News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Working for a startup makes less sense by throwawaybbb on Tuesday December 24, 2019 @03:30AM (#21870724)
That's 10tb = 10000gb = 10000/24/60/60 = .11gb/s. My 2015 desktop could handle that.

Where do you work? I'd like to pitch my radical idea of edge consolidated cloud computing.

Re:Working for a startup makes less sense by fulafel on Tuesday December 24, 2019 @03:33AM (#21870736)
"Big data" frameworks are very good at throwing a lot of hardware at problems. See eg the classic big data vs laptop treatment: http://www.frankmcsherry.org/graph/scalability/cost/2015/01/...
Re:Working for a startup makes less sense by EdwardDiego on Tuesday December 24, 2019 @05:10PM (#21875278)
The inevitable comment lol. I'm sure it could. To clarify, when the app scales, it's pods (container instances) that are scaled, not necessarily machines,that is managed separately by k8s. Depending on how much of the cluster is currently being used.

Yep, we could handle it easily on one machine, if we gave it unfettered access to all the resource, but our throughput varies during the time of day, so dedicating a machine to it to handle the peak throughput wouldn't make financial sense at 3am at night. So it's far simpler to scale pods with known resource usage as needed.

It also helps prevent issues when throughput suddenly doubles because of a business decision that you're left out of the loop on.

So autoscaling pods is ideal for our use case.

Re:Working for a startup makes less sense by throwawaybbb on Wednesday December 25, 2019 @03:24AM (#21877574)
Were talking about $5k of hardware to meet your needs 20 times over with the new threadrippers.

Is your aws bill really under $500 a month?

Re:Working for a startup makes less sense by fulafel on Thursday December 26, 2019 @04:25AM (#21882756)
On AWS you would be paying for many other things besides elastic CPU power. CPU and bandwidth is infamously expensive there. (But I don't think AWS was mentioned anywhere in this thread...)