top | item 37378932

(no title)

harpratap | 2 years ago

> We had 100% uptime and we saved 80% on cloud costs.

Is there a source on such bold claims?

discuss

order

Gys|2 years ago

> We have built Cuber for scaling Pushpad. Cuber has been used in production for over a year and it is stable and reliable. We had 100% uptime and we saved 80% on cloud costs.

Pretty sure the 100% and 80% refer to using Cuber for Pushpad. So its probably more about using Kubernetes than about Cuber.

Terretta|2 years ago

That uptime is dropping: URL to pushpad.xyz in README doesn't work (as of this comment).

dijit|2 years ago

to be fair cloud is (on the whole) about 5x the price compared to bare metal. Depending on several factors which make it really hard to compare (apples to oranges and all that).

For my use-case, which does not require HA, is relatively B/W intensive etc; K8S on bare metal can be 11x cheaper (with the same amount of hands-off, click to deploy, no messing around) as GCP.

So, fundamentally, there can be enormous gains w.r.t price vs cloud, 80% cost reduction leaves an infinitesimally small margin though; if they really are providing all the same benefits as a public cloud.

harpratap|2 years ago

This is not a bare-metal vs Cloud comparison, the Cuber PaaS is supposed to run on anything including cloud based on their docs. So when they say "save 80% on cloud costs" I am assuming they mean for eg. save 80% on using Cuber on GCP compared to deploying same workload on GKE.

It would be very absurd to claim something like - I was using i9-13900KS but realized I could run the same workload on my raspberry pi, but hey I also used this packaging tool in the process therefore I saved 80% costs because of the packaging tool.