Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

We handle 80TB and 5M page views a month for under $400

blog.polyhaven.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

351–360 of 426 posts

Re: We handle 80TB and 5M page views a month for under $400

#351

Post by Dracophoenix »

nemothekid wrote: post #190
Dracophoenix wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Superkuh's point is that depending on any single service to protect/host/route your content is setting up oneself up to be Parler'd or 8chan'd. It doesn't matter how good the technology. If you don't any have any control over it, you're one copyright strike or bad mood from a CEO away from being deplatformed. There's.no need to grind an axe to observe how past actions have set the course for the future, perhaps for t…

> If you don't any have any control over it, you're one copyright strike or bad mood from a CEO away from being deplatformed. Again, _as opposed to what_? Are you saying polyhaven should go multi-cloud and spend triple what they need? You aren't actually presenting any real solutions, you are just complaining about the cloudflare ceo. I'm a guy who wants to host a service. You are telling me Cloudflare bad. What is t…

>Again, _as opposed to what_? Are you saying polyhaven should go multi-cloud and spend triple what they need? You aren't actually presenting any real solutions, you are just complaining about the cloudflare ceo.

I haven't complained or suggested a damn thing in my previous comment. All I've provided is an extended summary of Superkuh's comments and supported those claims with evidence of past events. Exercising due diligence shouldn't be regarded as a controversial position.

>I'm a guy who wants to host a service. You are telling me Cloudflare bad.

I'm telling you that depending on a single service, whether that service is Cloudflare, Youtube, AWS, etc., is a bad idea. If you don't have a credible alternative provider you can migrate to at a moment's notice, you're website and content is at risk.

>What is the alternative, and how do I ensure the CEO of that service doesn't null route me?

Alternatives:

https://www.esecurityplanet.com/products/distributed-denial-...

https://www.techradar.com/news/best-ddos-protection

Not mentioned is DDos-Guard, which has a pretty good offering if you don't mind that it's in Russia (perhaps that even might be a bonus)

You can't ensure the CEO of a company doesn't null route you. That's why it's important to have alternatives and plan migration ahead of time.

Re: We handle 80TB and 5M page views a month for under $400

#352

Post by PragmaticPulp »

mjburgess wrote: post #323
PragmaticPulp wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We consume 2GB/S, maxed out, which ends up being 5184TB a month. We have millions on users a day, all on a streaming video platform. > It cost less than $2K/Month. The solution in this article is serving on the order of 100TB/month for $400/month including a high speed global CDN, their API and database servers being hosted reliably, and redundancy and backup being handled by someone else. Your solution is hosting…

One has to presume that they have priced this and found the non-cloud version over-all cheaper. Labour isnt expensive if you're operating towards a minimum needed to function, and your systems are sufficiently operationally stable.

> Labour isnt expensive…

Engineering labor is definitely expensive.

The entire $400/month bill for this linked website will only get you 2-3 hours of consulting time. They’re getting an enormous value by just offloading the work to someone else and not having to worry about it.

Re: We handle 80TB and 5M page views a month for under $400

#353

Post by xurukefi »

> This website blog.polyhaven.com/how-we-handle-80tb-and-5m-page-views-a-month-for-under-400/ is currently offline. Cloudflare's Always Online™ shows a snapshot of this web page from the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine. To check for the live version, click Refresh.

oh the irony

Re: We handle 80TB and 5M page views a month for under $400

#354

Post by kijin »

BiteCode_dev wrote: post #226

Honestly you can go very far with unmettered data plans. We consume 2GB/S, maxed out, which ends up being 5184TB a month. We have millions on users a day, all on a streaming video platform. It cost less than $2K/Month. The cloud is crazy expensive. Private servers are beasts, and they are cheap. Of course, for this price, you don't have redundancy and horizontal scaling. You also don't have to maintain and debug a sy…

You can have redundancy and horizontal scaling with private servers and still end up paying less than what you would on AWS and the like.

I have some clients who use AWS and others who prefer colo and/or dedicated servers from traditional datacenters. The latter group can afford to over-provision everything by 3-4x, even across different DC's if necessary. DC's aren't yesterday's dinosaurs anymore. The large ones have a bunch of hardware on standby that you can order at 3 a.m. and start running deployment scripts in minutes.

Re: We handle 80TB and 5M page views a month for under $400

#355

Post by mrintellectual »

xurukefi wrote: post #353

> This website blog.polyhaven.com/how-we-handle-80tb-and-5m-page-views-a-month-for-under-400/ is currently offline. Cloudflare's Always Online™ shows a snapshot of this web page from the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine. To check for the live version, click Refresh. oh the irony

Indeed not the greatest advertisement for their infrastructure, but regardless you have to admit that <$400 is fairly impressive.

