(www.recall.ai)

261 points tosh | 1 comments | 06 Nov 24 18:50 UTC | HN request time: 0.212s | source

Show context

OptionOfT ◴[06 Nov 24 19:43 UTC] No.42068148[source]▶

>>42067275 (OP) #

Did they originally NOT run things on the same machine? Otherwise the WebSocket would be local and incur no cost.

replies(4): >>42068249 #>>42068326 #>>42068338 #>>42070889 #

jgauth ◴[06 Nov 24 19:49 UTC] No.42068249[source]▶

>>42068148 #

Did you read the article? It is about the CPU cost of using WebSockets to transfer data over loopback.

replies(1): >>42068586 #

kunwon1 ◴[06 Nov 24 20:11 UTC] No.42068586[source]▶

>>42068249 #

I read the entire article and that wasn't my takeaway. After reading, I assumed that AWS was (somehow) billing for loopback bandwidth, it wasn't apparent (to me) from the article that CPU costs were the sticking point

replies(1): >>42069778 #

1. DrammBA ◴[06 Nov 24 21:34 UTC] No.42069778[source]▶

>>42068586 #

> We set a goal for ourselves to cut this CPU requirement in half, and thereby cut our cloud compute bill in half.

From the article intro before they dive into what exactly is using the CPU.

↑

WebSockets cost us $1M on our AWS bill