Comment by askinner | Hacker News Reader

Comment by askinner | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

To be clear, we haven't dumped AWS for short running stateless processing. We dynamically spin up spot instances as needed for all our stateless processing using AWS and other cloud services. At our current size our AWS bill will not be 7 million but closer to 500k-1 million a year. Not exactly pocket change. Some of the cost savings we are realizing is due to working with AWS as well on best practices.

For our longer stateful processing or apps that need to be available 24/7 with no variability in load we have purchased our own hardware (a process that has been going on for over 18 months). Owning the equipment plus the data center will run us approx 1.2 million including growth to build a hot back up.

It should be noted, staffing cost was not a factor. We must have staff to manage 1000s of servers at AWS or at our own data centers. The biggest factor was paying for compute on boxes that crashed and yielded nothing we could use to move our business forward. Well, I take that back, we got really good at check points and rollbacks. Other than that, not much.

No matter how you slice it, AWS and other cloud services are a great service for the right types of processing, and applications.

Skinner Moz CTO

Thanks for the additional information. It was difficult to decipher your problems from the original article. I'm guessing the "no variability in load" processes are where AWS was the most unnecessary.

Yes! 95% of our services were running at AWS. Paying AWS for running our website is not a good use of money. Many cheaper ways to host a website.

Paying for 70-100 hours of compute and having the server crash in the middle of calculating your predictive analytics not exactly all that bright either. So, we bought our own gear.

AWS works and worked with us pretty damn closely as we pulled apps out of the cloud.

I'm curious to know if you considered other hosting providers as an alternative to building out your own hardware/datacenters? I think it's reasonably well known that AWS is around 3 times more expensive than alternatives where you pay by-the-month instead of by-the-minute. Was a Rackspace/Linode/whoever implementation costed against a buy-your-own-boxes solution, and if so, is there anything you could share about why you chose the way you did?

(Oh, and thanks for the information you've already shared - even if you can't answer my curiosity here…)

We use other cloud services as well. Rackspace and Nimbix are a couple of them. We even looked at Azure figuring no contention for boxes but we don't have any MSFT in our stack (sorry to my whole neighborhood of MSFT employees). We never depend on just one and have a detailed cost breakdown before we decided to buy or move a service. The ROI needs to be there.

As an aside, AWS has everyone beat when it comes to regions however. We can be close to our customers in Europe, US and so on.

To date, no one is spinning up cloud fronts and services in more areas than AWS. It will take the MSFT , IBMs and the like to move the global cloud along. MSFT just needs to realize not everyone wants Sharepoint, SQLServer and .net.

Which service you use is really situational. Plenty of good ones out there. AWS is just one!

AWS tends to pick locations based on cost rather than their proximity to major Internet hubs, so the number of physical locations they actually have for most of their services is deceptive. They only have 9 available regions, and their latency is going to be much higher than most other providers that are located right by major Internet hubs instead in the middle of nowhere. We're a company (dedicated hosting provider) with only a team of 5 people, and we already have colo in 7 locations, which has them handily beat in North America and matched in Europe. There are also several VPS providers and resellers who simply rent dedicated servers from multiple companies like us with more locations than AWS. I'm looking at the website of one of our clients now who has 20 meaningful locations. Akamai absolutely destroys Cloud Front and everyone else in terms of presence, and a number of other CDNs have them handily beat. Neither AWS nor Cloud Front are anywhere near being leaders in terms of meaningful geographical (i.e. network) presence.

I'm very curious about your ROI analysis for colo vs. a service like Rackspace's "Managed Colocation" [1] where a hosting provider runs the DC and provides the hardware and your folks manage the OS layer and up.

I run technical operations for a company with a fraction of your footprint (but growing quickly). We're at the point where we are growing out of the RAX public cloud but by my calculations, the decision to run our own private cloud in colocation vs. lease one from a service provider is (financially) a wash.

From a practicality standpoint, the scales tip towards leasing bare metal from a provider. I'm curious to hear your experiences with colo. How many folks do you have working in your colocation facilities doing hardware maintenance? What about network engineering? I presume you also keep a sizable stock of spares?

1: http://www.rackspace.com/managed_hosting/managed_colocation/

All good questions. The answer is pretty long winded. In short, we love our bare metal and you are not going to be able to rip it out of our cold dead hands. It is stable, fast and cost efficient.

Now for the long winded:

1. We do have a decent amount of spares but not a ton. Our contracts require replacement parts within hours to a day. Some items like F5 gear we have two and no spare. They just replace their gear in hours.

2. Each data center has 24/7 support that can do some minor tasks.

3. Yes, Networking is a pain and you need the right people to do it. It is not cheap either! Luckily our VP of Tech Ops is a networking guru.You mess up networking and you are hosed. Our first networking guy wasn't exactly Tops! So, we know first hand.

Having said all of that, for us there are economies of scale. It is the case if we want to test different machines, databases or any other combination at scale it could cost us several hundred thousand dollars just to run the tests. Yep, we have dropped over 100k for testing at scale. Its simply not sustainable and an irresponsible way to spend investors cash. Also, when you add in multiple environments for dev, test, staging and integration you can quickly see we consume a lot of boxes. So, many in fact, a lot of colocation/cloud services will not work with us unless we plop down large amounts of cash. Let's also factor in AWS wants large up front spend for reserved instances. Thus, if you need the capital to get the amount of compute you need to run your business it is not very hard just to call Dell, Cisco, Nimbix, Equinix or any other vendor and negotiate our own deals. If any of these companies can get half our spend a year they are willing to at least talk.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com