Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: Is your company sticking to on-premise servers? Why?

news.ycombinator.com

391–400 of 782 posts

Re: Ask HN: Is your company sticking to on-premise servers? Why?

#391
post #386

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It sounds like you've got a good setup going with colo, but just as a way of illustrating some of the small providers lower bandwidth costs: DigitalOcean gives 3TB bandwidth on a $15 2CPU/2GBMEM/60GBSSD instance. If you ran 1350 of them it'd cost you ~$20k/month and get you your 4PB egress within bandwidth allowance.

Bandwidth Alliance is only for routing http traffic, but a game server will have udp traffic.

Bandwidth Alliance has nothing to do with this, afaik. Minecraft is a TCP game.

Re: Ask HN: Is your company sticking to on-premise servers? Why?

#392

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Cloud is great if your workload is variable and erratic Or if you're just constantly iterating on a large product with many engineers. Those engineers' salaries almost always outweigh all of your cloud costs and so making them productive is cost effective. Things like SNS/SQS/S3/VPC/ELB/etc. save you countless hours and often make up for the increased cloud costs with increased developer productivity.

> Those engineers' salaries almost always outweigh all of your cloud costs I think there is a divide here. Most people in this thread that mention cost as an issue are running some serious gear, and that does not come cheap. Your parent is running 70 servers plus some serious networking equipment, which is easily a couple million dollars. And he said that a cloud provider would 10x that cost. If all you need is a lit…

That reads as fairly dismissive to me.

Most people running serious gear have serious engineering payroll overhead.

Sure, some folks are managing something fairly static like game servers, but many of us work for bigco with two dozen products and massive teams.

Even with thousands of ec2 instances we continue to move our on-prem infrastructure to the cloud because developer productivity saves us big money in the long run.

Re: Ask HN: Is your company sticking to on-premise servers? Why?

#393
post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Those engineers' salaries almost always outweigh all of your cloud costs I think there is a divide here. Most people in this thread that mention cost as an issue are running some serious gear, and that does not come cheap. Your parent is running 70 servers plus some serious networking equipment, which is easily a couple million dollars. And he said that a cloud provider would 10x that cost. If all you need is a lit…

> If you are running real infrastructure, a couple hours of developer time will never out-weight the astronomical costs of cloud hosting. Over time, buying things yourself will always win out on cloud architecture, or the cloud business would be bankrupt.

It would be theoretically possible for cloud providers, specializing in what they do, to gain from economies of scale of various sorts (having their own large purpose-built datacenters, needing less total redundant equipment to have the same replacement speed, having local servers in all parts of the world, being able to use nighttime idle cycles in servers in one part of the world for daytime customers on the other side), which could theoretically yield savings greater than the profit margin that they charge.

Not saying this is what happens in practice.

Re: Ask HN: Is your company sticking to on-premise servers? Why?

#394

I work in Livermore Computing at LLNL. We manage upwards of 30 different compute clusters (many listed here: https://hpc.llnl.gov/hardware/platforms ). You can read about the machine slated to hit the floor in 2022/2023 here: https://www.llnl.gov/news/llnl-and-hpe-partner-amd-el-capita... . All the machines are highly utilized, and they have fast Infiniband/OmniPath networks that you simply cannot get in the cloud. F…

> All the machines are highly utilized, and they have fast Infiniband/OmniPath networks that you simply cannot get in the cloud. It's weird that these networking technologies are not used more in "plain" datacentre settings, since networking latency and throughput has to be a significant challenge to scaling up non-trivial workloads and achieving true datacentre-scale computing. We hear a lot about how to "scale out"…

Those technologies, or mostly IB, were more important when Ethernet speeds lagged behind. IB was first to 100G. Now that Ethernet has caught up, IB has almost no advantage besides a tiny latency decrease. Even mellanox makes more Ethernet than IB products now.

Re: Ask HN: Is your company sticking to on-premise servers? Why?

#395

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Cloud is great if your workload is variable and erratic Or if you're just constantly iterating on a large product with many engineers. Those engineers' salaries almost always outweigh all of your cloud costs and so making them productive is cost effective. Things like SNS/SQS/S3/VPC/ELB/etc. save you countless hours and often make up for the increased cloud costs with increased developer productivity.

