1460
Its been an interesting morning
(reddthat.com)
It was to talk about "team restructuring"
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 30 Aug 2023
1460 points (99.4% liked)
Programmer Humor
32571 readers
291 users here now
Post funny things about programming here! (Or just rant about your favourite programming language.)
Rules:
- Posts must be relevant to programming, programmers, or computer science.
- No NSFW content.
- Jokes must be in good taste. No hate speech, bigotry, etc.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Got to agree with @Zushii@feddit.de here, although it depends on the scope of your service or project.
Cloud services are good at getting you up and running quickly, but they are very, very expensive to scale up.
I work for a financial services company, and we are paying 7 digit monthly AWS bills for an amount of work that could realistically be done with one really big dedicated server. And now we're required to support multiple cloud providers by some of our customers, we've spent a TON of effort trying to untangle from SQS/SNS and other AWS specific technologies.
Clouds like to tell you:
The last item is true, but the first two are only true if you are running a small service. Scaling up on a cloud is not cost effective, and maintaining a complicated cloud architecture can be FAR more complicated than managing a similar centralized architecture.
I worked in operations for a large company that had their own 50,000 sq ft data center with 2000 physical servers, uncountable virtual servers, backup tape robots, etc... Their cooling bill would like to disagree with your assessment about scaling. I was unpacking new servers regularly because, when you own you own servers, not only do you have to buy them, but you have to house them (so much rented space), run them, fix them, cool them, and replace them.
Don't get me wrong, I've also seen the AWS bill for another large company I worked for and that was staggering. But, we were a smaller tech team and didn't require a separate ops group specifically to maintain the physical servers.
If you really need the scale of 2000 physical machines, you're at a scale and complexity level where it's going to be expensive no matter what.
And I think if you need that kind of resources, you'll still be cheaper of DIY.
You are paying aws to not have one big server, so you get high availability and dynamic load balancing as instances come and go.
I agree its not cheaper than being on prem. But it's much higher quality solutions.
Today at work, they decided to upgrade from ancient Ubuntu version to a more recent version. Since they don't use aws properly, they treat servers as pets. So to upgrade Ubuntu, they actually upgraded Ubuntu on the instance instead of creating a new one. This led to grub failing and now they are troubleshooting how to mount disks etc.
All of this could easily be avoided by using the cloud properly.
That could be avoided by using on prem properly, too. People are very capable of making bad infrastructure whether on prem or cloud.
Yep. Virtualization is not a unique selling point of the cloud, despite the benefits of it seeming to be one of the largest selling points.
I used to work on an on premise object storage system before, where we required double digits of "nines" availability. High availability is not rocket science. Most scenarios are covered by having 2 or 3 machines.
I'd also wager that using the cloud properly is a different skillset than properly managing or upgrading a Linux system, not necessarily a cheaper or better one from a company point of view.
Do you mean 99% or 99.99999999%? Because 99.99999999% is absurd. Even Google doesn't go near that for internal targets. That's 1/3 of a second per year of downtime. If a network hiccup causes 30s of downtime, you've blown through a century of error budget. If you're talking durability, that's another matter, but availability?
For ten-nines availability to make any sense, any dependent system would also have to have ten nines availability, and any calling system would have to have close to ten nines availability or it's not worth ten nines on the called system.
If the traffic ever goes over TCP/IP, not even if it ever goes over the public internet, if it ever goes over Ethernet wires, ten nines sounds like overkill. Maybe if it stays within a mainframe computer, but you'd have to carefully audit that mainframe to ensure that every component involved also has approx ten nines.
If you mean 2 nines availability, that's not high availability at all. That's nearly 4 days of downtime a year. That's enough that you don't necessarily need a standby system, you just need to be able to repair the main one within a few hours if it goes down.
Sorry, yes, that was durability. I got it mixed up in my head. Availability had lower targets.
But I stand by the gist of my argument - you can achieve a lot with a live/live system, or a 3 node system with a master election, or...
