On Tuesday, March 04, 2014 04:30:46 Andrew Buczko wrote: > Torrie, > > I don't have time to read your "novels". Please keep your post simple and > to the point.
I do realize that I write a lot and try to work towards smaller e-mails that still contain the important details. I also find it impossible that anyone could come to a conclusion about someone's mail without completely reading the message. > > On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 3:37 AM, Andrew Buczko <[email protected]>wrote: > > Ok > > Thanks Chris, that makes more sense when you say it that way. > > > > On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 11:59 AM, Chris Egeland <[email protected]>wrote: > >> I'm sorry, but I'm siding with Torrie on this one. > >> > >> On 3/3/2014 11:35 AM, Justin Herman wrote: > >> I agree with Andrew, > >> > >> I hold several concerns about this proposal and think we need to > >> > >> evaluate the needs of the infrastructure. > >> > >> The purpose of bringing up proposals on the discuss list is so that > >> anyone subscribed can participate in the proposal process, member or not. > >> If you wish to discuss your proposals, please bring them up on the list > >> so > >> that people subscribed can participate in the discussion. > >> > >> On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 11:33 AM, Andrew Buczko <[email protected] > >> > >> > wrote: > >>> WAT? > >>> > >>> first you said it was $1.60 > >>> > >> This was the monthly increase in billing to more than quadruple our > >> > >> infrastructure's power, by implementing the original proposal. > >> > >> Then $16.40 > >> > >> This is the monthly savings we will see if we implement this proposal > >> > >> and spend the $200 mentioned to reserve the t1.micro instances mentioned. > >> > >> Now it's $123.10 > >> > >> This was a hypothetical number. It's the monthly cost of the > >> > >> originally proposed infrastructure (2x t1.micro, 2x m1.small, and 1x > >> m1.small RDS) purchased without reservations, minus the monthly cost of > >> the > >> same infrastructure purchased with monthly reservations. It was given > >> simply to illustrate how much of a monthly savings is available when > >> utilizing the AWS Reserved Instances program. This number has absolutely > >> nothing to do whatsoever with this current proposal. > >> > >>> ? > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 11:09 AM, Torrie Fischer < > >>> > >>> [email protected]> wrote: > >>>> Previous thread: > >>>> > >>>> https://synhak.org/pipermail/discuss/2014-February/003393.html > >>>> > >>>> I'd like to propose that we spend $200 to reserve the two t1.micro > >>>> instances > >>>> in that proposal for the purpose of web servers. > >>>> > >>>> Our current AWS expenditure is still ~$80/mo. Spending $200 up front > >>>> will > >>>> reduce that bill by $16.40/mo and keep our infrastructure expenses low > >>>> for the > >>>> next three years. Thats an extra $16.40 we can invest elsewhere with a > >>>> break > >>>> even point of 12 months. > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> Discuss mailing list > >>>> [email protected] > >>>> https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Discuss mailing list > >>> [email protected] > >>> https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Discuss mailing > >> [email protected]https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > >> > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Discuss mailing list > >> [email protected] > >> https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
