Live data from Hacker News

Is a billion dollars worth of server lying on the ground?

cerebralab.com

91–100 of 338 posts

Re: Is a billion dollars worth of server lying on the ground?

#91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many people use AWS because everyone uses AWS. Many of my clients have no need for AWS but still use it, at least until the VC money runs out. Usually then I have to go first, then servers are moving to somewhere cheaper when a new CFO comes in.

From AWS' own marketing propaganda: How much would said clients have to invest in people and hardware otherwise? What if their application becomes an overnight success and needs to scale up fast? Sure, if it's an established company then using their own hardware (and people to set up and manage it) might make sense; iirc Dropbox is a fairly recent big player that made that move. But otherwise it's a big upfront inves…

StackOverflow is famous for running on-prem on bare metal Dell hardware: https://nickcraver.com/blog/2016/03/29/stack-overflow-the-ha...

Last time I checked, GitHub was also mostly on bare metal and cloud-free.

Re: Is a billion dollars worth of server lying on the ground?

#93

He kind of touches on this in point IV, but never mentioned specifically: the cost comparison is not AWS vs ovh. It's fragment-of-EC2 vs ovh. If you need a predefined small number of VMs and no other functionality, it would be silly to go with AWS. But on the other hand, if you want a set of servers of a given class spawning on demand, with traffic coming in via load balancers, with integrated certificate and DNS man…

AWS gives you all the things you'd need to scale, without heavy up-front costs. There's a natural path from small instances -> bigger instances -> load balancers/ELB -> reserved instances (or spot if it fits your workload). For a smaller company, any savings you'd get from owned servers would be offset by much higher dev ops costs. Plus, as mentioned, you get a vast menu of services to choose from, all of which are m…

>can afford a modest markup.

I'm with you until that statement. AWS is nothing approaching "modest" in their markup. 20% minimum and typically much higher if you know how to negotiate when purchasing your on-prem gear. And if you happen to be a shop that sweats assets for 7+ years that number starts being measured in the hundreds of percentage points more expensive.

Re: Is a billion dollars worth of server lying on the ground?

#95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I did work for a YC startup that replaced my ~$100/mo Heroku app with a $5,000/mo AWS stack that nobody in the place knew how to manage. Their site was so ridiculously low traffic that I did some napkin math and figured out they were paying around $0.10 per web request.

Huh, making a manual AWS stack 50 times more expensive than a heroku setup seems like a real trick to me! I'm used to heroku being more expensive than running it yourself -- as I would expect, since you're paying them for a lot of management.

Heroku is both incredibly cheap and incredibly expensive.

It's only $7/month to deploy a web application. More if you want some of the paid features and a database instance. It all works out of the box with instant deployment out of the box, it's fantastic.

Then it suddenly goes $50 more per gigabyte of RAM, which makes it massively expensive for any serious workload. It's crazy hot much they can try to charge, makes AWS looks like a bunch of clowns in comparison.

Re: Is a billion dollars worth of server lying on the ground?

#96
post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many people use AWS because everyone uses AWS. Many of my clients have no need for AWS but still use it, at least until the VC money runs out. Usually then I have to go first, then servers are moving to somewhere cheaper when a new CFO comes in.

At my company we colo at a few local datacenters and have do deal with a huge amount of pressure from our investors as to why we're not using AWS. The points that always seem to come up: * AWS is a known quantity and it's easier to evaluate our business with it. * AWS provides "outage damage control" because AWS outages make the news and customers are more understanding. When our ISP has issues it just looks bad on u…

Also: Investors want you to burn money. They don't want you to save money. If you run out of money and it works they give you more for more equity. If it doesn't work, they can move on earlier.

Re: Is a billion dollars worth of server lying on the ground?

#97
post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At my company we colo at a few local datacenters and have do deal with a huge amount of pressure from our investors as to why we're not using AWS. The points that always seem to come up: * AWS is a known quantity and it's easier to evaluate our business with it. * AWS provides "outage damage control" because AWS outages make the news and customers are more understanding. When our ISP has issues it just looks bad on u…

How do you do failover if a server fails or if connectivity to one of those datacenters is lost? With AWS I could just set up a multi-availability-zone RDS deployment for the database and an auto-scaling group for the web tier and be confident that AWS will recover the system from most failures. To me, that is the major selling point of any of the hyperscale cloud providers.

"connectivity to one of those datacenters is lost"

Anecdotal, but AWS had more global problems than the triple connected data centers I've used in twenty years.

