Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> To be honest I hadn't thought at all about the pricing beforehand. I just figured "Pay for what you use" sounded like it would be cheaper than paying for instances that are on 24/7.

Deciding to do a whole infrastructure change to save money without even stopping 5mins to do a quick math on the expected savings seems like a recipe for disaster.

Just switching from m1.small to t2.small would bring their costs down to $55 from $96 for the compute. Just make sure to create a monitor in case you use up all your burst capacity. Other than that a quick reservation would bring that down even further, and all of this with zero re-architecting.

Serverless is super cheap if your workload is not serving requests constantly. It's like renting a car 365 days out of the year instead of purchasing, it only makes sense if you only need it sporadically.



>Deciding to do a whole infrastructure change...

He didn't decide to do a whole infrastructure change. He just ran an experiment that was about more than just cost.


His main goal was to reduce deployment time, not to reduce costs.

It's obvious from the article that he would have even lived with a slight bump in pricing if he got that.


> It's like renting a car 365 days out of the year instead of purchasing, it only makes sense if you only need it sporadically.

Spot on! Great analogy.


Better to use t3.small and use infinite burst




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: