Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit
phonon | on: WebSockets cost us $1M on our AWS bill
For $1000 per month you can get a c8g.12xlarge (assuming you use some kind of savings plan).[0] That's 48 cores, 96 GB of RAM and 22.5+ Gbps networking. Of course you still need to pay for storage, egress etc., but you seem to be exaggerating a bit....they do offer a 44 core Broadwell/128 GB RAM option for $229 per month, so AWS is more like a 4x markup[1]....the C8g would likely be much faster at single threaded tasks though[2][3]

[0]https://instances.vantage.sh/aws/ec2/c8g.12xlarge?region=us-... [1]https://portal.colocrossing.com/register/order/service/480 [2]https://browser.geekbench.com/v6/cpu/8305329 [3]https://browser.geekbench.com/processors/intel-xeon-e5-2699-...

spwa4 | parent | next
Wouldn't c8g.12xlarge with 500g storage (only EBS is possible), plus 1gbps from/to the internet is 5,700 USD per month, that's some discount you have.

If I try to match the actual machine. 16G ram. A rough estimate is that their Xeon E3-1240 would be ~2 AWS vCPU. So an r6g.large is the instance that would roughly match this one. Add 500G disk + 1 Gbps to/from the internet and ... monthly cost 3,700 USD.

Without any disk and without any data transfer (which would be unusable) it's still ~80USD. Maybe you could create a bootable image that calculates primes.

These are still not the same thing, I get it, but ... it's safe to say you cannot get anything remotely comparable on AWS. You can only get a different thing for way more money.

(made estimates on https://calculator.aws/ )

petcat | parent
> That's 48 cores

That's not dedicated 48 cores, it's 48 "vCPUs". There are probably 1,000 other EC2 instances running on those cores stealing all the CPU cycles. You might get 4 cores of actual compute throughput. Which is what I was saying

phonon | root | parent
That's not how it works, sorry. (Unless you use burstable instances, like T4g) You can run them at 100% as long as you like, and it has the same performance (minus a small virtualization overhead).
petcat | root | parent
Are you telling me that my virtualized EC2 server is the only thing running on the physical hardware/CPU? There are no other virtualized EC2 servers sharing time on that hardware/CPU?
phonon | root | parent
If you are talking about regular EC2 (not T series, or Lambda, or Fargate etc.) you get the same performance (within say 5%) of the underlying hardware. If you're using a core, it's not shared with another user. The pricing validates this...the "metal" version of a server on AWS is the same price as the full regular EC2 version.

In fact, you can even get a small discount with the -flex series, if you're willing to compromise slightly. (Small discount for 100% of performance 95% of the time).

petcat | root | parent
This seems pretty wild to me. Are you saying that I can submit instructions to the CPU and they will not be interleaved and the registers will not be swapped-out with instructions from other EC2 virtual server applications running on the same physical machine?
doctorpangloss | root | parent | next
Only the t instances and other VM types that have burst billing are overbooked in the sense that you are describing.
nostrebored | root | parent | next
Yes — you can validate this by benchmarking things like l1 cache
phonon | root | parent
Welcome to the wonderful world of multi-core CPUs...