No they don't . Things you mentioned are very easy to deploy on-premises, and they won't take more than one man month to deploy and maintain.

I love that you think mature products that took teams of highly skilled people at Amazon years to refine can just be slapped together in a month in your colo.

What a joke.

Re: Ask HN: Is your company sticking to on-premise servers? Why?

#396
I have a friend who is an IT manager for a large chain hotel in the Caribbean.

I keep asking him about why they still use on premises equipment and it boils down to:

* Cost for training / transitioning + sunk cost fallacy * Perceived security risk (right or wrong) * IT is mostly invisible and currently "works" with the current arrangement, why change?

Re: Ask HN: Is your company sticking to on-premise servers? Why?

#397
The way I think about it this: not using the cloud is like building your own code editor or IDE after assembling your own laptops and desktops. It may make you happier and it’s a great hobby, but if you’re trying to run a business you need to do a cost benefit analysis.

We currently have double digit petabytes of data stored in our own data centres, but we’re moving it to S3 because we have far better things to do with our engineers that replace drives all day, and engineering plus hardware is more expensive than S3 Deep Archive - but it wasn’t until Deep Archive came out.

We put out hundreds of petabytes of bandwidth, and AWS is horribly expensive at first glance, but if you’re at that scale you negotiate private pricing that brings it to spitting distance of using a COLO or Linode/Hetzner/OVH - the distance is small enough that the advantages of AWS outweigh it, and it allows us to run our business at known and predictable margins.

Besides variability (most of our servers are shut nights, weekends and when not required), op ex vs cap ex, spikes in load (100X to 1000X baseline when tickets open), there’s also the advantage of not needing ops engineers and being to handle infrastructure with code. If you have a lot of ops people and don’t need any of the advantages, and you have lots of money lying around that you can use on cap ex, and you have a predictable load pattern, and you’ve done a clear cost benefit analysis to determine that building your own is cheaper, you should totally do that. Doesn’t matter what others are doing.

Re: Ask HN: Is your company sticking to on-premise servers? Why?

#398

We spend ~$50k/mo on serverless infrastructure on AWS. It hurts sometimes, given we were fully colocated about 4 years back, and I know how much hardware that could buy us every month. However, with serverless infra we can pivot quickly. Since we're still in the beta stage, with a few large, early access partnerships, and an unfinished roadmap, we don't know where the bottlenecks will be. For example, we depended hea…

If "Cloud = lower upfront, higher long term, but no ceiling. On-prem = higher upfront, lower long term, but ceiling" is true, then how come the revenue of cloud companies keeps going up? That would mean the incoming rate of users who are just starting off and find Cloud worthwhile is more exit rate of mature users who are finding on-prem more worthwhile than cloud

If you're spending more than 50k/month on AWS where is the money to move to on-prem? When they got you, they got you.

Re: Ask HN: Is your company sticking to on-premise servers? Why?

#399

Like many others have pointed out: Cost. I'm the CTO of a moderately sized gaming community, Hypixel Minecraft, who operates about 700 rented dedicated machines to service 70k-100k concurrent players. We push about 4PB/mo in egress bandwidth, something along the lines of 32gbps 95th-percentile. The big cloud providers have repeatedly quoted us an order of magnitude more than our entire fleet's cost....JUST in bandwid…

Same here - CTO of medium sized company. Our IT infra costs are 1/10th the cost of cloud, simply because I happen to be comfortable having on-premise machine and working on them (sometime myself). We have two dozen servers in two locations. It's more time to setup, but maintenance is actually quite low.

Is this the all in cost? Including lease on land/building, staff, electricity etc...

Re: Ask HN: Is your company sticking to on-premise servers? Why?

#400
post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> maintenance is actually quite low. I do hope you regularly patch and reboot your systems.

I hope so too, but it's not like a fleet of fine-tuned EC2 instances running CentOS 6.5 is going to be patched and rebooted regularly without a similar amount of sysadmin attention. (Not picking on CentOS, just using it as a placeholder for $REQUIRED_OS_BECAUSE_OF_CUSTOM_SOFTWARE.)

Automatic unattended updates are totally possible (I haven’t tried it in CentOS but it works fine on Ubuntu). Even kernel updates can now be done without a reboot. And with the proper setup even reboots can be automated.
Post reply on HN