Re: We handle 80TB and 5M page views a month for under $400

#356

Post by BiteCode_dev »

PragmaticPulp wrote: post #343
BiteCode_dev wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody is on call 24H. If the system has a problem during the night, the users will wait until the morning. The world doesn't stop because a streaming service is down for a few hours. It's not a medical service, or something thousands of businesses rely on. It just looses a bit of money and users are grumpy for a day because they had to wait until they could access new content. It's ok.

> Nobody is on call 24H. This one dev is literally on call 365 days a year and can never be away from a computer on vacation. If he leaves, the project has no one. How is that not a problem? Surely you can see that this isn’t reasonable for anyone who wants to run a business, or any employee who doesn’t want the website to be their life. > If the system has a problem during the night, the users will wait until the mo…

You keep moving the goal post.

It seems it's criminal to run a service on the cheap, there must be a terrible human being behing it.

Well no, the dev is not attached 365 days on its computer.

A freelancer is hired part time for the duration of the vaccations. It cost a full dev salary for one month, taking in consideration training time, that's all.

> If you’re running a website where extended outages are no big deal and you don’t care about lost revenue, then it’s not really a valid comparison to the typical business website.

Most services can actually go down once a month, and be a viable business. You are not google or facebook.

In fact, most human service goes down for days: bakeries, lawyers, teachers, plumbers.

The fact your think internet services should be up all time is only in your head. Humans adapt perfectly.

It's not that a big deal. Most of our softwares are not as important as we want to think.

If you really want a 99.99999% up time, you going to increase your service quality by 10%, and your service cost by 1000000%.

The funny thing is, the downtime of ourservice has not being more than github's downtime in the last few years. So honestly the freelacer is mostly hired to have drinks on the house. Because monolythes are very reliable in the first place.

> Your situation is unique, not a model by which other companies should follow.

Every situation is unique, I never, ever stated it was " a model by which other companies should follow". You did.

There is no such thing as "a model by which other companies should follow". You must adapt to the situation and goals. Engineering is about compromises.

My post is simply stating the reality that you can get very far with good old tech.

And a lot of projects don't need the cloud, or high availability. Yet they pay premium for it.

Re: We handle 80TB and 5M page views a month for under $400

#358

Post by mjburgess »

PragmaticPulp wrote: post #352
mjburgess wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One has to presume that they have priced this and found the non-cloud version over-all cheaper. Labour isnt expensive if you're operating towards a minimum needed to function, and your systems are sufficiently operationally stable.

> Labour isnt expensive… Engineering labor is definitely expensive. The entire $400/month bill for this linked website will only get you 2-3 hours of consulting time. They’re getting an enormous value by just offloading the work to someone else and not having to worry about it.

if only there were an `if`

Re: We handle 80TB and 5M page views a month for under $400

#359

Post by PragmaticPulp »

BiteCode_dev wrote: post #356
PragmaticPulp wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Nobody is on call 24H. This one dev is literally on call 365 days a year and can never be away from a computer on vacation. If he leaves, the project has no one. How is that not a problem? Surely you can see that this isn’t reasonable for anyone who wants to run a business, or any employee who doesn’t want the website to be their life. > If the system has a problem during the night, the users will wait until the mo…

You keep moving the goal post. It seems it's criminal to run a service on the cheap, there must be a terrible human being behing it. Well no, the dev is not attached 365 days on its computer. A freelancer is hired part time for the duration of the vaccations. It cost a full dev salary for one month, taking in consideration training time, that's all. > If you’re running a website where extended outages are no big deal…

> A freelancer is hired part time for the duration of the vaccations. It cost a full dev salary for one month, taking in consideration training time, that's all.

You pay a full dev salary for one month every time someone wants to take a break?

It’s baffling that anyone can read an article about someone spending $400/month on cloud services and then start proposing things like this as an alternative.

Engineering labor is expensive. Cloud is surprisingly cheap once you factor in engineering costs.

Re: We handle 80TB and 5M page views a month for under $400

#360

Post by withinboredom »

SergeAx wrote: post #319
hansel_der wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i think the whole point of vm/container is to enable "servers as cattle"

Yes, but "Serverbörse" machines are very non-uniform, which may be bad for load balancing. See yourself: https://www.hetzner.com/sb

I have 3 servers, 2/3 don't have hardware timestamping on the interface, 1 does. Makes a huge difference when it comes to NTP.
Post reply on HN