Twitter Is Switching to AWS

bloomberg.com

34 points·judge2020··8 comments

Interesting...as someone else pointed out, this is just for feeds. If I recall correctly, Twitter uses Redis as the store for user feeds. I wonder if this is a result of the recent deployment of Graviton2 instances for ElastiCache[1]. I'd think Twitter would be at a scale where such a managed solution wouldn't be hugely valuable, but I thought this use of Graviton chips was really smart. I wouldn't be surprised if Amazon gave them a very good deal to lock in a big customer for that offering.

[1] https://aws.amazon.com/about-aws/whats-new/2020/10/amazon-el...

Title on HN is misleading (or even incorrect). In the article it mentions Twitter is moving one feature (feeds) to AWS. They still rely on GCP and their own infra for the rest.

I wish GCP would offer more similar product lineup compared to AWS, like Lambda@Edge, Greengrass IoT etc

What’s wrong with cloudflare workers, stackpath’s offering or fastly’s edge compute?

Traffic costs is one of the issues. Getting approval to use the cloud providers is a pain at work

Actual headline:

> Twitter Will Use Amazon Web Services to Power User Feeds

As the article makes clear, they aren't switching everything to AWS, as the editorialized title implies.

I flagged it for just that reason -- as many will simply upvote and believe the headline without bothering to actually RTFA.

Article is unclear to me if they are switching from Google to AWS, or other non-cloud stuff to AWS.

That's my main question. If they're switching cloud providers that's a different story than from own infrastructure to AWS. I imagine for any memory demanding task switching from self-hosted to cloud would be a large cost that could be offset for a mature (slowly changing) feature.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com