| | | Tip for anyone looking to spend seven-figure or more sums on one-time egress: Direct Connect egress is $0.02/GB. Rent a rack at a Direct Connect facility and get as many 10G fiber Direct Connects as you need, with corresponding flat rate 10G Internet ports with HE/Cogent/whatever transit provider. If you're going to be spending millions on egress, you could just hire someone to set this up for you. With that kind of spend you'd be crazy to pay the full $0.09/GB. Edit: Note also that Snowball egress is $0.03/GB. Slightly higher egress, much lower setup cost. You'll have to do the math but they're both clearly attractive options vs. full price $0.09/GB egress. | | --- | --- | --- |

| | | dehrmann 67 days ago | root | parent | prev | next [[–]](javascript:void(0)) I worked at a place that did an AWS to GCP migration. I didn't look into the details, but they used a provider that basically gave them a fat, dedicated fiber link between the two (they picked the same GCP region). It was good enough that requests could have data cross clouds. It was expensive to set up, but it saved on egress costs and opened up options for migrating services. | | --- | --- | --- |

| | | fakedang 67 days ago | root | parent | prev | next [[–]](javascript:void(0)) Plot twist : Canva blogged this so someone could tell them some solution like this, without them having to hire the guy. :) | | --- | --- | --- |

| | | There's this law on the internet or SO or whatever where if you put the wrong answer in a post. Someone else in the comments will correct you with the correct answer. This in effect. | | --- | --- | --- |

| | | This isn't just the internet. I've used this at work several times to break stalemates. I've come into many stalled projects where people are arguing over trivial details or blue skying on requirements. 1-2 hours and a 7 page design doc later I'll have everyone review what I know is an 80% answer. Pretty much every time they'll all start attacking my design, pointing out minor issues and then I have them. They've agreed to my overall design and are into details. Same if someone is calling out all of the general problems with solving a problem but not providing answers where you can't get them to bite. | | --- | --- | --- |

| | | There's always a cheaper way to do something, but it's important to remember that 'lower price' often doesn't mean 'lower cost'. In order to get the lower price you need to spend on whatever the alternative option isn't doing in order to give that price saving. For example, moving from AWS to onprem means you need to configure the infrastructure yourself; you save on AWS fees but you spend more on devops. And then you have to factor in things like the cost of downtime (on both sides of the equation, especially if you use us-east-1), the price of building your own services, the price of software you need to buy, and so on. You only save money if the differential cost based on all the factors is lower. AWS is expensive for some things so it often does save some money, but not always, and if you haven't done a proper analysis you can't know. | | --- | --- | --- |

| | | >> moving from AWS to onprem means you need to configure the infrastructure yourself; you save on AWS fees but you spend more on devops This is the traditional “sell” for cloud computing and I don’t buy it at all. The clouds would have you believe it doesn't make sense to run your own systems because you need too much specialist expertise to run your own systems. The clouds sales pitch is the if you go cloud then you don’t need all these specialists. That’s rubbish. Cloud operations need the same or more headcount if technical specialists, they’re just doing different things. The old “don’t run your own systems, it’s cheaper and easier to go cloud” is just sales fiction. Don’t believe it. | | --- | --- | --- |

| | | Don’t believe it. You don't need to 'believe'. You need to do an analysis of what you need and how much each option will cost. Then you can know. If your argument is "I believe onprem saves money" or "I bet AWS is cheaper" or "Jim Morrison came to me in a dream and said I should use Azure" then you haven't done enough research. | | --- | --- | --- |

| | | > you haven't done enough research. the research isn't free either. The more indepth and time it takes to do such research, the slower you come to a decision and ship. Cloud allows you to ship fast. It allows you to go without research - just accept the marketing, and pay up. You pay above-cost (compared to on-prem) when you grow to a certain size. But this is usually a worthy trade off tbh. | | --- | --- | --- |

| | | icedchai 67 days ago | root | parent | prev | next [[–]](javascript:void(0)) I've run into this kind of snake oil in the cloud, as well. Some organizations demand all routing go through an "upstream" VPC operated by the parent org's IT dept, so various third-party security services (WAFs, IDSes, etc.) can scan / inspect the traffic. | | --- | --- | --- |

| | | jedberg 67 days ago | root | parent | prev | next [[–]](javascript:void(0)) When I moved reddit from on-prem to the cloud, I cut our costs by 27%. It was the same number of people managing both infrastructures, but once we moved to the cloud, I no longer spent most of my time imaging machines and driving them to a datacenter to rack and stack them. Instead I spent my time coding ways to manage machines via API, so that when I needed to double our infrastructure, I just ran a script. Cloud makes a ton of sense for high growth companies. If your infrastructure is mostly static, that's when it makes sense to go to a datacenter. Or if you have one very specific use case, like Dropbox. | | --- | --- | --- |

| | | This is very unusual in my experience, except in cases where the on-prem was either massively over-provisioned or the customer was getting absolutely gouged on pricing at the DC or IP transit or whatever. Do you recall what the big savings were in? Compute, storage, DB etc? Be really interested to understand why this case is so different to many I've read. | | --- | --- | --- |

| | | Funny enough I have the exact numbers handy! Keep in mind this was 2008 and we only had 150M page views a month back then. Data Center (per month) Servers: $6K Cabinet (x3): $15K Bandwidth: $2.5K Support: N/A Total: $23.5K EC2 (per month) Servers: $13K Storage: $1.5K Bandwidth: $1.1K Support: $1.2K Total: $16.8K | | --- | --- | --- |