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

What's the time trade-off?

I've been drawing out my plans lately for a hobby project, all 100% on AWS.

Being able to spin up my entire infrastructure with Terraform, build out images with Packer, setup rules for off-site backups, ensure everything is secure to the level I want it, etc. - It takes me next to no time at all.

I can't imagine buying hardware, ensuring my home is setup with proper Internet, configuring everything here, and then still needing off-site backups anyway.

Now, keep in mind - I'm definitely coming in from a Millennial point of view. My entire career was built on cloud. I've never touched hardware apart from building a computer back when I was 15 or something. I understand virtual.

But being able to build up and tear down an entire setup, having it completely self-restore in minutes. Can't beat that.

Napkin math has me at ~$50/mo: Full VPC, private/public isolated subnets, secure NACLs and security groups, infinitely extendable block storage and flat-file storage, near-instant backups with syncing to a different continent, 5 servers, DNS configurations, etc.

All depends what you're doing too - of course. But for me, just the trade-off of working with what I know and not needing to leave my cafe of choice, still not breaking the bank - and if I do, having instant tear down and restore. Bam.

True enough.

That is where the margins come from on AWS. They are charging 10x the cost of the hardware. Even the AWS well architected framework says that there are always tradeoffs between disaster recovery and cost. For your business cost is more important than having your servers replicated in many time zones.

Cost and Latency.

My team and I run the servers for a number of very big videogames. For a high-cpu workload, if you look around at static on-prem hosting and actually do some real performance bencharking, you will find that cloud machines - though convenient - generally cost at least 2x as much per unit performance. Not only that, but cloud will absolutely gouge you on egress bandwidth - leading to a cost multiplier that's closer to 4x, depending on the balance between compute and outbound bandwidth.

That's not to say we don't use the cloud - in fact we use it extensively.

Since you have to pay for static capacity 24/7 - even when your regional players are asleep and the machines are idle, there are some gains to be had by using the right blend of static/elastic - don't plan to cover peaks with 100% static - and spin up the elastic machines when your static capacity is fully consumed. This holds true for anything that results in more usage - a busy weekend, an in-game event, a new piece of downloadable content, etc... It's also a great way to deal with not knowing exactly how many players are going to show up on day 1.

Regarding latency, we have machines in many smaller datacenters around the world. We can generally get players far closer to one of our machines than to AWS/GCP/Azure, resulting in better in-game ping, which is super important to us. This will change over time as more and more cloud DCs spring up, but for now we're pretty happy with the blend.

We hear from our customers mostly what has been said here: cost and mental overhead. There is a bit of a paradox - companies that plan to grow aggressively are wary of AWS bills chopping their runway in half - they're very aware of _why_ cloud providers give out a year for free to most startups - they recoup that loss very fast once the cash faucet opens up.

What really gets me is that most cloud providers promise scalability, but offer no guard-rails - for example diagnosing performance issues in RDS - the goal for most cloud providers is to ride the line between your time cost and their service charges. Sure you can reduce RDS spend, but you'll have to spend a week to do it - so bust out the calculator or just sign the checks. No one will stop you from creating a single point of failure - but they'd happily charge for consulting fees to fix it. There is a conflict on interest - they profit from poor design.

In my opinion, the internet is missing a platform that encourages developers to build things in a reproducible way. Develop and host at home until you get your first customers, then move to a hosting provider down the line. Today, this most appeals to AI/ML startups - they're painfully aware of their idle GPUs in their gaming desktops and their insane bill from Major Cloud Provider. It also appeals to engineers who just want to host a blog or a wedding website, etc.

This is a tooling problem that I'm convinced can be solved. We need a ubiquitous, open-source, cloud-like platform that developers can use to get started on day 1, hosting from home if desired. That software platform should not have to change when the company needs increased reliability or better air conditioning for their servers. If its a Wordpress blog or a minecraft server or a petabyte SQL database - the Vendor should be a secondary choice to making things.