On Tuesday, March 04, 2014 09:32:18 Omar Rassi wrote: > 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.
This is an excellent description. > > 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. Thank you for the perspective, Omar. > > 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
