Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by AdamJacobMuller 1200 days ago
1.7 million may be a lot or may be a tiny drop depending on your overall (like for like) spend. The % saved is the important metric here not the aggregate dollar amount.

Did you replace 5m of EC2 with 3.3m of EC2 and save 1.7m (impressive) or did you replace 50m of EC2 with 48.3m of EC2 (not really so impressive)?
2 comments
redundantly 1200 days ago
> or did you replace 50m of EC2 with 48.3m of EC2 (not really so impressive)?

I'm failing to comprehend how that's not impressive. Bean counters would still love this type of savings.

link
1123581321 1200 days ago
The same fixed amount of money is less noticeable in a larger organization. It's more likely that something more effective could have been done with the engineers' time.

On the other hand, if the larger organization hired an AWS specialist, as many do, the optimization might be "free" because the specialist wouldn't have been effective outside of their area.

link
eugenekolo 1200 days ago
I'd say exact value versus % can be more meaningful in many non-billion+ companies.

Understanding you saved $1M/yr means you're closer to profitability (I understand in the VC world all you really care about is % growth, but that's up for debate if that's how everything should be) or able to hire more engineers.

link