• killeronthecorner@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    1 year ago

    They’re using a third party called deft to manage the hardware. Which is a reasonable middleground between cloud and self-operated, the more I think about it.

    I haven’t seen a lot of info on what the cost of that management is though but it’s likely to be leagues less than AWS/GCP

    • chiisana@lemmy.chiisana.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s not just the hardware. “The cloud is expensive” is usually touted by people not understanding why managed services (like Aurora RDS and OpenSearch as suggested in the article) ‘cost more than running it themselves’ by not accounting the management costs.

      A database service needs management not only in hardware (I.e. replace dead drives) but also in software (I.e. monitor cluster performance, tweak system settings to fit usage pattern, manage cluster health, etc etc). These management requires time from the ops team, often in multiple roles like SysAdmin, DBA, and Ops engineers. Fact that they claim to have moved to their own hardware without being on new talents to their ops team makes it questionable as to whether or not they actually understand the cost and If they’re overworking their existing ops team.

      • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Or it could be that they haven’t run into problems yet. If you overbuild your hardware or your software is efficient enough, you don’t need as much tweaking.

        It’s questionable, but I don’t think implausible.

        • chiisana@lemmy.chiisana.net
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          “yet” is the keyword there for sure. It’s not a matter of if, but a matter of when. Even if they’re flushed with cash and grossly over provision their systems, sooner or later, a huge vulnerability will roll around and someone will need to setup / update the OS, ensuring quorum is available for their cluster, fail over traffic during update windows, etc etc etc.

          The stacks are getting so insurmountably huge, it’s not possible to just drop a new cluster at their described scale without significantly increasing the workload for an existing team.

          • edric@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yup. By moving out, they already let go of a lot of security services that came with their cloud subscription like CASB, automated patching, DB maintenance, security/network monitoring, etc. You have to replace all of that with people and on-prem tools/systems.

          • ElectricCattleman@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I mean, they could hire 2-3 people and still have a significant savings over cloud, no? Or contract with a company to do it. They don’t have all that many servers, so full time may not even be needed. Cloud is great except you have zero control over pricing long term. They can raise rates or, more often, re-structure their pricing so they you end up paying more without calling it a hike.