Re:Four billion messages an hour: benchmarking Deepstream th...
by xyzzy123 on Friday September 09, 2016 @09:50AM
(#12462148)
Yep. Aws is funny. You want to at do it first, then it doesnt make sense at e.g the 10k per month price point. So you do something else.
Then you come back when you have due diligence and compliance and availability requirements. And you see how much that is really costing you with the arrangements you have.
Finally if you're super successful, you could self host or otherwise. But "rack costs" (naively) trade off against people and auditors.
Summary: AWS is expensive, especially for bandwidth. Practically if your business requirements are not bandwidth intensive, it ends up being paradoxically cheaper than the alternatives if your business involves legal agreements and things like availability commitments to customers.
Re:Four billion messages an hour: benchmarking Deepstream th...
by lossolo on Friday September 09, 2016 @03:42PM
(#12465465)
It's not really rocket science you know, to install elasticsearch/redis/cassandra/0MQ/puppet etc and scale it to hundreds of servers. You do not need to build your infrastructure from ground up, just go with dedicated servers or with colocation if you want your own hardware and you will save tons of money comparing to AWS.
Isn't that the point of AWS?
The time / resources cost to build (monitor and maintain..) your own infrastructure isn't zero.
Did these companies have spare teams lying around the place, such that no new hires were needed to make the transition? If not, then it's not so much of a saving at the current cost of dev / ops personnel, just now on a different balance sheet.