←back to thread

WebSockets cost us $1M on our AWS bill

(www.recall.ai)
261 points tosh | 2 comments | 06 Nov 24 18:50 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
londons_explore ◴[06 Nov 24 19:58 UTC] No.42068398[source]▶
They are presumably using the GPU for video encoding....

And the GPU for rendering...

So they should instead just be hooking into Chromium's GPU process and grabbing the pre-composited tiles from the LayerTreeHostImpl[1] and dealing with those.

[1]: https://source.chromium.org/chromium/chromium/src/+/main:cc/...

replies(3): >>42068541 #>>42068566 #>>42068576 #
isoprophlex ◴[06 Nov 24 20:08 UTC] No.42068541[source]▶
You'd think so but nope, they deliberately run on CPU, as per the article...
replies(1): >>42070083 #
1. yjftsjthsd-h ◴[06 Nov 24 21:55 UTC] No.42070083[source]▶
> We do our video processing on the CPU instead of on GPU, as GPU availability on the cloud providers has been patchy in the last few years.

I dunno, when we're playing with millions of dollars in costs I hope they're at least regularly evaluating whether they could at least run some of the workload on GPUs for better perf/$.

replies(1): >>42070543 #
2. londons_explore ◴[06 Nov 24 22:30 UTC] No.42070543[source]▶
And their workload is rendering and video encoding. Using GPU's should have been where they started, even if it limits their choice of cloud providers a little.