I suffered through many rough times, data center connection or power problems were not (very seldom) one of those.

Most of the problems came from apps that we didn't build well to scale or that had bugs (most frequent cause of problems and sitedowns).

Re: Is a billion dollars worth of server lying on the ground?

#98
post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AWS gives you all the things you'd need to scale, without heavy up-front costs. There's a natural path from small instances -> bigger instances -> load balancers/ELB -> reserved instances (or spot if it fits your workload). For a smaller company, any savings you'd get from owned servers would be offset by much higher dev ops costs. Plus, as mentioned, you get a vast menu of services to choose from, all of which are m…

>can afford a modest markup. I'm with you until that statement. AWS is nothing approaching "modest" in their markup. 20% minimum and typically much higher if you know how to negotiate when purchasing your on-prem gear. And if you happen to be a shop that sweats assets for 7+ years that number starts being measured in the hundreds of percentage points more expensive.

>And if you happen to be a shop that sweats assets for 7+ years that number starts being measured in the hundreds of percentage points more expensive.

If you include the growth in electric efficiency over time, it can be bad to run old servers after a certain point.

Re: Is a billion dollars worth of server lying on the ground?

#99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From AWS' own marketing propaganda: How much would said clients have to invest in people and hardware otherwise? What if their application becomes an overnight success and needs to scale up fast? Sure, if it's an established company then using their own hardware (and people to set up and manage it) might make sense; iirc Dropbox is a fairly recent big player that made that move. But otherwise it's a big upfront inves…

For my own startup, I built a small cluster of 17 servers for just beneath $55K, and that had a month-to-month expense of $600 placed in a co-lo. In comparison, the same setup at AWS would be $96K per month. And it is not hard, easy in many ways. Do not be fooled, the cloud companies are peddling is an expensive scam.

If I was doing my own thing I would go the same route as you, but I’m knowledgeable about this stuff, and can manage the entire system (network, replacing bad hardware, etc). It would need to be a very good reason for me to be oncall for that, or else I’d save money by going with something like ovh.

Re: Is a billion dollars worth of server lying on the ground?

#100

He kind of touches on this in point IV, but never mentioned specifically: the cost comparison is not AWS vs ovh. It's fragment-of-EC2 vs ovh. If you need a predefined small number of VMs and no other functionality, it would be silly to go with AWS. But on the other hand, if you want a set of servers of a given class spawning on demand, with traffic coming in via load balancers, with integrated certificate and DNS man…

> You'll pay more than the price difference for someone to implement all of that from scratch.

This is a common trap for startups. AWS has been around long enough that everyone has a 1st-hand or 2nd-hand horror story about someone with a $5000/month AWS bill for a basic website. This creates a false narrative that AWS is bad and or dangerously expensive. Or worse, that clever devops engineers can simply roll their own solutions with open source tools for half the cost.

The reality is that if a startup truly needs $5K/month of AWS services, they’re getting a bargain by buying it from Amazon instead of building it out themselves. $5K/month won’t even begin to buy you another qualified devops engineer to build and maintain custom infrastructure. The first rule of startup engineering is to use every tool available at your disposal to get to market as fast as possible. Cost reduction can come later, but you can never get back wasted time spent rolling your own solutions when an off the shelf vendor could have solved your problem in days rather than months.

However, the other trap is when inexperienced or overeager engineers see the long list of AWS product offerings and think the goal is to use as many of them as possible. There are some misaligned incentives for engineers who want to gain as much AWS experience as possible on their employer’s dime, regardless of whether or not it’s the right business decision. Worst case, mid-level engineers use as many AWS services as possible so they can pad their resumes, then use the experience to pivot into a higher paying job elsewhere and leave the startup with a mess of half-implemented, unnecessary AWS infrastructure and no one to maintain it. Unfortunately, it happens frequently in the startup world where companies are more likely to hire junior engineers who are eager to tinker with AWS and build their resumes.

The brute force way to avoid this problem is to simply constrain the engineering team to a less powerful platform like OVH or DO. If you don’t need any features of the bigger clouds, this works. However, as soon as you do need the big-cloud features you’re going to waste huge amounts of money building them out yourself. It won’t show up on the monthly provider bills, but rather be hidden in the much higher engineering costs and longer project timelines.

The real solution is to hire experienced engineering leadership who will keep complexity in check, then use AWS or other big cloud providers responsibly.

Post reply on HN