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

381–390 of 426 posts

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

#381

Post by jason0597 »

ummonk wrote: post #268
jeppesen-io wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is it because everyone is writing their stuff on node.js, putting 500kb of JS in every web page they serve, putting Docker everywhere when a chroot would suffice, microservices, Kubernetes, or hell even writing SAPs when we don't need them? My response may come off as rude, but that's not the intention. From the above quote you've vastly over simplified all but the most simplistic environments. Someone could run al…

I'm guessing they meant to write SPAs.

Yes that is correct, it was a typo :(

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

#382

Post by ksec »

virtuallynathan wrote: post #331
YetAnotherNick wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which "commodity server" could serve 2GB/s(16gbps) to public internet?

At Netflix we’re doing close to 400Gbps on 1U commodity hardware, and pretty inexpensive.

And that is 400Gbps encrypted!

Side Note, aren't they 2U?

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

#383

Post by cblconfederate »

jeppesen-io wrote: post #138
kortilla wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's not terrible, but it was slow enough that I wondered for a few seconds if the site was broken. So what? Unless your website is offering some superficial junk that can easily be found elsewhere, you’re not going to lose a user. For something like photopea, there aren’t sub-second alternatives out there.

Almost a perfect quote of GM in the 80s when Japanese cars took over it's market share > For something like photopea, there aren’t sub-second alternatives out there. if there is't one now, there will be. Besides, with a little CDN and tweaking you improve your users enjoyment. Why not?

Show me one major media site that takes < 10 seconds to load

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

#384

Post by rambambram »

fivea wrote: post #219
bryanrasmussen wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I figure helping Cloudflare get it's meathooks in the internet offsets all the really big companies that have their meathooks in, or at any rate doesn't worsen the real problem.

> (...) helping Cloudflare get it's meathooks in the internet offsets all the really big companies (...) What? No. Cloudflare reported a revenue of half a billion dollars, and already controls about half the CDN market. Let's put things in perspective: in comparison with Cloudflare's business, AWS is a minor player and an underdog with less than half of Cloudflare's market share. Cloudflare is by no means a small com…

Just to understand you better: are you only talking about CDN activities from AWS here? Because I see websites talking about a quarterly revenue of tens of billions of dollars for AWS.

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

#385

Post by nemothekid »

Dracophoenix wrote: post #351
nemothekid wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 d…

>You can't ensure the CEO of a company doesn't null route you.

So the alternatives aren't better than Cloudflare, Superkuh just had an axe to grind specifically with Cloudflare. And there is no an alternative solution that wrests control from a CEO having a bad day.

At the end of the day, he's still at the whims of the Cloudflare/Bunny/Akamai and if he wants to be fully in control he must spend millions building his own CDN.

It's not as if Cloudflare has major switching costs either.

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

#386

Post by ksec »

twblalock wrote: post #243

When I see per month or per day stats I get suspicious. Let's say a month has 30 days -- 5 million views a months is 166,666k per day, 6944 per hour, 116 per minute, and ~1.92 per second. 1.92 qps. Of course it's not expensive, it's a tiny amount of traffic!

Yes. It should be per month with peak request per minutes or better per seconds. Since we are always optimising for the rare peak usage. Instead once you sum out to monthly or even yearly a lot of things are meaningless.

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

#387

Post by fragmede »

BiteCode_dev wrote: post #364
PragmaticPulp wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

That is based on the id a cloud base service would not need a team to make it work. I'd argue it actually need a more expensive team.

You have to do an apple-to-apples comparison though. If you're comparing a single colo'd machine vs a 3000-EC2 instance fleet with a load balancer, api nodes, database nodes (and requisite db admin team), and Kafka and DynamoDBs somewhere in there, then the cloud is going to be more expensive to manage.

Barring in-depth research (which I'd love to read if someone has any links), it's not clear on a 1:1 basis what's cheaper. Paying for someone's time to research hardware and talk to vendors, run POs for them, figure out where/how to install them (Equinix is expensive), and RMA hard drives as that comes up; versus not paying for that and instead paying a cloud vendor for that privilege. Throw on top a changing hiring landscape (how much 'sysadmins' cost vs 'devops') and it really depends on the size of this hypothetical fleet that we're trying to manage, and how complicated the backend of the site is. If there's no real backend to speak of, Cloudflare's CDN for static assets is going to be way cheaper, and available now, vs anything you could possibly build from scratch, that would maybe be ready in a couple months.

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

#388

Post by bryans »

cbg0 wrote: post #201
bryans wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Linode offers a 50 dCPU with 10Gbps out for $960. Or if you just need the bandwidth and don't need the CPU power, you can combine three $30 servers with 4Gbps each, and put them behind a $10 load balancer, for a total of 12Gbps out at $100/mo. https://www.linode.com/pricing/

That 10gbps comes with a 10TB traffic limit. The other poster was talking about a dedicated port with no limits.

There are no limits on traffic. It costs $0.01/GB across the board.

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

#389

Post by bryans »

qeternity wrote: post #267
bryans wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Linode offers a 50 dCPU with 10Gbps out for $960. Or if you just need the bandwidth and don't need the CPU power, you can combine three $30 servers with 4Gbps each, and put them behind a $10 load balancer, for a total of 12Gbps out at $100/mo. https://www.linode.com/pricing/

This is not what 10gbps transit means.

By all means, enlighten us.

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

#390

Post by gunapologist99 »

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…

> 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 does the cloud solve this?

Post reply on HN