|
|
|
|
|
|
by dfinninger
3303 days ago
|
|
|
... per server. It really, really depends on on your use case, but there are some scenarios where bare metal just makes more sense. Also there are ones where cloud makes everything much easier. North America-oriented B2B app that's a JavaScript SPA witch connects to some lightweight services fronting a database? I think that's a great contender for the cloud. 500-node Hadoop cluster running 24/7 with heavy load? You are going to see some huge savings by maintaining a Datacenter. You can use the extra 1.7MM/mo. to set up some robust networking equipment and have few people on-site. |
|
|
Like every IT trend, "Cloud ops" is the trendy mind-slug that eats everyone's brain and makes them say that everyone who doesn't jump on the bandwagon is going to die broke and unloved in the gutter.
Remember how XML meant massively reduced integration costs and firing all your developers because GUI tools would let business managers connect pretty boxes and then kick back to watch the graphs go up and to the right as business exploded?
Yeah, so AWS is great, if you're building something that works well on AWS. And that's a large class of apps - if you're throwing up a Drupal front end to a CRUD line-of-business backend, need to push notifications and send some email, sure. You're dead in the middle of their target market.
Doing something interesting? Doesn't even have to be as massive as the parent suggests - if you're doing something that blows any of the billable parameters out of the sweet-spot, like bandwidth, storage, latency requirements, things that depend on system-locality, etc., you're much better off building, and using AWS for the pieces which can be broken off that don't hit the pain points.