|
|
|
|
|
|
by dijit
2232 days ago
|
|
|
Not easily; you’re making the argument that there can be high expenses for collocating but you’re talking about a -lot- of computational power. I know that hardware varies a lot for sure, but for context I put together 3 racks 50% density with an 800gbit backplane for around 18k eur/mo. I spared no expense, official juniper QSFPs (which are egregiously overpriced) and top of the line Dell servers with full out of band licenses. And once there: interconnected bandwidth and IOPs became “free” (or, no extra charge). We put the same application in cloud And it costs us 40k eur/mo with a heavy amount of optimisation, with half-sized instances and an aggressive optimisation in bandwidth/iops. Clouds “sticker price” to us is 4x that of physical. You can buy a lot of human time for that price. |
|
|
If anything that's an argument against physical infra, not in favor of. Although it's fine if one wants a lot of the same big servers (an Hadoop cluster, or video computing cluster, or a CDN), which are the few use cases where physical can make sense (and hybrid cloud probably makes even more sense).
With AWS, you'd never spin half of that infra upfront. You'd spin a few VMs and start running stuff. If the project goes well, spin more or bigger VMs, otherwise spin down. Cost is very dynamic and the company doesn't have to spend half a million upfront, which is a big financial problem for many companies.
Anyway. We can both agree on AWS being overpriced. The reference on costs should be Google Cloud if one is cost conscious, not AWS. Google Cloud is often half the costs of AWS for the same thing.
AWS vs Google comparison, bit old and instance types have changed but relative pricing has not moved https://thehftguy.com/2018/11/13/2018-cloud-pricing-aws-now-...
And this one more recent since they've released high memory instances to compete with SoftLayer: https://thehftguy.com/2018/11/13/2018-cloud-pricing-aws-now-...