Live data from Hacker News

AWS to bare metal two years later: Answering your questions about leaving AWS

oneuptime.com

151–160 of 513 posts

Re: AWS to bare metal two years later: Answering your questions about leaving AWS

#151
post #11

I'm so surprised there is so much pushback against this.. AWS is extremely expensive. The use cases for setting up your system or service entirely in AWS are more rare than people seem to realise. Maybe I'm just the old man screaming at cloud (no pun intended) but when did people forget how to run a baremetal server ? > We have 730+ days with 99.993% measured availability and we also escaped AWS region wide downtime…

AWS may be overcharging but it's a balancing act. Going on-prem (well, shared DC) will be cheaper but comes with requirements for either jack of all trades sysadmins or a bunch of specialists. It can work well if your product is simple and scalable. A lot of places quietly achieve this. That said, I've seen real world scenarios where complexity is up the wazoo and an opex cost focus means you're hiring under skilled…

Managed servers reduce the on-prem skillset requirement and can also deliver a lot of value.

The most frustrating part of hyperscalers is that it's so easy to make mistakes. Active tracking of you bill is a must, but the data is 24-48h late in some cases. So a single engineer can cause 5-figure regrettable spend very quickly.

Re: AWS to bare metal two years later: Answering your questions about leaving AWS

#152
post #15

In the early days of cloud service providers, they offered a handful of high-value services, all at great prices, making them cost-competitive with bare metal but much easier. That was then . Things today are different. As cloud service providers have grown to become dominant, they now offer a vast, complicated tangle of services, microservices, control panels, etc., at prices that can spiral out of control if you ar…

> they offered a handful of high-value services, all at great prices, making them cost-competitive with bare metal but much easier That was never the case for AWS, the point was never "We're cheap" but "We let you scale faster for a premium". I first came across cloud services around 2010-2011 I think, when the company I worked at at the time started growing and we needed something better than shared hosting. AWS was…

I'd agree that AWS never sold on being cheaper, but there is one particular way AWS could be cheaper and that is their approach to billing-by-the-unit with no fixed costs or minimum charges.

Being able to start small from a $1/mth bill without any fixed cost overheads is incredibly powerful for small startups.

If I wanted to store bytes in a DC it would cost $10k/mth by the time I was paying colo/ servers/ disks before I stored my first byte. Sure there wouldn't be any incremental costs for the second byte but thats a steep jump. S3 would have cost me $0.02. Being able to try technology and prove concepts at the product development stage is very powerful and why AWS became not just a vendor but a _technology partner_ for many companies.

Re: AWS to bare metal two years later: Answering your questions about leaving AWS

#153
post #11

I'm so surprised there is so much pushback against this.. AWS is extremely expensive. The use cases for setting up your system or service entirely in AWS are more rare than people seem to realise. Maybe I'm just the old man screaming at cloud (no pun intended) but when did people forget how to run a baremetal server ? > We have 730+ days with 99.993% measured availability and we also escaped AWS region wide downtime…

> I'm so surprised there is so much pushback against this.. AWS is extremely expensive.

I see more comments in favor than pushing back.

The problem I have with these stories is the confirmation bias that comes with them. Going self-hosted or on-premises does make sense in some carefully selected use cases, but I have dozens of stories of startup teams spinning their wheels with self-hosting strategies that turn into a big waste of time and headcount that they should have been using to grow their businesses instead.

The shared theme of all of the failure stories is missing the true cost of self-hosting: The hours spent getting the servers just right, managing the hosting, debating the best way to run things, and dealing with little issues add up but are easily lost in the noise if you’re not looking closely. Everyone goes through a honeymoon phase where the servers arrive and your software is up and running and you’re busy patting yourselves on the back about how you’re saving money. The real test comes 12 months later when the person who last set up the servers has left for a new job and the team is trying to do forensics to understand why the documentation they wrote doesn’t actually match what’s happening on the servers, or your project managers look back at the sprints and realize that the average time spent on self-hosting related tasks and ideas has added up to a lot more than anyone would have guessed.

Those stories aren’t shared as often. When they are, they’re not upvoted. A lot of people in my local startup scene have sheepish stories about how they finally threw in the towel on self-hosting and went to AWS and got back to focusing on their core product. Few people are writing blog posts about that because it’s not a story people want to hear. We like the heroic stories where someone sets up some servers and everything just works perfectly and there are no downsides.

You really need to weigh the tradeoffs, but many people are not equipped to do that. They just think their chosen solution will be perfect and the other side will be the bad one.

Re: AWS to bare metal two years later: Answering your questions about leaving AWS

#154
The thing I find counter intuitive about AWS and hyper-scalers in general is, they make so much sense when you are starting out a new project. A few VMs, some gigs of data storage, you are off to the races in a day or two.

As soon as you start talking about any kind of serious data storage and data transfer the costs start piling up like crazy.

Like in my mind, the cost curve should flatten out over time. But that just doesn't seem to be the reality.

