|
|
|
|
|
|
by nemothekid
3402 days ago
|
|
|
>Why should he re-architect his system and introduce some Amazon-specific dependencies like S3 just so he can give Amazon money? You could make the same argument going the other way though - why should GitLab spend money recruiting/hiring people, leasing space, setting up monitoring, etc, if their solution today works? Why should anyone re-architect their system to give $COMPANY money? When your bare metal's RAID controller craps out and you have to order another, will his customers be understanding of his decision to move to bare metal? It doesn't makes sense to factor in fixed costs of such a migration. |
|
|
Well, that reason would be, at a minimum, a halving of their hosting expenses.
It also doesn't necessarily take much refactoring to move either way. Even if you're heavily dependent on cloud storage, etc., you can access that from an external application server.
The person I replied to was suggesting that the parent refactor in order to make AWS costs less egregious without articulating any particular reason that the original commenter should do so.
> When your bare metal's RAID controller craps out and you have to order another, will his customers be understanding of his decision to move to bare metal?
His customers won't need to know, assuming he has a standby that can take over. Even if he doesn't, he can rush down and install one and move the disks over. With an AWS outage, you can't do anything but say "I hope Amazon fixes it soon". The bare metal equivalent is a power or connectivity loss at the DC, which is much rarer than AWS outages.