News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on A million-dollar engineering problem. Parent comment

Re:A million-dollar engineering problem by rhizome on Thursday March 16, 2017 @04:17PM (#13888779)
Are bursting and resizing an issue in the trough, though? GP's premise is that these companies have platform and load stability. There can be marginal gains in having a dynamic architecture, sure, but when it also costs "months of engineering," I don't see where the savings would be compelling, or even guaranteed.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:A million-dollar engineering problem by QuinnyPig on Thursday March 16, 2017 @04:56PM (#13889095)
There are companies "in the trough" who are contently spending tens of millions a year on AWS. It's hard to give generic advice for all situations-- as with so much else, context matters heavily.

Those marginal gains could potentially pay for a dozen engineers...

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:A million-dollar engineering problem by rhizome on Thursday March 16, 2017 @05:33PM (#13889399)
My point was based on how dynamic the architectures are (or aren't) of those in the trough, not their level of spending.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:A million-dollar engineering problem by QuinnyPig on Thursday March 16, 2017 @05:48PM (#13889517)
Ah, my apologies!

It depends. I have a toy service that exists entirely as an autoscaling group. That's pretty dynamic!

Counterpoint: Mainframes.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:A million-dollar engineering problem by rhizome on Thursday March 16, 2017 @06:30PM (#13889765)
A toy service is not what I'm thinking of as being in "the trough." The trough is where scaling and bursting aren't generally necessary.
[ Parent | on HN ]