Re: AWS to bare metal two years later: Answering your questions about leaving AWS

#155
post #54
post #11

I'm so surprised there is so much pushback against this.. AWS is extremely expensive. The use cases for setting up your system or service entirely in AWS are more rare than people seem to realise. Maybe I'm just the old man screaming at cloud (no pun intended) but when did people forget how to run a baremetal server ? > We have 730+ days with 99.993% measured availability and we also escaped AWS region wide downtime…

> I'm so surprised there is so much pushback against this I'm not. It seems to be happening a lot. Any time a topic about not using AWS comes up here, or on Reddit there a sudden surge of people appearing out of nowhere shouting down anyone who suggests other options. It's honestly starting to feel like paid shilling.

I think people that lived through the time where their severs are down because the admin forgot to turn them back on after he drove 50 miles back from the colo might not want to live through that again

Re: AWS to bare metal two years later: Answering your questions about leaving AWS

#156
post #90

>We're now moving to Talos. We PXE boot with Tinkerbell, image with Talos, manage configs through Flux and Terraform, and run conformance suites before each Kubernetes upgrade. Gee, how hard is to find SE experts in that particular combination of available ops tools? While in AWS every AWS certified engineer would speak the same language, the DIY approach surely suffers from the lack of "one way" to do things. Change…

Argocd and flux are "almost completely different"? The last time I looked was about a year ago, and there seemed to be only minor differences.

What are the major differences?

Re: AWS to bare metal two years later: Answering your questions about leaving AWS

#157

This is a tech company and it’s adjacent to their core competency. Most companies wouldn’t know MicroK8s from a brand of cereal, they’d only create a mess if they tried this themselves.

Sure, but they also create a mess in AWS

Re: AWS to bare metal two years later: Answering your questions about leaving AWS

#158
post #50
post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The direct cost is the easy part. The more insidious part is that you're now cultivating a growing staff of technologists whose careers depend on doing things the AWS way, getting AWS certified to ensure they build your systems the AWS Well Architected Way instead of thinking themselves, and can upsell you on AWS lock-in solutions using AWS provided soundbites and sales arguments. ("Shall we make the app very resilie…

> The direct cost is the easy part I don't think it is easy. I see most organizations struggle with the fact that everything is throttled in the cloud. CPU, storage, network. Tenants often discover large amounts of activity they were previously unaware of, that contributes to the usage and cost. And there may be individuals or teams creating new usages that are grossly impacting their allocation. Did you know there i…

> Did you know there is a setting in MS SQL Server that impacts performance by an order of magnitude when sending/receiving data from the Cloud to your on-premises servers? It's the default in the ORM generated settings.

Sounds interesting, which setting is that?

Re: AWS to bare metal two years later: Answering your questions about leaving AWS

#159

> AWS is extremely expensive. I really like how people throw around these baseless accusations. S3 is one of the cheapest storage solutions ever created. The last 10 years I have migrated roughly 10-20PB worth of data to AWS S3 and it resulted in significant cost saving every single time. If you do not know how to use cloud computing than yes, AWS can be really expensive.

The implicit claims are more misleading, in my opinion: The claim that self-hosting is free or nearly free in terms of time and engineering brain drain.

The real cost of self-hosting, in my direct experience with multiple startup teams trying it, is the endless small tasks, decisions, debates, and little changes that add up over time to more overhead than anyone would have expected. Everyone thinks it’s going to be as simple as having the colo put the boxes in the rack and then doing some SSH stuff, then you’re free of those AWS bills. In my experience it’s a Pandora’s box of tiny little tasks, decisions, debates, and “one more thing” small changes and overhauls that add up to a drain on the team after the honeymoon period is over.

If you’re a stable business with engineers sitting idle that could be the right choice. For most startups who just need to get a product out there and get customers, pulling limited headcount away from the core product to save pennies (relatively speaking) on a potential AWS bill can be a trap.

Re: AWS to bare metal two years later: Answering your questions about leaving AWS

#160
Sounds like they did the right thing for their business model.

I think as AWS grows and changes the curve of the target audience is changing too. The value proposition is "You can get Cloud service without having a dedicated Cloud team," but there are caveats:

- AWS is complicated enough that you will still need a team to integrate against it. The abstractions are not free and the ones that are leaky will bite you without dedicated systems engineers to specialize in making it work with your company's goals.

- For small companies with little compute need, AWS is a good option. Beyond a certain scale... It is worth noting that big companies build their own datacenters, they don't rely on someone else's Cloud. Amazon, Google, and Microsoft don't run on each other.

- Recently, the cost model has likely changed if a company pokes their head up and runs the numbers, there's, uh, quite a few engineers with deep knowledge of how to build a scalable cloud infrastructure available to hire now for some reason. In fact, a savvy company keeping its ear to the ground can probably snap up some high-tier talent very soon (https://www.reuters.com/business/world-at-work/amazon-target...).

It really depends on where your company's risk and cost models are. Running on someone else's cloud just isn't the only option.

Post reply on HN