zlacker

>>pul+(OP)
> Vertical scaling — a bigger, exponentially more expensive server

This is in practice not true at all. Vertical scaling is typically a sublinear cost increase (up to a point, but that point is a ridiculous beast of a machine), since you're (typically) upgrading just the CPU and/or just the RAM or just the storage; not all of them at once.

There are instances where you can get nearly 10x the machine for 2x the cost.

>>margin+lu
Disagree- typically vertical scaling is lumpy, and even worse- CPU and RAM upgrades are typically not linear, because you're limited by the number of slots/sockets and the manufacturers intentionally charge higher (expoentially) prices for the largest RAM and fastest CPUs.

>>dekhn+UG
With clouds this is not true anymore. They are exactly linear. If you ask for a smaller node they are simply propositioning a chunk of a larger machine anyway.

There is a point where the exponential pricing starts, but that point is way out there than most people expect. Probably ~100CPU, ~1TB RAM, >50Gbps network etc.

>>defend+Ev1
They're linear... because they're charging you rates based on the cost of the large server, divided down into whatever server you provisioned.

Amusingly, for $94K (probably more like $85K after negotiation) you can buy a white box server: Dual Epyc 9000, 96 core/192thread, 3.5GHz, w/ 3TB RAM, 240T of very fast SSD, and a 10G NIC. The minimum config, Dual Epyc 9124, 16core/32thread, 64GB RAM, and only 4TB of storage is $9K (more like $8K after negotiation). That's "only" a factor of 10 in price for 8X CPUs, 48X the RAM, and 60X the storage.

>>dekhn+KR1
> They're linear... because they're charging you rates based on the cost of the large server, divided down into whatever server you provisioned.

And the reason they do it that way is because it's cheaper. Because the scaling is sublinear up to a good size.