Microservices 101: The good, the bad and the ugly (ZDNet)

Posted Jul 14, 2015 7:34 UTC (Tue) by Lennie (subscriber, #49641)
In reply to: Microservices 101: The good, the bad and the ugly (ZDNet) by Cyberax
Parent article: Microservices 101: The good, the bad and the ugly (ZDNet)

We are talking about a completely different scale here too I think.

Your friends sounds like a pretty small bunch of people.

A large company with 100s, maybe even 1000s of projects being worked on at a time might come to a completely different conclusion.

Microservices 101: The good, the bad and the ugly (ZDNet)

Posted Jul 14, 2015 17:29 UTC (Tue) by b7j0c (guest, #27559) [Link] (1 responses)

The bigger the org, the better they can exploit provisioned resources. This is why AWS was initially adopted by many large orgs (DropBox, Netflix, etc) and has most of its use dominated by them.

A large organization may have a daily flux in requirements of thousands of instances, dozens of databases, dozens of queues. Plus of course the beta/test environments, which doubles costs.

Microservices 101: The good, the bad and the ugly (ZDNet)

Posted Jul 14, 2015 19:14 UTC (Tue) by raven667 (subscriber, #5198) [Link]

It's true that many large orgs use AWS and rent server time but the big value proposition is for small firms who can get a higher level of service by renting that they could never achieve by owning. A big group like Netflix or Dropbox have the resources to build their own infrastructure at a similar quality level as AWS like Facebook does, they just choose not to. There is probably a case to be made that developing infrastructure in-house distracts focus from their developing their primary business offering but financially the profit they pay Amazon at large scale to rent by the minute could probably pay for the headcount and capitol to manage the infrastructure in-house.