Earlier quoted context omitted.
If web site caters to EU customers, just rent it from the EU datacenter, no need for a cloud. A Hetzner server costs $100/month, an equivalent amount of cloud resources will run you into thousands.
And how much does Hetzners nosql/relational db, emr solution, faas, etc cost? Solutions aren’t built the traditional way anymore. You don’t go get some cots server and write everything yourself. So while you’re futzing around getting a database installed, tuned and setup the engineer using a more complete cloud platform has already moved onto business logic.
Ask HN: Is your company sticking to on-premise servers? Why?
751–760 of 782 posts
Re: Ask HN: Is your company sticking to on-premise servers? Why?
#752Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I remember saying to my cofounder why does anyone use AWS, you can do this on your own way cheaper. I agree with everything you say - I'm convinced that a huge part of the cloud's financial success is due to how it allows CTOs/CIOs to indulge their fantasies about having a mega-scalable app - even if their workloads are very regular and predictable. Along the lines of buying an expensive sports car but never drivin…
From a developer perspective, I prefer to work with cloud providers because I can do more with fewer developers because I'm not dealing with sysadmins too. I can throw up a EMR cluster with minimal effort and get a working product out the door quickly. These things don't matter for large, established companies because they already have DevOps, SysAdmin, and Development teams. But for smaller dev shops, it absolutely…
Re: Ask HN: Is your company sticking to on-premise servers? Why?
#753Try running any service with an average egress exceeding 10 Mbit/s then tell me cloud still makes sense. By the time you reach 1 Gbit/s the very idea of it is enough to elicit a primitive biological defensive response. We don't do on-prem but we do make heavy use of colo. The thought of cloud growth and DC space consolidation some day pushing out traditional flat rate providers absolutely terrifies me. At some point…
Netflix runs on the cloud and does 30% of all internet traffic. That being said, 99% of that traffic is served from servers in colos now, but 10 years ago it was all served from CDN providers like Akamai, which is just a specialized cloud.
Re: Ask HN: Is your company sticking to on-premise servers? Why?
#754Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also offtopic, but my 12 year old is obsessed with Hytale.. Loves to read the blog updates and watch the videos and can't wait to eventually play it :)
As is my 11yr old daughter. Cannot wait to play it. Actually, she’s a budding designer, and all she wants to do is mod it!
Re: Ask HN: Is your company sticking to on-premise servers? Why?
#755Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> Leaves fall from the trees, plants grow, animals graze, trains run, whether or not any human is watching. Well that solves the age old question about trees falling in forests :-)
That's a poorly implemented universe. Unless information propagates, it didn't happen ;-) You could always fast forward the current state when the first external observer arrives. But I get there are time constraints - you can't just stop the real universe until it converges to a consensual state.
Re: Ask HN: Is your company sticking to on-premise servers? Why?
#756We started with 2 white-box PC's as servers, 2 mirrored RAID1 drives in each. We added a 3rd PC we built ourselves: total nightmare. The motherboard had a bug where, when using both IDE channels, it overwrote the wrong drive. We nearly lost our entire business. Putting both drives on the same IDE channel fixed it, but that's dangerous for RAID1.
A few years in, we needed an upgrade and bought 5 identical SuperMicro 2U servers with hardware RAID1 for around $10K. Those things were beasts: rock solid, fast, and gave us plenty of capacity. We split our services across machines with DNS and the 5 machines were in a local LAN to talk to each other for access to the database server. The machines' serial ports were wired together in a daisy-chain so we could get direct console access to any machine that failed, and we had watchdog cards installed on each so that if one ever locked up, it automagically rebooted itself. When I left in 2005, we were handling 100's of request/s, every page dynamically generated from a search engine or database.
Of course it took effort to set all this up. But the nice thing is, you control and understand _everything_. Some big company doesn't just do things to you, you have no idea what is happening, and they're not talking. And if things do go south, you can very quickly figure out why, because you built it.
The biggest mistake we made was in the first few years, where we used those crappy white-box PCs. Sure, we saved a couple thousand dollars, but we had the money and it was a terrible trade. Night and day difference between those and real servers.
Re: Ask HN: Is your company sticking to on-premise servers? Why?
#757Earlier quoted context omitted.
A few years ago I was trying to start a company and get it off the ground. We had to make decisions on our tech stack and whether we were going to use AWS and build around their infra. Our business was very data heavy and required transferring large datasets from outside to our databases. Even in our early prototypes, we realized that we couldn’t scale cost-effectively on AWS. I figured out that we could colocate and…
Dropbox did the same thing a few years back - moved everything from Amazon S3 to their own storage. My guess is they did it for cost reasons.
Then they get to a certain inflection point on the growth curve and splurging for unpredictable capacity slowly is replaced with reasonable costs for the known capacity.
Re: Ask HN: Is your company sticking to on-premise servers? Why?
#758Re: Ask HN: Is your company sticking to on-premise servers? Why?
#759Hardware is super cheap:
-A 40 slots rack, with gigabit fiber, dual power and a handful of public IP addresses, costs on average 10000€/y.
-A reconditioned server on eBay with 16 cores and 96GB of RAM costs 500€ (never seen them break in 3 years).
-A brand new Dell Poweredge with AMD EPYC 32 core and 64GB of RAM will cost 3000€.
-Storage is super cheap: 500GB of SSD costs 80€ (consumer stuff is super fine as long as you wisely plan between redundancy and careful load) and rotational disks are even cheaper. Never seen a rotational disk break.
Once bought, all of this is yours forever, not for a single month. You can pack very remarkable densities in a rack and have MUCH more infrastructure estate at disposal than you would ever afford on AWS.
The flip side of the coin is that you need operation expertise. If it's always you, then ok (although you won't be doing much more than babysitting the datacenter). Otherwise, if you need to hire a dedicated person, people is the most expensive resource yet and that should definitely be added to the cost of operations.
Re: Ask HN: Is your company sticking to on-premise servers? Why?
#760Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes. I wonder about Second Life, which is doing a "cloud uplift" to AWS. The parts of the system that are variable-load and web-like are already on AWS. But the region servers (one CPU for each 256m^2) are owned outright, and in a colo in Phoenix. They're obsolete machines. But they are compute bound, with a constant load 24/7. Even when no user is in a region, the simulated world continues to run. Uses a bit less CP…
>> Leaves fall from the trees, plants grow, animals graze, trains run, whether or not any human is watching. Well that solves the age old question about trees falling in forests :-)
So if a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, it won't hit the sound code or the display code.