The one redeeming feature of this failure is staged rollouts. As someone advertising routes through CF, we were quite happy to be spared from the initial 25%.
It is expensive. But the point where it stops being expensive is far above most companies use case. If you're paying less than a developers salary for hosting you most likely won't see all that many benefits from moving.
Renting a server from cheaper hosting providers can be massive savings but you now need to re-invent all of the AWS APIs you use or might use and it's big CAPEX time investment. And any new feature you need, whether that's queue, mail gateway or thousand other APIs need to be deployed and managed first before you can even start testing.
It's less work now than it was before just due to amount of tools there are to automate it but it's still more work that you could be spending on improving your product.
> but you now need to re-invent all of the AWS APIs you use or might use and it's big CAPEX time investment
Or maybe you just never needed most of these in the first place. People got into this "AWS" mentality like it is the only way to do things. Everything had to be in a queue, event driven etc.
I'd argue not using AWS means simplifying things and it'll be less expensive not just in server cost but developer time.
You don't get how this works. You buy in AWS because everyone else is , so it's expected. It diffuses risk to your stock options. This also begets a whole generation of people who can only use cloud services so now you are more hard pressed to find people with experience to run things without the cloud. You also create a bigger expenses sheet so it shows you're investing and growing, attracting more investors. "We pay 10 mil in AWS , we're that big". It's classic perverse incentives feeding into a monoculture.
Agreed. Some threads make the suggestion you replied to and seemingly fail to ignore the reality of business. Not all businesses want to insource all problems.
OCI supports it with Intel. I know it works with AMD, but we don't officially support that so far as I'm aware. The performance hit on AMD is bigger than Intel, last I looked.
We operate a postgres service on Firecracker. You can create as many databases as you want, and we memory-snapshot them after 5 seconds of inactivity, and spin them up again in 50ms when a query arrives.
Nowadays nested just wastes the extra operating system overhead and I/O performance if your VM doesn't have paravirtualization drivers installed. CPUs all have hardware support.
Azure has recently announced "direct virtualization", which is a sort of logical nesting, in which users can sub-partition their L1 VMs into virtual L2 VMs that are technically siblings.
eventually yes, this is supposed to remove the perf tax of nested virtualization (less world/context switches on vm_exits) and unlocks some new use cases (pass through hardware from your VM to the sibling-guest).
Interesting ! I stopped working in Azure back in August. But I know of teams still using the nested virt HyperV setup I created to allow multicast to between VMs in Cloud.
I work at Render (render.com); we have over 4 million developers on the platform, and we've migrated many large (and small) Heroku customers over because of our more modern capabilities and scalable pricing.
reply