High availability doesn't have to equate high cost or complexity, if you can take it into account when designing the system.
"A lot", sure, but not say 5 nines. 99.9% (8 hours of downtime per year), is reasonable. That's enough time to fire up an instance in another location if that turns out to be necessary.
99.99% (50 minutes of downtime per year) is harder. It means you need automatic systems doing the switchover, geographical separation, people on call 24/7 to diagnose and fix any issue in minutes.
99.999% is only 5 minutes of downtime per year. At that rate, you can't even afford for someone on call to respond. You do still want them on call to verify the automated systems did the work, but you need to rely on automated systems fully handling any possible emergency. The system needs to fail over perfectly without any human intervention. For that, a 3 node system isn't enough. You need geographical redundancy, as well as redundancy within each geographic region. You need to be able to do software upgrades without affecting that redundancy, so you need at least a secondary 3-node system so that you can do a blue/green deployment, testing out handing over traffic to the new system with the ability to instantly roll back if something doesn't work.
Each "nine" you add reduces the "error budget" by a factor of 10, so as you start getting above 4/5 nines, you really do start to need specialized engineering which tends to come with high cost and complexity.
For a typical Lemmy instance, 3 nines is probably good enough. 2 nines might even be acceptable if people aren't paying. But, for something like Netflix, 8 hours of downtime per year is far too much. For something like a high frequency trading platform, 8 nines might not even be enough. For them, the custom engineering and obscene cost of chasing 7+ nines is worth it because every second of downtime could cost millions.
Agreed, but for many services 2 or 3 nines is acceptable.
For the cloud storage system I worked on it wasn't, and that had different setups for different customers, from a simple 3 node system (the smallest setup, mostly for customers trialing the solution) to a 3 geo setup which has at least 9 nodes in 3 different datacenters.
For the finanicial system, we run a live/live/live setup, where we're running a cluster in 3 different cloud operators, and the client is expected to know all of them and do failover. That obviously requires little more complexity on the client side, but in many cases developers or organisations control both anyway.
Netflix is obviously at another scale, I can't comment on what their needs are, or how their solution looks, but I think it's fair to say they are an exceptional case.
We have on prem and do all our upgrades by burn the OS and move the data, with the exception of the hypervisor OS (which has a pretty resilient bulk self upgrade built in, and we have a burn-the-OS plan documented for if they do crash). Even system file corruption of a random pet server? New VM and reattach the data disk. Need high availability? Throw F5 or HAProxy at the problem (assuming L7 protocol support).
Both cloud and on prem can work equally when done right. The most important part is to understand that both have different types of cost (human, machine, developer) and to make the right choice based your/your customer's needs and any applicable laws or regulations about data locality. And yeah, sometimes one will be better for someone and not someone else.
Seven figures of cloud engineering can't solve stupid, but neither can seven figures of datacenter. This isn't some Sith/Jedi concept where you have hard definitions of dark and light or good and evil - though sometimes both will see each other as the enemy, and they are in a way competitors.
Yup, if your solution is not cloud agnostic you've fucked up.
Being cloud-agnostic also means additional cost/complexity.
Sometimes the only way to win the game is by not playing it.
I would argue that most cloud native services existed in their standalone forms way before public clouds made their own versions. For example there are loads of message queue systems that are just as easy to incorporate and are cloud agnostic, some of them are FOSS. Sure you can reinvent the wheel but in most cases something like RabbitMQ will work OK depending on the use case. Having cloud vendor lock in is where cost catches up with you. Complexity is arbitrary since there are ways to make anything overcomplicated.
RabbitMQ is more expensive on AWS than e.g. SNS/SQS. It's not a coincidence, you're trading lock-in for a cheaper price.
The increased complexity comes from the fact you will need some components which exist in either managed, but vendor lock-in form, or you need to spin them up / managed yourself.
Right, paying for managed services whether cloud native or not is pretty much the same thing, it hurts in the pocket. Spinning up your own RabbitMQ on a VM is both cheap and cloud agnostic, especially if sized right.