[saurik]

FWIW, AWS is expensive... but mostly for networking and then second to that storage, with the cost for actual computation usually being a pretty small percentage of my overall spend. The only time I have seen computation itself be an interesting expense is when I am looking for some complicated hardware, such as their GPU or FPGA instances. That said, money is money... but it is much easier to figure out fun ways to save storage or bandwidth when the code is a bit more nimble, so I'm not sure I could justify larger teams or slower iteration times just to save on CPU.

[dilippkumar]

> but mostly for networking and then second to that storage, with the cost for actual computation usually being a pretty small percentage of my overall spend.

What portion of the bandwidth is end-user facing and what portion of it is connecting all the servers? Another way of asking this is if I need fewer servers because code runs faster, how much less bandwidth do I need?

[saurik]

AWS doesn't charge for internal server-to-server transfers, so the answer is precisely 0.

[caleblloyd]

That's only true for transfer in the same availability zone.

https://aws.amazon.com/ec2/pricing/on-demand/#Data_Transfer_...

[saurik]

Availability and horizontal scale-out are separate axes, so that isn't relevant for this question.