things like the consequences of getting HIPPA compliance wrong could absolutely destroy your business. Not being able to provision more hardware fast enough when your business blows up in popularity... Being stuck with all that hardware and staff when the business takes a hit... Having to setup new hardware in different regions when you go international..
Dude... you're the a lovechild of Dr. Disrespect and Gilbert Gottfried 😅 Anyway, I've been watching your vids for a li'l bit, and you've become one of my goto channels. So.... *_SUBSCRIBED!_*
It would be a fairer comparison to take this napkin math to an AWS rep and ask for a quote. If you did your math right, you'd probably get a pretty competitive quote. On the other hand, they might laugh you out of the room when they see you've missed out on all of the security, redundancy and compliance costs.
Prime over here making things up on the fly. “Unknown knowns” isn’t a thing. You either know you know something, or you don’t know what you don’t what you don’t know. You can’t “unknow” something you know you know. That would be transitioning from an “unknown unknown” to a “known unknown.” Feel me? Not necessarily making things up, but illogical.
Obviously Cloud is more expensive. buuuut, I guess that if you email AWS sayin that you wanna move your gigawatz of RAM, kazillion of iper pentazillion byte to the Cloud...yeah, maybe you can obtain some discount 😂
Here's a profitable company, managing their own servers for several years now, telling you that they would pay 11x for worse service in AWS, and would thus no longer be profitable. Chat: But what if a hard drive fails? And what about labor costs?
@@raptyaxa5771 this is why you use a 5 year ammortization schedule and you sign contracts with Dell and a Storage vendor (NetApp, Pure, etc.). I would never have hardware without service agreements, what happens if you 1) dont have the expertise available or 2) you have a hardware failure. Service contracts are a must if you're running an enterprise size business. Before movign to the cloud we were paying about 300k to account for growth / obsoletion
@@Darth_Bateman didnt watch the video, but wait, is having your own server a thing again? Not the worse idea, but if your shit goes viral it'll go offline since it doesn't have a cluster to scale to..
If you take a 3 year reserved instance plan payed upfront it reduces the cost by 62%. Still massively cheaper with your own hardware, and once your paying for cloud upfront that obviates the entire advantage of cloud which is that you have month to month flexibility.
Cloud makes sense for businesses that require elastic availability, 100% on prem might not make sense then. Say ticketmaster has a consistent load of 50000 users per day, but now Taylor Swift is selling a new tour, it would make sense for them to scale into the cloud for that period to offset the abnormal load. Cloud by default will always be more expensive, but amazing to scale only when needed.
only VPS in a cloud environment by default will always be more expensive, the fact I see only people that can't build a solution without a service VPS like, is the main problem...website of Taylor Swift to sell tickets can run and scale on AWS for few bucks per month, VPS not needed at all
I wonder why in the recent years the tech industry is making dumb choice after dumb choice, it's like engineering has gone completely out of the window.
For anything I've ever stood up, it's always been substantially cheaper to do it on our own hardware in a co-lo than putting it in any cloud, especially if we want anywhere near the performance we have today on our own hardware. None of this is a surprise to me.
With a beginning of russian war against Ukraine, out major banks moved to cloud in EU from on-premise in UA. One of them (monobank) moved to AWS and they also got significant increase of bill for infrastructure. This was mentioned by their CEO Oleg Gorokhovsky. He also was questioning himself why orgs tend to use clouds.
What I love about cloud is that it lets me, an individual, make stuff and deploy it for cheap-to-free without having to worry about maintaining additional hardware. It's kinda the same deal when it comes to installing internal applications at smaller companies (or smaller teams/orgs within companies). When scale comes into play, the waters get muddied. There's a ton of tradeoffs to consider, and how much money you pour into either on-prem or cloud infrastructure is going to determine how big those tradeoffs are and in what direction. Not every company will be better off one way or the other, it's about analyzing your individual situation and picking the option that's best for you.
So that is even with reserved instances. 1 TB of RAM sounds ridiculous to me anyway. And I am an actual Java developer, so quite used to stuff eating up ram like no other.
And I've done self hosting in colo in the early 2000s. For some reason management never seemed account for replacing cost every 3/4/5 years and trying to wring lots of 'free' time.
A lot of ML stuff can use a lot of ram. BTW a lot of RAM is also very useful for storage caching. Idk how necessary it is when you can have a 16x NVMe RAID 10 tho.
The amount of vector logic in AI/ML nowadays will make you crazy. Literally Python code jerking off of each other and produce pretty image or cosplaying as a human will cost you more than just 1TB of RAM.
Idk, the difference between the two scenarios is so insane that it could mean that allocating your own hardware will always be cheaper than any approach on AWS
The upfront costs are very high though so like stated it's not feasible until you have enough cashflow that it doesn't hurt the company to make those upfront investments. Pay as you go is pretty much always more expensive in the end but you don't have to have the money now. Like buying a house for example.
The TCO in AWS could be easily less than on prem, obviously, only if people know how to use a cloud environment, in this case the #1 of cloud providers: AWS. If you use services VPS like or worse Kubernetes, inside a public cloud environment, you are NOT using the cloud, you just made a migration "lift and shift" of your infrastructure, the fastest and the expensive way to migrate, this is not the way a Cloud Architect approach a migration, this is the way as an elder System Administrator think. If he does't want to learn how AWS work and how to optimize the infrastructure cost, is better that he stay far away from any public cloud, instead of complain of something he doesn't know how to use at all is nonsense, I clearly see an unskilled (in cloud environment) guy that complain and cry like a 5yo kid.
it blows my mind that they just brushed over capacity planning and autoscaling as if they need to pay for Ec2 instances that handle their full capacity 100% of the time
Fair point but when you're dealing with very large instances like they would be you can't rely on AWS having enough capacity when and where you want them.
@@fritzstauffacher6931 but you have to pay people to run them. those are _not_ cheap. And their processes aren't as mature. Your SRE team isn't born with runbooks. I can stand up an arbitrarily large database cluster with multiregion HA and point in time recovery in like 3 mins clicking around. And it actually works. The hardware isn't the point at all.
Everyone defending AWS in here pretending like you also don't have to hire a TEAM of platform engineers to keep your AWS infrastructure going. 🤣 I don't believe there is ANY DIFFERENCE in labor costs between managing a large cloud and some on prem infrastructure.
@ThePrimeTime I am surprise that they didn't take into account that when you plan to have a server on AWS for 1 or 3 years there is a HUGE discount for reserved instances which lowers the price -70% down... even more if you use a mix of reserved instances and spot instances (which are -90% discounted). They can save money going to the cloud and serverless (dynamodb) + lambda + s3 can also be considered for super fast retrieval and serve of data instead of using EBS volumes. Maybe they had some issues with AWS and pepper sprayed this article to them 🤣😂
