←back to thread

WebSockets cost us $1M on our AWS bill

(www.recall.ai)
362 points tosh | 3 comments | 06 Nov 24 18:50 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
wiml ◴[06 Nov 24 21:31 UTC] No.42069745[source]▶
> One complicating factor here is that raw video is surprisingly high bandwidth.

It's weird to be living in a world where this is a surprise but here we are.

Nice write up though. Web sockets has a number of nonsensical design decisions, but I wouldn't have expected that this is the one that would be chewing up all your cpu.

replies(5): >>42069829 #>>42069915 #>>42070533 #>>42070733 #>>42077722 #
1. turnsout ◴[07 Nov 24 15:53 UTC] No.42077722[source]▶
I’m so confused… they were sending uncompressed video to an AWS server?

If so, they deserve a $1M bill.

replies(1): >>42078393 #
2. 7jjjjjjj ◴[07 Nov 24 16:53 UTC] No.42078393[source]▶
It was on a loopback interface. The problem was CPU usage, not bandwidth costs.
replies(1): >>42080634 #
3. turnsout ◴[07 Nov 24 20:33 UTC] No.42080634[source]▶
Let me rephrase. They were processing uncompressed video via a loopback interface?