> I've wondered if it's not a ploy by cloud vendors and the ecosystem around them to increase peoples' cloud bills. Not only do you end up using many times more CPU but you end up transferring a lot of data between availability zones, and many clouds bill for that.
Disagree. I'd argue that microservices are inherently more cost effective to scale. By breaking up your services you can deploy them in arbitrary ways, essentially bin packing N microservices onto K instances.
When your data volume is light you reduce K and repack your N services.
Because your services are broken apart they're easier to move around and you have more fine grained scaling.
> further increasing lock-in to the managed cloud paradigm if not to individual clouds.
Also disagree. We use Nomad and it's not hard to imagine how we would move to another cloud.
More granular scaling. Scaling up instances of 8, 16, 32GB or even larger instances is much more expensive than 1,2,4GB instances. In addition, monoliths tend to load slower since there's more code being loaded (so you can't scale up in sub minute times)
Obviously there's lazy loading, caching, and other things to speed up application boot but loading more code is still slower
Disagree. I'd argue that microservices are inherently more cost effective to scale. By breaking up your services you can deploy them in arbitrary ways, essentially bin packing N microservices onto K instances.
When your data volume is light you reduce K and repack your N services.
Because your services are broken apart they're easier to move around and you have more fine grained scaling.
> further increasing lock-in to the managed cloud paradigm if not to individual clouds.
Also disagree. We use Nomad and it's not hard to imagine how we would move to another cloud.