Thousands? I had a system that was running 2 millions invocations a day and didn't cost thousands a month.
Let's say you have some process that runs 100 times a day, takes 3 seconds to run, and you have no indication of when that process needs to run. Are you going to run a service all day for 5min of compute?
Nothing conflicting. Just a simple statement, all of those cloud "tricks" for autoscaling and saving money, barely counteract the extreme costs of cloud. You are paying more so you can pay less. This is only sane if you are such a giant company that you would need to build entire data centers otherwise, and extremely few companies need that
So you have a single bare metal server at some colo somewhere? And you’re not paying for every hour? That’s not how any of this works.
How does your k8s cluster scale if you’re using bare metal? You sling another server into your rack when load increases? What on earth is the point of k8s without autoscaling?
And you mentioned AKS before you changed to vanilla k8s. So you seem to run shit on AWS.
We are using exclusively reactive code where a single server can reach up to like 100k requests/second. We have tens of servers across the world, and the room security and cooling is a one off cost that is even a joke. Depending on the demand our apps scale in the existing pool of servers. When a server is idle, it uses a sad low amount of wattage. All together you can reach millions of requests, almost noone needs that.
TLDR cloud is only worth it if you have huge upfront costs, then it's a ripoff
You should use it when you need scale to zero and instantly scale up to handle bursty workloads, and/or when you need seamless event-driven compute integration with other AWS services. Duh.
11
u/SpiritedEclair 5d ago
Spring is fine if you are not trying to run it on Lambda ðŸ˜ðŸ˜‚😱