As far as the proposal at hand, what Torrie is proposing is that we reduce
our expenses on infrastructure we're already using by purchasing it ahead
of time. Currently we're doing a pay as you go on our AWS instances, this
could potentially lead to a high bill if one month sees much higher traffic
to our website, or major I/O due to a website rewrite/glitch, a hacker
spins up a server to play with, or any number of things. The point is that
our online infrastructure is currently written for and uses AWS. The cost
goes up when we use more power than we're currently buying. Think of it
like a mobile phone plan: You go over your minutes, you're charged an extra
fee on top of the monthly charge. Torrie is proposing that we prepay our
minutes before we use them.

Justin, there is nothing wrong with your argument, we're all about
exploring other options. However, the options you're proposing requires a
bit more involvement (I.E. building the hardware, moving the code, testing
the code, upgrading the service plan we have, finding a co-lo everyone can
be agree on, maintaining the hardware if there's a problem) and while
that's great and could have many benefits, but all of Synhak runs on
volunteer time. If the website goes down due to a hardware issue, it has to
wait for any of us to get out of work, determine the issue, fish around the
basement hoping we have the replacement part and if not order it and then
wait for it come in and then install and hope there isn't another factor
involved. Under AWS, the possibility of a hardware failure does not exist
and according the accounting, we can afford it and this proposal actually
saves us cash on that unnecessary point of failure. We can continue to
discuss other hosting options as time goes on, taking the time to calmly
gather information and data in our spare time, and explore the subject.

Torrie, I think the biggest issue with discuss@ is that your personality
and mannerism doesn't come across on text or en masse, so it sounds more
abrasive than it actually is. I find that one on one conversation with you
is extremely productive. There aren't any questions about your ability or
integrity with managing Synhak's coffers, its why we the membership voted
you as our treasurer.

Justin, Torrie is doing her due diligence as both the treasurer and the
person who primarily built synhak's AWS infrastructure. She is intimately
familiar with the details to make a sound proposal of this kind. Her
questioning of your responses isn't resistance to your idea, its simply a
request to review your figures with Torrie's so that the better option can
be chosen.

All of the above is simply my honest opinion.

Cheers,
Omar


On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 8:57 AM, Torrie Fischer <[email protected]>wrote:

> 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
>
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Reply via email to