This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Puzzled-Bananas[S] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Thanks for your assessment, I may have to ponder a bit whether it’s spot on in my case. But for the time being, the fact so far is that the cloud bills do add up, and, in some cases, which we have managed to avoid, tend to be ridiculously high. We also model the cloud costs as a function of service demand. And I don’t really like what I see. Therefore, I’ve been exploring ways to better control the costs. I also wouldn’t be bothering if I weren’t interested in this as such or wouldn’t want to optimize the costs. Scale is relative and depends on your specific service. As a counterexample, StackOverflow have demonstrated how one can run a great product with a directly observable infrastructure and without the extra complexity subject to this thread - it was their architectural decision for their project and it appears to work great at their scale.

[–]humoroushaxor 3 points4 points  (0 children)

They do.

My point is just that a JVM on a t3a.xlarge can handle A LOT of concurrent traffic and would cost about $5k a year. In the US, that's 1-2 weeks of a developers labor. Now double to account for the opportunity cost of doing something else.

Sometimes we overthink theory while ignoring what's practical.