It's more about scale than tenancy. Not many SaaS companies offer such an option in the first place but it is typical that the in-house product is the priority and the architectural decisions are made with that in mind firstly, and self-hosting second if at all.
For example Sentry requires ClickHouse, Postgres, Kafka, and Redis presumably because they were the right tools for their needs and either they have the resources to operate them all or the money to buy the managed options from vendors.
Also, the main concern people have with hosting Sentry is the sheer number of containers required but most of them are just consumers for different Kafka queues which again is presumably this way because Sentry ops prefers it this way, whether it be for fine tuning the scaling of each one or whatever the reason.
What makes sense for a SaaS company rarely translates to sensible for self-hosting.
Same here with the community maintained Helm chart. Not the easiest thing but quite reasonable for almost two years now. This is for 50M transactions per month and we're seeing massive cost savings compared to SaaS at this volume as well.
For those interested in only errors, the self-hosted version recently introduced errors-only mode which should cut down on the containers.
Tears of the Kingdom is far from the only Switch game with performance issues. Off the top of my head, the newest Pokemon games (and the next newest, to a lesser extent) run like shit on the Switch. I've heard complaints about other games too.
It was underpowered when it was released in 2016, so it really shouldn't be that surprising.
And if we are going to start counting frame drops as argument against focusing on gameplay instead of triangles per second, there is no safe platform then.
I don't think the number of games in the catalogue matters in this discussion? There are hundreds of Switch games that perform great, and I don't care because I will never play them.
When I play a game and there are frame drops, stuttering, lag, dropped inputs, etc., it reduces my fun just as much as if the game were poorly designed. Maybe that's not the case for you, maybe you don't care, but I do, so do others.
I don't think Nintendo should make a console that rivals the best machine money can buy. I do think they took too long to refresh the hardware in the Switch lineup and their customers are worse off for it.
I don't have this issue on other computing devices. My PC runs all the games I want to play on it very well. I can also upgrade the hardware whenever I want, unlike in my Switch.
> Having been through the demoscene and home computing days since their birth, I can only laugh when calling Switch underpowered.
What does this have to do with the fact that the Switch has performance issues with first party Nintendo games? Hardware power only makes sense when talking about the software you want to run on it. The Switch is underpowered for software released exclusively for it, by the company that makes it. It's not underpowered for NES games, sure, but neither is an NES.
It's not "safe from any frame drops" vs. "has frame drops." How often they drop to what framerate for how long is what makes up the experience. (Similarly, I don't need games on my Switch to look as high-fidelity as my 4090 renders them on my PC, but more textures/reflections would still be welcome over less.)
That's why I agree with what some others in the thread have said-- we'll need to wait for either numbers or, absolutely, some real-world experience to know how big of an improvement we can actually expect to get from an upgrade.
For example Sentry requires ClickHouse, Postgres, Kafka, and Redis presumably because they were the right tools for their needs and either they have the resources to operate them all or the money to buy the managed options from vendors.
Also, the main concern people have with hosting Sentry is the sheer number of containers required but most of them are just consumers for different Kafka queues which again is presumably this way because Sentry ops prefers it this way, whether it be for fine tuning the scaling of each one or whatever the reason.
What makes sense for a SaaS company rarely translates to sensible for self-hosting.